Do You think the Mona Lisa is over-rated?

[What's his face]

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.

Very true. The damn painting is the size of a dinner plate. There are some paintings there that are the size of a small house. Thirty feet by thirty feet. And yet this silly little painting gets all the attention.

 

[Mr. B]

...considering it was painted by a man with so many other talents I would say it isn't.

 

[Brent]

I think the chick in it is kinda ugly, but that's my opinion.

 

[RJDiogenes]

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.

I agree; but works such as Mona Lisa-- or Hamlet or Beethoven's 5th-- carry a social and historical weight that make the admiration for them more than subjective. It's almost a given. Their reputation has become self-perpetuating through sheer inertia. Not that the reputation is entirely undeserved; however, there are other works, given slightly different circumstances, which would have garnered equal fame. And I do agree that the appreciation of the arts should be subjective.

 

[ShamelessMcBundy]

I love that painting.

 

[Starbreaker]

I don't really like art so... yes?

 

[miraclefan]

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.

I COULD NOT AGREE MORE! The ''MOWN'' A Lisa, is WAY OVERRATED! I hust don't get it!

 

[Niorah]

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.

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?

As someone who couldn't care less for any piece of art produced after the 18th century (yes, I am cutting out all of the world-famous Impressionism too), I have to agree completely with your post.

And no, I don't think the Mona Lisa is overrated.

 

[RoJoHen]

I think her smile is overrated. It gets way too much attention for conveying, what I perceive to be, someone who is bored and staring off into space.

I can't judge the painting itself as I have never seen it in person, nor am I really an expert on the subject.

 

[Jono]

When I saw it I was a bit disappointed in it. Given its reputation I thought it was much larger then it was.

 

[Naira]

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

I was going to mention the same experience.

Monalisa seems like a nice painting but I was not really able to see it because of the glass, the distance and the crowd. The painting on the opposite wall is so much more breathtaking, not only because of its size but also because of the vivid colours nad all the details.

I think Monalisa is a great painting but it is also over-rated. I don't have professional knowledge about painting or art in general but there were many great paintings in the Louvre alone, I don't understand why all the lights are turned on Monalisa.

 

[Roger Wilco]

When I saw it I was a bit disappointed in it. Given its reputation I thought it was much larger then it was.

I don't see how the size of a painting has anything to do with its aesthetic value.

 

[Lookingglassman]

yes.

 

[Goliath]

When I saw it I was a bit disappointed in it. Given its reputation I thought it was much larger then it was.

I don't see how the size of a painting has anything to do with its aesthetic value.

Then your tastes are unusual. For most people, size matters. That is to say: most people are impressed by large paintings the same way they're impressed by large buildings, or sweeping vistas.

The converse is true as well: most people are impressed by very fine detail, and by unusually small works, such as Indian micro-calligraphy and painting on rice grains.

But the Mona Lisa is just a regular-sized portrait, which makes me wonder: what is it about this painting? Carrie's video suggests that its value for most people is more than just aesthetic: the Mona Lisa is famous; it's a celebrity.

I've been star-struck in the presence of a work of art myself. The first time I visited the British Museum, I saw the Rosetta Stone, and couldn't believe my eyes. Holy shit, I thought: that's the Rosetta Stone. The actual fucking Rosetta Stone. It's not just a figure of speech. It's real!

Obviously, most people don't react that way: in fact, most people were just glancing at it, and moving on to the mummies or something. It's not all that impressive to look at, in itself. I think you have to make your living by studying the past through documents, the way I do, to be blown away by the sight of the stone that allowed us to decipher Egyptian hieroglyphics.

Yet, in our culture, there are a handful of artworks that have somehow become iconic. They're the superstars of the art world, and instantly recognizable, and there aren't many of them. Besides the Mona Lisa, there's Munch's The Scream, and the Creation of Adam from the Sistine Chapel, and maybe Michelangelo's David.

To say that these works are 'overrated' or 'underrated' is really to miss the point. The really interesting question is, how and why did these works become superstars?

Celebrity, after all, is not dependent on quality. As Meryl Streep once remarked: "I am not a star. Morgan Fairchild is a star." And as RJDiogenes remarked earlier, there are many paintings that are arguably as good as the Mona Lisa. Ronald Lauder paid $135 million for Gustav Klimt's Portrait of Adele Bloch-Bauer in 2006--and most people have never heard of this painting.

