Mona lisa

B

birch

Valued Senior Member
I always thought it ridiculous how the reason cited for the mona lisa becoming famous and so special is her half smile. That is the most contrived bs reason hinging on fantasy. There is nothing special about her smile. It reminds me of that social test they did where they put water in a perfume decantor and some people imagined a subtle scent. people are full of shit. Didn't this picture hang in someone's bathroom before? I wouldn't even hang it in my house, it's damn ugly. I would surely sell it of course because of it's value to others that i do not care for nor see.

The reason it's famous is because its by leonardo da vinci and since he is revered so much because of his other genius and painting was not one of them though. It's more of a historical artificact, to me as being the real reason and the stupid musings about the smile is like reading too much into nothing bs to legitimize why this painting deserves such status.

Not politically correct opinion but i don't like the painting, honestly. I feel catharted having admitted that and a weight lifted. Something had to be the most famous painting in this part of the multiverse and this was it. lmfao.
 
Last edited:
What is politically incorrect about your opinion? You are entitled to it, and it's merely an opinion about a work of art. I actually think the painting is one of the most beautiful I have ever seen, and I think her smile is unique. I dread to think what you hang on your walls, but each to his own.
 
The-%C3%94Earlier-Version%C3%95-as-the-portr-ait-of-Lisa-del-Giocondo_1021_html_m12df3fdd.jpg


Not one of my favorites.
Taste, being qualitative rather than quantitative,
there is indeed no accounting for taste.
 
DrKrettin said:
I actually think the painting is one of the most beautiful I have ever seen, and I think her smile is unique. I dread to think what you hang on your walls, but each to his own.
Click to expand...

Dread? i question your taste. It sure isn't heavy metal band posters etc. btw, i am an artist myself and can paint, sculpt etc. I like rembrandt more. I also like water colors and i do like oil portraits but not this one as i don't think it's very good, to the point, it really surprises me that they think it is. There is nothing unique about her except her bored and languid look from having to sit there and pose and the background is awful. I don't get it just considering the painting itself. It's not bad, but i wouldn't classify it as great as it is hyped to be either.

I bet a dollar to a donut that if people did not know this was done by leonardo, many would have a lesser opinion, especially those who don't really critique a work of art based on it's own merit but hinges even subconsciously on other factors. Art dealers and within that sphere do have a stake in hyping this up understandably etc but for those who aren't, i think most are just parroting or following others opinions.
 
birch said:
Dread? i question your taste. ..... btw, i am an artist myself and can paint, sculpt etc.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, being an artist is no guarantee of taste, (which you would obviously agree with in reference to Leonardo) but I do agree about the ridiculous hype. And I don't agree that she looks bored -perhaps we just have a different taste in faces.

You have not explained why you think your opinion is politically incorrect. I can't see anything political about a work of art.
 
DrKrettin said:
Unfortunately, being an artist is no guarantee of taste, (which you would obviously agree with in reference to Leonardo) but I do agree about the ridiculous hype. And I don't agree that she looks bored -perhaps we just have a different taste in faces.

You have not explained why you think your opinion is politically incorrect. I can't see anything political about a work of art.
Click to expand...

Of course being an artist is no guarantee but neither does a painting by someone famous mean it's the best either. And it's not about taste in faces, the painting itself is not spectacular by an stretch of the imagination. The skin was done very well (face, not neck or it's become discolored) is the best i can say for it but for a realistic painting, the neck was not done well, and if it wasn't for it being by leonardo, i'm sure it would be rated as subpar or average. I'm 100% on this. So the hype is politically and monetarily motivated. Hence, my opinion is not politically correct. Understand?
 
DrKrettin said:
*sigh* I meant this one, and in the context of being politically correct.
Click to expand...
It's simple. And you won't have to do any *sighing* afterwards. Post what you mean. Don't pull a Trump, posting something, and then afterwards having to explain what you "really" meant.
 
Not one of my favorites either, I just don't get the intrinsic swooning factor. But da Vinci in general evokes awe...
 
Aren't there 3 versions of the Mona?

The one in Paris the one which gets the kudos

I understand it is not as large in size as many people viewing it for the first time thought it was going to be

:)
 
It is said that Leonardo loved this painting so very much that he literally carried it under his arm for the last 6 & 1/2 years of his life (after he had the stroke that left him partially paralyzed). When the owner asked him for it, Leonardo replied that he still had a few finishing touches to apply and kept it with him.

Since the great master himself considered it to be his finest work, I suspect that is the reason it is still so admired. :)
 
birch said:
Not politically correct opinion but i don't like the painting
Click to expand...
You just can't know a piece of art without looking at it clooooosely. o_O
It's not the smile; its all the animals. Experts are still tallying them up.

mona-lisa-s-chair.jpg


:D:D
 
Last edited:
I've seen it in the Louvre. I like it as a painting but it's hard to judge something like that when you see it as it's so famous and I had seen pictures of it for so many years that influences the appeal as well I'm sure.

It isn't an overly big picture but what struck me was that there was little protection and you could go right up to it and no many people were there when I saw it. I'm sure it did have some type of transparent cover (I can't recall) but there wasn't a guard or a rope as there are for many famous artifacts like that.

It was certainly more appealing that the picture posted in this thread.
 
The Law of the Taj Mahal states: if some work of human creativity has been world famous and world visited as itself (not as a symbol or memorial, etc) for a hundred years or more, there's a reason.

A companion principle, which remains unnamed afaik, runs something like this: as recording (photo, sound, any) levels, compresses, reduces contrast and complexity, edits, simplifies, blurs overtones and subliminally registered details, etc, the better the work the less the recording does it justice.

The Mona Lisa never looked like much in its photos, to me, but one learns from wandering into local museums that the better the work, the less reliable the photo. Call it the "Jackson Pollock Principle", or maybe the "MP3 Illusion" - until you see the thing itself, hear the music live, etc, you don't really know. Here's a photo of the sculpture that first startled me with that lesson: http://theeyedoesntlie.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/Picasso-Jester.jpg If you think you know what it's about from that photo - you don't.
 
I also saw the Mona Lisa at the Louvre and was somewhat surprised at the lack of security, but that was in the 1960's. I believe it is behind a sheet of Lexan cyanoacrylate these days.

Nothing ever looks as good in a photo, just as the movie never does the book justice. :redface:
 
Naw, neither is overrated. That is fact to any person familiar with painting technique and theatre.

Leonardo was a consummate painter and his technique was state of the art for his time period, just as Shakespeare's plays and theatre were for his time frame. Contemporarily, the crowd has come to laud novelty, flash and 'whiz-bang' over craft, skill and experience. Thus the decline in art investment purchases in fine art and the concentration on 'the masters' and 'classic art'. No serious investor wants to risk his/her fortune on a piece of 'art' that may not last more than a couple of years. Its one thing when its a couple of bucks and quite another when it is millions of dollars.

While a rendition of something titled 'The Virgin Mary' done in urine and excrement may be novel and give an uneducated 'artsy' person an erection of mammoth proportion, it is still a piece of shit and will rot right off any wall it is hung on as it decays. While chunks of some porky ladies fat from a liposuction displayed in plastic jars may bring her thousands of dollars, a Van Gogh still costs many millions and its price won't drop.

Most art is 'bad' art, just because that is the way it is. Most garage rock bands suck real hard, but they have their followers, just like bad art. As much as one may enjoy 'The Wiz', is ain't Romeo and Juliet, nor will it ever reach those heights.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top