Not so much a nothingburger as simply poorly written. The focus of the article seems to be on the possibly "problematic" side of da Vinci going so far as to hint at his supposed pretty privilege and wonder if he chuckled at his own caricatures which is an absurdly retrospective judgement. There are far more interesting facets to da Vinci's work and life than whether or not his attitudes towards ugly people would be acceptable in the morality du jour. The article even admits that da Vinci's notes make no mention of ugliness in a pejorative sense, highlighting that he referred to one of them as a viso fantastico. They make a U turn and attempt to climb up out of the hole they've dug for themselves talking about his interest in anatomy and ageing and tries to make a worn out point about the Mona Lisa's possible androgyny but it's about as striking as a wet noodle. Anyone who thinks the Mona Lisa is overly masculine is probably just a man who hasn't seen many women without makeup on.

It's all rather transparent click bait that's aimed at riling people up. Incredibly dull when compared to even the most factual and plainly written biography of da Vinci.

Sometimes “nothing burgers” make for an interesting read. TAL is basically a podcast of nothing burgers, doesn’t stop it from being great

And the fact that there’s an exhibition on with these works is always good to know from a “news” perspective