So, WTF? Why the Mona Lisa, and not, say, Vermeer's Girl With a Pearl Earring? Why Botticelli's Birth of Venus, but not Bouguereau's painting on the same subject?

 

[Asbo Zaprudder]

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

I was going to mention the same experience.

Monalisa seems like a nice painting but I was not really able to see it because of the glass, the distance and the crowd. The painting on the opposite wall is so much more breathtaking, not only because of its size but also because of the vivid colours nad all the details.

I think Monalisa is a great painting but it is also over-rated. I don't have professional knowledge about painting or art in general but there were many great paintings in the Louvre alone, I don't understand why all the lights are turned on Monalisa.

I had a similar experience when I visited the Louvre, which was absolutely heaving with rubber-necking tourists. In fact, I had a much more rewarding time visiting the Jeu de Paume, although I believe that most of the impressionist works have now been moved to the Musée d'Orsay.

 

[Ariadne]

*shrugs*

I'm not an art critic. How would I know?

 

[ShamelessMcBundy]

Well what do you think? Do you like the painting or not?

 

[Shaytan]

Then your tastes are unusual. For most people, size matters. That is to say: most people are impressed by large paintings the same way they're impressed by large buildings, or sweeping vistas.

Size matters but it's not aesthetic : large things impressed, whether it's beautiful or not.
The point with the Joconde is that the 1st time you see it, you can't help but thinking : all this fuss over a stamp.

But the Mona Lisa is just a regular-sized portrait, which makes me wonder: what is it about this painting? Carrie's video suggests that its value for most people is more than just aesthetic: the Mona Lisa is famous; it's a celebrity.

It's so famous that when it goes outside of the museum (it's very very rare) it's like a rock band going on a tour.

I've been star-struck in the presence of a work of art myself. The first time I visited the British Museum, I saw the Rosetta Stone, and couldn't believe my eyes. Holy shit, I thought: that's the Rosetta Stone. The actual fucking Rosetta Stone. It's not just a figure of speech. It's real!

I saw it last summer. My 1st thought was "holy shit, it's so badly exposed".
It's to close from the entrance of the room that if it's a little crowded, you can't enter.

Obviously, most people don't react that way: in fact, most people were just glancing at it, and moving on to the mummies or something.

Considering all the marchandising and the large crowd I've seen around it, I think you're wrong.

 

[Holdfast]

To say that these works are 'overrated' or 'underrated' is really to miss the point. The really interesting question is, how and why did these works become superstars?

This thread made me think about that yesterday. I came to the conclusion that it's not much different to how any celebrity becomes a superstar today. Either sheer luck in getting that initial blast of media coverage or a combination of the right patronage and the right marketing. Or most likely, a blend of both.

The Mona Lisa has a self-perpetuating celebrity, carefully groomed by its owners over the years, and begun by Leonardo himself. I read somewhere (can't remember where) that the Mona Lisa was what he used by way of advertising his talent to new potential buyers. He carried it round with him like a sales brochure to new clients. So he made it famous by associating it indelibly with himself and using it as a marketing tool.

Of course, later owners loved that close link to the man, so they would have told anyone who listened that Leornardo loved this painting the most. Finally, I gather it was nicked sometime early last century and the story of its theft & recovery was popular in the mass media of the time, ensuring its enduring fame.

 

[Goliath]

Size matters but it's not aesthetic : large things impressed, whether it's beautiful or not.

No, I don't agree. I think you're missing the distinction between the beautiful and the sublime, both of which are aesthetic qualities.

The small valley behind my Dad's house, for example, is beautiful. A huge valley, seen from a mountaintop, is both beautiful and sublime.

Kant used the word 'splendid' to describe things that are both beautiful and sublime. And large paintings possess a splendour that small paintings do not.

Obviously, most people don't react that way: in fact, most people were just glancing at it, and moving on to the mummies or something.

Considering all the marchandising and the large crowd I've seen around it, I think you're wrong.

Really? If so, then this is one case where I'm glad to be wrong.

Very few people were taking notice of it when I was there. I found it a little disheartening.