The Mona Lisa - overrated?

What's the deal with this painting?

I don't consider it the best painting out there. Heck, I don't even think it's Da Vinci's best work -- even the doodlings in his sketchbook appeal to me more.

When did this painting become so famous to the point of parody? Is it its aesthetics? its promotion? Is it the name? Is it the fact that it got stolen a bunch of times?

I've been to the Louvre. I've seen it. Nothing struck me about it as great. (It also, oddly enough, did not look at all like it does in photographs.)

Thoughts?



Rick McCallum loves you!

 

I agree with AdamBertocci on this issue.

 

ya know, i actually read somewhere that a bunch of art critics or something did research to find the Mona Lisa, and it was determined that it was the female version of DaVinci

as to quote from my friend, Chibipixi:
"Let's have a big round of applause for the crossdressing guys who invent airplanes!"

 

I've been to the Louvre. I've seen it. Nothing struck me about it as great. (It also, oddly enough, did not look at all like it does in photographs.)

I'm assuming you kicked and pushed your way through the mob to get a good look at it rather than see it from a far (I know I did ). If you mean it was not grandiose in proportion, you're right, I was suprised to see how tiny the painting actually was. However, I don't think it any less of a masterpiece. The problem with the Mona Lisa is that it is one of a handful of works that are best NOT seen in person with the mosh-pit and pelxiglass to obscure it.

~PAd

 

Heh. Yes, there definitely was a crowd. I viewed from afar (not that I wouldn't have been far even if I'd gotten to the front -- that was one @#?!ing huge cube of plexiglass!





Rick McCallum loves you!

 

I think it's amazing because of the spacial technique, her eyes follow you when you move left-->right or vice versa.

Just a quick hit from Encarta

The Mona Lisa, Leonardo's most famous work, is as well known for its mastery of technical innovations as for the mysteriousness of its legendary smiling subject. This work is a consummate example of two techniques?sfumato and chiaroscuro?of which Leonardo was one of the first great masters. Sfumato is characterized by subtle, almost infinitesimal transitions between color areas, creating a delicately atmospheric haze or smoky effect; it is especially evident in the delicate gauzy robes worn by the sitter and in her enigmatic smile. Chiaroscuro is the technique of modeling and defining forms through contrasts of light and shadow; the sensitive hands of the sitter are portrayed with a luminous modulation of light and shade, while color contrast is used only sparingly.

 

Well, interestingly enough, that whole female version of himself is considered to be an urban legend by a lot of people.

Mona Lisa isn't particularly stunning, but it was groundbreaking. His use of background, the fact that the subject looks out at the viewer, and with that enigmatic and arrogant smile!, her hands, all groundbreaking.

Very important painting at the least.

 

Yeah, I've been to the Louvre.. I very much agree, it was a lot smaller than I thought it would be. I wasn't expecting that much anyway, since I never really liked the painting much even when I saw it in books.. but it was still vaguely disappointing. I mean sure, the background is neat I guess, and the style may have been groundbreaking. *shrugs* I just don't like it. So.. Mona Lisa- overrated? I think so.

Also, I went to the Louvre early in the morning, and so I did get to see it as close as I could (besides the glass and rope barrier, but still pretty close) and it still wasn't very impressive (in my opinion) at all. Oh well.

 

I think that art is just like everything else: it's only worth what someone is willing to pay for it.

Personally I think that my fiancee paints much better pictures than the Mona Lisa. On the other hand I have more fingers, but I'm also biased because I have emotional attachment to her work. On the other other hand I have the same fingers, but by my own definition they are worthless because if they were lost I would NOT pay money to have them returned.

So where does that leave me? To make a long story short (too late!) I agree that the Mona Lisa is overrated. I would prefer a painting of a Simpson, Lisa.

 

"Let's have a big round of applause for the crossdressing guys who invent airplanes!"

Or;
"Let's have a big round of applause for the gay crossdressing guy who wrote mirrored, invented useless crap, helicopters that were more like corkscrews than choppers and invent aeroplanes!"

 

I agree the Mona Lisa is over-rated. The other day my French teacher was gushing about it and got ticked at me when I said it didnt really look special.

 

Da Vinci was a genius but I agree that as a work of art, the Mona Lisa is a victim of hype.
The most visually stunning artwork I've ever witnessed at first hand was Dali's Christ on the cross in an exhibition at Glasgow. A horrible sado-masochistic fascist Dali may have been, but he was a genuine visionary artistically.

 

I think if you rate the Mona Lisa by todays standards and to all the great works of art that have come AFTER it was made, then yes, I can see how people might think it's overrated. But when you consider all the flat lifeless paintings that came BEFORE, it should be more understandable as to why it is so famous. Say what you will about it, but remember that the works of art you do like--that came after it-- that more likely then not, the artist that created it was influenced in some way by the Mona Lisa. Either directly, through thier teacher, or both. This is why it draws so much respect and reverence.

