"Da Vinci's MONA LISA: Why So Special?" Topic

link

Besides the obvious . . .

* It's old
* Done by Da Vinci
* It was stolen from 1911-1913

I mean, it depicts a very, very plain woman with a silly-looking smile (which some call "enigmatic", for some reason), painted in a very dark style (unless age has made it so).

Didn't Da Vinci sketch better examples?

Please enlighten me. I really think there were other paintings from the period that looked clearer. Weren't there?

CC

Well, it WAS the key to a hidden sect of the Catholic church for the prodegy of Our Lord Savior …

You need Tom Hanks to explain it better.

After having spent 6 years studing at art school and 15 years working in one, I still cannot see the appeal of what is to me a rather average painting!!!

I have asked myself that same question. Never found it to be more then a quite ordinary portrait in itself.

I rather like "The Poker Playing Dogs" myself….

Especially when done on black velvet, or a wall tapestry from Hong Kong….

Murphy,

LOL. How about Elvis on black velvet? :)

CC

DaVinci was a genius. It is strange (and somewhat sad)that he is known to the average person mostly as the painter of the Mona Lisa which is overated in my opinion.

It's a painters painting, kind of like when you have painted a figure for a week then show it to your non-gaming family and friends, and they say its NICE. But if you show the same figure to your gaming friends they ask you how you did it, and the painting technique you used ect….

…………Doug

The system of value imposed on the history of art by modern (19th and 20th century) professional art critics assigns a high significance to it. This significance is based on it's place in their scheme of art as having a progressive development, a sort of science where ‘advances' are made and understanding accumulates.

Such a system has the advantage of providing incomes to professional critics and turning aesthetics into an alternative élitist religion without troublesome moral prescriptions.

Before the advent of the professional aesthete art was used for religious propaganda and fashionable decoration. An ordinary painter in the Medici court had a similar standing to a tailor, though with a wider scope. If he was very good and acquired skills in other branches of learning such as architecture or engineering he could rise higher.

The important thing to remember is art criticism is a religion not, as it pretends to be, a science. The massive tomes and convoluted theories are akin to the libraries of theology which were once so popular. Of course if you are a believer it's very serious and important stuff but if you are not it all seems a bit crazy.

It's being famous only means its famous. Fame no longer requires a reason. Oh sure, once upon a time there had to be a reason something or someone was famous. Fortunately we have now accepted that fame is good in its own right!

It is to art as "Citizen Kane" is to movies: a boring piece that only a critic could love.

Beyond that, if you look down on the lower right border, hidden by the frame, it says "Jesus married Mary Magdalene and moved to Gaul in 35AD. Their kids grew up to be Merovingian kings. This is a clue."
It's written backwards, of course, and in Polish.

It was a work that he kept with him; as I understand it, his own favourite. The big question is why?

Of course, I may just have accepted too many sensationalist books on the subject. Personally, I found it one of the most pointless pieces in the Louvre.

I believe it has more to do with when it was painted in the progression of art. I've never seen this in person. Isn't it in the Louvre? Has anyone ever restored it?

In Florence in the early 1980s, I got to see them restoring one of Michelangelo's paintings. Part was restored, part was still being restored. It was amazing how brilliant the restored colors were! Plus, having studied extensively the Renaissance in college, it was a thrill to see his work in person.

BTW I agree about art critics. I never could figure them out. Now we literary critics are much more exacting. LOL

It really is an amazing painting. Everyone talks about the enigmatic smile, but the strange thing about the painting is when you view it your eyes are drawn to the eyes of the painting and not the mouth. When you look at the paintings eyes the Mona seems to be smiling, when you look at just the mouth you don't see the smile. Very cool. Definitely NOT "a boring piece that only a critic could love."

CC, since you love links:

link

Of course one of my favorites is this one:

link

I personally think that the painting can be mysterious if you want it to be, or just very plain. Even viewed as plain it is probably the most imitated and parodied piece of artwork that has ever been created, which should make it something special.

Under the paint it says "This is a fake" in English. Curiously that was written on the canvas in 1502, but with a 20th Century permanent marker pen.

According to Douglas Adams, anyway.

Even viewed as plain it is probably the most imitated and parodied piece of artwork that has ever been created, which should make it something special.

Um, no, that would be "The David"
(And that's not even counting all of replicas in gay bars)

Goldwyrm,

Thanks for the links! I'm gonna have to get me some of these . . .

studiolo.org/Mona/MONA03.htm

CC :)

It seems that Da Vinci stole the idea from an even older example:

picture

And they might have gotten inspiration from another source . . .

picture

CC :)

Um, no, that would be "The David"
(And that's not even counting all of replicas in gay bars)

Pat, I concede to your knowledge on the subject then.

