I agree with pooch, who agrees with plattitude. While a triptych may serve as a retable, a retable is not necessarily a triptych nor is a triptych always a retable.
As mentioned, shell would have worked. And picture the painting in your mind -- it's definitely not an oyster shell. Wrong shape entirely, even if the symbolism could be argued for :)
For God's sake, that masterpiece was painted by an Italian artist. And it's universally known as "Gioconda" or "Monna Lisa" by anyone slightly familiar with art history, in Italy or abroad. Do not be preposterous. It's like Manchester was internationally misspelt as Machnester
Just because "Monna" is originally abbreviation for "Madonna", which in the Middle Ages used to refer not only to Holy Mary, but to any rich woman in terms of chivarly.
"Mona" doesn't mean anything, except for that in Venice region's dialect it means dickhead. Nice, isn't it?
I don't teach 'bout Turner and Constable, hands off MONNA Lisa <3
I don't understand your point about Machnester, but I agree, La Gioconda (Italian, as it's painted by an Italian) should be allowed as a type-in. Why ever not? It is correct, and the painting is known as both names even in English.
Please consider accepting "hay fork" for the question on American Gothic. The terms are used interchangeably but most (myself included) consider three-tined forks hay forks, not pitch forks.
"Mona" doesn't mean anything, except for that in Venice region's dialect it means dickhead. Nice, isn't it?
I don't teach 'bout Turner and Constable, hands off MONNA Lisa <3
Splitting hairs since 1964...EP