The ways in which valuable artworks are loaned and transferred to other galleries and museums, and how this market works, is a fascinating subject that also tells us something about the dynamics of this sector. An academic figure and legal scholar shares his views about arguably the most famous portrait ever painted.

The following article by Italy-based academic Manlio Frigo (main picture) concerns the ways in which art can be loaned around. And what better example to choose than the Mona Lisa, the legendary portrait by Leonard de Vinci? We write about the fine art world from time to time, noting the different ways that collectors and investors in fine art operate. Art is interesting because it is more than a purely financial entity when collectors and even investors are involved – there’s an emotional aspect. We know that private bankers enjoy the topic because fine art can be a way to open up conversations with clients. 

The editors are pleased to share these views; the usual editorial disclaimers apply. Please feel free to jump into the conversation – email the editors at tom.burroughes@wealthbriefing.com and amanda.cheesley@clearviewpublishing.com.

It has been a decade since the most extraordinary exhibition showcasing Leonardo da Vinci’s most famous artworks opened its doors at Palazzo Reale in Milan. That exhibition – held in 2015 during the World Expo and curated by the renowned da Vinci scholars Pietro Marani and Maria Teresa Fiorio – consisted of an unprecedented collection of 200 artworks, including three paintings from the Louvre, 30 drawings from Queen Elizabeth II’s collection, and a wooden panel from the Tokyo Fuji Art Museum. Now, the 2026 Milan-Cortina Olympics are poised to offer art lovers an opportunity to view a Leonardo staple: following a proposal by the Italian authorities and the candidacy put forward by the director of the Brera Art Gallery (Pinacoteca di Brera), Angelo Crespi, there is a chance that either Brera Art Gallery or Leonardo’s Last Supper Museum (Museo del Cenacolo da Vinci) might show the Mona Lisa as part of an exhibition. 

To backtrack for a moment, it is worth remembering that the Mona Lisa was not among the artworks forcibly removed from Italy during the Napoleonic campaigns; rather, it was lawfully sold by Leonardo’s heirs to the King of France two centuries earlier, just after Leonardo’s death. As is well known, the masterpiece was secretly brought back to Italy at the beginning of the 20th century by an Italian citizen employed by the Louvre, who – out of a misguided sense of patriotism – had stolen it with the intention of reselling it in Italy. 

Thus, if the conditions for this potential loan are met, the Mona Lisa would be returning to Milan for only the second time – the first being its brief exhibition (two days) in December 1913 (before being returned to the Louvre) after its headline-making theft in 1911 and subsequent discovery in Italy.

But why should the Louvre deprive itself, albeit temporarily, of a work that contributes so much to making it the most visited museum in the world, with approximately nine million admissions every year? Well, it would not be the first time, though so far the Mona Lisa has been very rarely moved and always as a result of political agreements (such was the case in 1963, when French Culture Minister André Malraux loaned it to the National Gallery of Art in Washington and the Met in New York; or the last time it was on loan, in 1974, for an exhibition at the Tokyo National Museum). And what requirements would the Milanese museums need to meet to secure such a loan?

The exceptional nature of the loan comes with a particular web of (conservation, legal and economic) hurdles. That said, a set of circumstances could help make the case for it to become a reality.

Let’s start by considering a couple of circumstances that – from the Louvre’s perspective – could make it easier to enter into a loan agreement. One is the fact that, since 2019, the Louvre’s directors and the French press have been complaining about the negative effects of too many visitors pouring in to see the Mona Lisa. Another is the fact that President Macron appears to be in favour of relocating the Mona Lisa and arranging for a separate entrance. Relocation would take some time (and money), so the idea of a short-term loan could paradoxically be more easily accepted not only by the French authorities but also by the public – especially considering that approximately 80 per cent of the museum’s visitors are foreigners and that, despite a collection of 35,000 works, 80 per cent of visitors come primarily to see the Mona Lisa.

Of course, the loan’s feasibility must be assessed considering the Mona Lisa’s fragility: the risks associated with changing logistical/climatic conditions must be a key consideration, and accordingly, state-of-the-art technology must be exploited to the fullest in order to ensure maximum levels of safety and conservation.

Indeed, the public display of artwork requires meticulous preparation and extraordinary attention to deal with potential threats, even those that are difficult to prevent. Some are foreseeable and not necessarily linked to a change of location, as was the case when activists in defence of the right to “healthy and sustainable food” hurled pumpkin soup at the bullet-proof glass protecting the Mona Lisa in the Salle des États at the Louvre in January 2024. 

Others lie on that fine line between unforeseeability and preparation with adequate protective measures – in early February, for example, at an exhibition showcasing Renaissance artworks at the Santa Giulia Museum in Brescia (Italy), a painting by Moretto da Brescia was seriously damaged when a visitor tripped and fell on it.

Naturally, an assessment of the legal and non-legal issues to face when important artworks are temporarily transferred for exhibit is part of complex, behind-the-scenes work that requires a high level of professionalism. It typically involves establishing the characteristics and nature of the loan – such as whether it will be free or subject to consideration – the conditions, guarantees and responsibilities for custody, the insurance charges, and the transport terms and liability, in addition to drafting a condition report and a facility report. 

Importantly, for each of these aspects, the governing law chosen by the parties must be clearly indicated to avoid interpretative doubts or unexpected surprises.

Furthermore, in a case as extraordinary as a loan of the Mona Lisa, it is difficult to pre-emptively evaluate and distribute the economic burdens that the parties involved would have to bear (e.g., loan, transport and insurance costs). It is still unclear whether the loan would be free or subject to consideration, and international practice provides no clear-cut answer. 

To give a pertinent example: for the 2015 Expo in Milan, the drawings from Queen Elizabeth’s collection were on loan free of charge, whereas loans of Leonardo’s Portrait of a Musician and drawings from the Codex Atlanticus were granted by the Milan-based Pinacoteca Ambrosiana against consideration.

Artworks on loan are usually packaged and transported using the specialised company (or companies) indicated by the lender (which in this case would be the Louvre). All the requirements and methods stipulated in the lender’s conditions must be observed during transport, and the related administrative costs must be borne by the museum receiving the loan.

Ultimately, the insurance and transport cost estimates are always the subject of complex evaluations, though the task becomes particularly delicate for loans of such exceptional importance. To cite a precedent: in 1963, the insurance estimate for the loan of the Mona Lisa to the abovementioned US museums was $100 million, i.e., over $800 million today. More recently, in 2018, a hypothetical three-month loan of the Mona Lisa to the Lens branch of the Louvre was estimated at over €30 million ($31.5 million), of which at least €2 million accounted for insurance, another €2 to €3 million for a special protective case, and €1 to €2 million for transport. On that occasion, the estimate made French Culture Minister Françoise Nyssen give up on the idea altogether. If such an estimate were confirmed in Milan’s case, the Milanese museums would be hard-pressed to think of a different solution to fulfil their aspirations. But naturally, rationality is not the only criterion behind such a choice.

About the author

Manlio Frigo is full professor of International Law, Milan University, member of the steering committee of the PhD in Legal Studies at the Bocconi University; member of the board of directors of the International Cultural Property Society; former member of the legal affairs committee of ICOM. attorney-at law, member of the Milan Bar, Of Counsel at BonelliErede, Focus Team Art & Cultural Property, Milan Office.