To be fair, I did say- "probably the most imitated and parodied piece of artwork that has ever been created." because I typically use word choice dislaimers in most of my blanket statements.

And I artfully manage to insert spelling mistakes to dilute any seriousness to my posts.

I think Inari7 is on to something.

I have not heard it put that way before.

I like that theory a lot.

I love the Mona Lisa *and* Citizen Kane.

Nice socks CC. Wear those to the next convention :)

I'd also wonder if Mona Lisa is the original Goth Chick?

In my (limited) experience, famous works of art are more powerful in person than they are in a photograph. I haven't seen the Mona Lisa in person, so although it's not that impressive in pictures, my instinct tells me that's because I'm not getting the full effect.

BTW, I liked Citizen Kane too!

I've seen the Mona Lisa hanging in the Louvre twice and I still gon't get it. In fact, it's even worse in the Louvre because you have to go by so many fantastic paintings to get to the Mona Lisa, so that by the time you get there you just kinda' shrug your shoulders and say, "ok, I've checked that block. Hey! Let's go look at those paintings now!"

Watch her for a minute. Is she smiling? If yes, why? What is she thinking? And what's the story with those hands in that position?

Well, every time I look at her those and many other questions arise and I can't get bored – that's why I find it a fascinating painting.

The last time I was in the Louvre, I heard an American tourist say loudly to an attendant: "Hey, buddy, where's the Mona Lisa? Come on, I ain't got all day, I'm double-parked outside…."

More seriously, I thought T Meier's assessment of the professional Art Historian (&c) very astute, probably just because I agree whole-heartedly. The cosy little compact among collectors, dealers, Academics, certain favoured practitioners and rich kids, ought to be more fully exposed. As Tom Paulin wrote some years ago about modern tendencies in Literary Criticism, the current crop of critics of visual art are deeply anti-cultural and know as much about art as does Mulligan's Bull Pup.

Mona never did anything for me. I think she's rather homely myself. She looks stoned.

It's all about her expression, not her "smile" per se.

You have to see it in person to understand.

Arrrgh! Save your axes for grinding on some other subject. I guess my art professors were right, art is wasted on the masses. Why a work of art is significant has to be put in context. If you are unwilling or unable to take the time to understand those contexts, don't just make unenlightened stabs in the dark. You only confirm your ignorance, when silence might have kept it in doubt.

A few postings here have made an attempt to shed some light, but you still miss the mark. I would agree that most of the ramblings of the art history world can seem very thick. Heaven knows I had to put up with a very large barrel full of bull excrement from that quarter. From that barrel, a bit of useful knowledge can be found if one takes the trouble to look.

There are sound reasons why this work of art is considered significant. If the art doesn't move you, then move on. Art on a surface level is only that deep. Appreciation can only come from knowing, and knowledge can only come from study.

Artslave, my mother also told me that I had to keep eating asparagus until I learned to like it.
If one has to be taught how to like something, it is not worth liking.

By the way, I have plans to build a Philistine army. I have all the figures.

If you don't like asparagus, then don't eat it. If you never try asparagus, then you will never know. That is what I'm saying about art. John, you of all folks here must admit that knowledge can illuminate. Liking art is different than appreciating it. Appreciating a thing takes some effort. Stonehenge is just a pile of rock, a painting is just paint, a piece of music is just noise.

CC asks the question of why one should care about a thing many regard as an important piece of "art". Questions are good. I am a huge advocate of questions, and not simple acceptance of experts.

Why should someone care about wargaming with a Philistine army? Even though this is just a quip aimed at me, am I to make a judgment about ancient periods without doing some reading, or at least trying a game of it? Why would anyone assume they could make pronouncements about art without some study?

"a bit of useful knowledge can be found if one takes the trouble to look."

Well I suppose so, but the same could be said of almost any activity. We humans are finite creatures, the question for us is will the time invested show a good return?

I'd say in useful knowledge definitely not. Entertainment, emotional satisfaction maybe, but objectively useful knowledge no. Unless you include making a living by selling on the stuff to others as useful but that's a bit like saying snake oil is useful because it provides a good living for snake oil salesmen.

…John, you of all folks here must admit …

MUST???

I hate that line of argument. You are assuming that you can determine how I MUST think, based on other examples of how I DO think.
It implies that my logic and reasoning is faulty because it does not follow the path you think it should follow.

