Simple enough question - Yes or No?
If you like give us your reasons for answer.
If you like give us your reasons for answer.
Do You think the Mona Lisa is over-rated?
- Thread starter Miss Chicken
- Start date
Dunno, how is it rated generally? It's certainly a masterpiece imo.
It's definitely a Masterpiece, but I also consider it overrated. There are many wonderful paintings, both from contemporary and historical artists, that are just as good.
Any work of Art or Literature that is worshiped to that degree-- whether it's by da Vinci or Shakespeare or Beethoven-- is overrated.
Any work of Art or Literature that is worshiped to that degree-- whether it's by da Vinci or Shakespeare or Beethoven-- is overrated.
Overrated -- the horizon at each side of her head doesn't match up.
Yes, largely. Too much visitors for a so tiny piece of art. A nice piece of art, sure, but not to this point.
The most interesting thing about this painting is its history.
The most interesting thing about this painting is its history.
Needs 'shopped.
I wouldn't call it overrated - its enigma and aura are still held in awe by many people, including me. Over-familiar, yes. 
(sorry)
A quick visit to the Ravescene Archives (this one was back when I was under a different username):
(sorry)
Yeah! It's old! It needs to be updated or repainted for today's more sophisticated audiences!
Paging RDM... Paging RDM...Yeah! It's old! It needs to be updated or repainted for today's more sophisticated audiences!
I wouldn't call it overrated - its enigma and aura are still held in awe by many people, including me. Over-familiar, yes.
[picture]
(sorry)
She'd look better as a Cardassian.
There is no such thing as 'overrated' or 'underrated'.
Every work of art is 'rated' as highly as it deserves: according to the enjoyment people get from it. And the enjoyment that people get from art is purely subjective: there are no objective standards of aesthetic value. A child's finger painting can be of greater value than the Mona Lisa, to that child's parent. And yet it would be valueless to just about everyone else.
Anyone who presumes to tell someone else that their 'rating system' is wrong is a pretentious prick, IMO. You can invite them to consider the value of other works of art, the way RJDiogenes would: it may be they rate the Mona Lisa so highly because it's the only one they know. But they may conclude, in the end, that they like the Mona Lisa best after all. And either judgment would be just as valid.
And I say this as someone who doesn't really see the Mona Lisa's appeal. It's nice, but I can think of a lot of other paintings I like better.
I don't really care for much pre-19th century art, to tell the truth: I prefer, for example, Francis Bacon's Study after Velazquez's Portrait of Pope Innocent X to the Velazquez portrait on which it was based.
But obviously, other people derive value from these earlier works that I don't. Are they wrong to do so? Who am I to say?
Every work of art is 'rated' as highly as it deserves: according to the enjoyment people get from it. And the enjoyment that people get from art is purely subjective: there are no objective standards of aesthetic value. A child's finger painting can be of greater value than the Mona Lisa, to that child's parent. And yet it would be valueless to just about everyone else.
Anyone who presumes to tell someone else that their 'rating system' is wrong is a pretentious prick, IMO. You can invite them to consider the value of other works of art, the way RJDiogenes would: it may be they rate the Mona Lisa so highly because it's the only one they know. But they may conclude, in the end, that they like the Mona Lisa best after all. And either judgment would be just as valid.
And I say this as someone who doesn't really see the Mona Lisa's appeal. It's nice, but I can think of a lot of other paintings I like better.
I don't really care for much pre-19th century art, to tell the truth: I prefer, for example, Francis Bacon's Study after Velazquez's Portrait of Pope Innocent X to the Velazquez portrait on which it was based.
But obviously, other people derive value from these earlier works that I don't. Are they wrong to do so? Who am I to say?
I found this:I wouldn't call it overrated - its enigma and aura are still held in awe by many people, including me. Over-familiar, yes.
[picture]
(sorry)
She'd look better as a Cardassian.
http://www.imaginationincorporation.com/illustrate/CardassianMonaLisa.jpg
I haven't seen the painting in real life. I know from personal experience that there is an entire world of difference seeing an art work in person rather than in repro. So, I can't say. I do know that I feel that there are certain of the world's great artworks that are overrated. Botticceli, I'm looking at your Venus.
I've seen it. It's alright.... very small.
It's pretty overrated.
It's pretty overrated.
This came up in another thread the other day, I'll just quote what I said there.
I remember when I went to the Louvre in Paris [9 years ago, I was 14 at the time], one of the first things on the route was the Mona Lisa. There was a huge crowd surrounding it and taking photos and in order to see it I would have had to shove my way through the crowd as though I were in some form of rugby scrum. I decided to stand up on a bench instead and saw it over everyone's heads, but nobody could see it properly anyway because it was stored behind bulletproof glass.
I turned around to get off the bench and there was this magnificent painting in front of me. It was two stories high and took up almost the entire wall. It was of a battle scene, and in the sky had storm-clouds and angels, it was epic and it was ambitious and... only two other people were looking at it because everyone was huddled over the Mona Lisa.
That's the day when my faith in humanity began to fall, when I realised that people weren't interested in the ambitious yet flawed work of art, they were only there to see the famous painting and to snap a picture of it.
That story has no relevance to the conversation other than to explain why I'm so grumpy.
Similar threads