 

I can appreciate the influence that Mona Lisa has had on art throughout the years. In that respect, yes it was and still is, a great work of art. However, I would rather hang my Robert Silvers Photomosaic of Jedi Master Yoda or my Resident Evil 3: Nemesis wall scroll on my wall than the Mona Lisa.

 

Yeah, I would be suprised if there were very many people who still think of it as a great decorative piece.

 

According to my French teacher, "The Mona Lisa sucked 6 hours out of my life that I'll never get back. I waited that long to see a painting the size of a thumbtack surrounded by Japanese tourists flashing pictures - I COULD'VE PAINTED THAT MYSELF IN 6 HOURS!"

Strange man.


TF

 

Yep, it is highly over-ratted, Mona Lisa is actually him, but not... Maybe he saw himself that way?

 

Overrated?

Keep in mind, that the Mona Lisa is, more or less, the quintessential piece, the symbol of the European Reanassaince. It stands for a time where art was ushered in and produced at a rate not seen since the grandiose days of the Holy Roman Empire. To say it is overrated is akin to saying the Statue of Liberty is overrated. There certainly are better sculptures.

It's a familiar piece that most anyone can recognize, much like "American Gothic".

Art is always subjective, and this is one of the few paintings you will hear a valid criticism about. True, it may not be the most eye-catching work ever, but you will be hard pressed to find one more universally accepted.

 

Also, along with it's historical importance, which I feel is true, isn't it also to deal with light and shadow?

When you look at the upper portion and lower portion the smile fades and appears (can't remember which order).

I think that's another reason why it's so good, to get that effect.


Ciou-See the Sig

 

My personal feelings on art (not just painting/sculpture, but all art) is thus: In order to aspire to greatness, it must appeal on the most basic level first. Technique, difficulty, influence, meaning, and all that sort of stuff is mere icing on the cake...truly great art should, by definition, be capable of being appreciated without having a crash course in Criticism 101 beforehand.

For example...

I'm a film buff. I can watch Battleship Potemkin, and realize its worth as a piece of art. Hell, you're basically watching the birth of modern filmmaking...not a movie has been made since then that isn't indebted to Eisenstein. And yes, it is a great film. BUT, would I rather watch it than, say, Citizen Kane? No. Potemkin is more influential, and (arguably) shows a greater mastery over the medium. But few would argue that it's more involving and appealing than Kane, or dozens of other great movies.

Great art should be like Beethoven (to give just one example). Any old schmuck can listen to the man and be moved...even the most jaded modern listener can't really deny the beauty of his music. But at the same time, the harshest, coldest critic can take it apart piece by piece, analyze the composition and all that crap, and it'll still stand up to scrutiny. It can be appreciated on any level imaginable.

THAT is great art.

 

Just to clear up where I was going with that last post...I think the Mona Lisa is overrated, because on first glance it's bland...there's not much going for it other than that super-3D background. The people that defend its reputation seem to be using examples of technique and whatnot...and for art to be truly great, that sort of analyzation should be unnecessary.

 

Right, so you're saying that the opions of countless others over the past 400-500 years are completely unjustified and now you, who own a keyboard and a mouse which makes you a vaunted art critic, are right?

Let's also look at the criticism of calling something "overrated". This criticism boils down to one's impression of something not being as high as others correct? So you're criticism is that you don't like it because others do? That is not even a criticism of the artwork itself, it's a criticism of public opinion.

This is a work of art that's been valued by millions of people for centuries now. Let this thread sink for the embarassment it is.

 

B'omarr, I'm not sure whose post you're replying to there, seeing as you already replied to mine in frankly much more tactful terms.

And in a way, yes, I am critiquing popular opinion. I'm not even talking about the art here. I'm trying to find out what it is about the Mona Lisa that made people like it to the point that it became accepted as this great symbol of art... because I don't get it, and I don't see what the big deal with it is.

Thus far I am getting some good details out of people with regard to the eyes, the background, etc.

Right, so you're saying that the opions of countless others over the past 400-500 years are completely unjustified

No. And frankly I find the "so you're saying (insert wildly exaggerated statement)" argument a little childish. To have an opinion on someone else's opinion does not make their opinion unjustified.

So you're criticism is that you don't like it because others do?

Take out the 'because' and add a period to make "I don't like it. Others do." and you got it. Other peoples' opinions do not influence me in my decisions (hopefully!)


Rick McCallum loves you!

 

Excuse me . . . Battleship Potemkin . . . not moving or involving . . . ?

You've just invalidated your entire opinion, as far as I'm concerned.

Potemkin is moving, incredibly so. Now, you can argue that because I'd rather watch Casablanca that Casablanca is the better film. You'd be correct, but that doesn't make Potemkin a bad film or even a mediocre film.

I'm not sure how the fact that the Mona Lisa is not as great as some means that it's not great. There is no flawless art, or not much anyway.