X does not need to follow Y.

Asparagus. Steamed. Melted utter. A light sprinkling of frshly grated parmigiano. Sit back and watch 'Citizen Kene' & glance at my reproduction 'Mona Lisa'.
Heaven. donald

Artslave said:
"There are sound reasons why this work of art is considered significant. If the art doesn't move you, then move on. Art on a surface level is only that deep. Appreciation can only come from knowing, and knowledge can only come from study."

ummmm…..then maybe you can explain it to us "masses" then sir elitist???

X does not need to follow Y.

Actually in the alphabet that we currently use Y follows X, just a small point of order.

You may proceed!

If you'd seen what she really looked like, you'd think it was the greatest painting in the world, too.

T Meier, you have already added some "useful" information above. I think you are allowing your own hostile attitude toward art critics to color your comments. I, too, have had quite a full of them, as I said. Whether anything is "useful" will depend on one's goal. Art is the great bastion of the singularly un-useful. I can't sit on it, eat it, or wipe up spills with it, so it must be useless. So it would seem to follow that if something is to have a value, it must add quality to our experience. That is why I advise the great un-washed to move on if it does not.

For those who might stop to wonder, or to ask why a thing is regarded as such and such, a simple answer might not suffice. There might be more to it. Mona Lisa is one of those things. Many have probably stopped to look and wonder. The significance to the Art History world may not make much sense to those outside the field. That would be a failure of the museum to communicate to the patron. Simple exposure, as OMF has said regarding certain vegetables, doesn't count for much.

CC's original post has nailed the thing with his observations. I don't know if he knows that. To me, the Mona Lisa is important because it is "old", it is by Da Vinci, and it is just some woman. What does this mean? It has to be seen in context. At a time when artists are viewed as decorators, personal portraits of little known persons would have been a rare indulgence. Apart from the questions about who and why this subject interested Da Vinci, it is a secular painting in a time when almost nothing is done without a religious theme. It also is one of the first to treat the background in a "realistic" approach, rather than just an idealized prop. Artist and Historians also talk about how he created atmosphere in this work. The figure is appearing to sit in the real world, not apart from it. This interest in the way things work and look like are just a part of the questioning fueling the Renaissance. Part of the allure of the painting is difficult to grasp just on the physical level. On my trips to the Louvre, the painting sat behind protective glass with a viewing port to allow only restricted access. It is not a large work, and certainly suffers from contrast when one has walked through galleries displaying paintings of staggering size.

So there we have it, at least to me: It is old and some lady (a very early example of personal secular art),and it is by Da Vinci, who, although very famous, left very little in the way of works. What he left was almost always revolutionary, and had a huge effect on other artists and art history. Otherwise, just some dame in a little picture.

Oh, and I have a general feeling that OFM, although usually quite generous in sharing information on the many subjects he posts, is not shy about telling someone to "go look it up". Notice that I say "knowledge MAY illuminate". It is not a statement that imposes my views on others.

Art is up there with professional sports in that its value is purely arbitrary and ones appreciation of it varies with contact.

It's art. You get it or you don't.
By saying there are "clearer" paintings, it's obvious you don't.

Move along.

its all in the marketing, baby!!

It's an issue of context. The Mona Lisa is just another painting in the same manner that Napoleon is just another general.

"I think you are allowing your own hostile attitude toward art critics"

I don't feel particularly hostile towards art critics. I class them with religious zealots, psychoanalysts and devotees of alternative medicine in the category of people who have deluded themselves into thinking they are dealing in objective truth when they are in fact just playing mind games with themselves.

This doesn't make me feel hostile, my feelings are more a mixture of wonder, pity and admonition.

"I can't sit on it, eat it, or wipe up spills with it, so it must be useless."

No, that only means it is objectively useless. Subjectively it can be useful but so can almost anything as the lady said when she kissed the goat. What I point out about art critics is that they pretend to objective value to which they have no claim. Fine art, collecting beer coasters, watching sports, building sand castles they all have the same objective value – none. If they make you subjectively happy great! If you build an elaborate value system around them which you pretend has objective validity you are delusional.

When this is done with beer coasters or sand castles or even sports we rightly call it mania, when it's done with art we call it aesthetics.

artslave

Your post is just wank, wank, wank!

Pro…

John the OFM

---By the way, I have plans to build a Philistine army. I have all the figures.---

Are they the castaway Arts ones John? I'm building a Hebrew army with Gerry's figures.

Cheers,

Pro…