Is the Mona Lisa really overrated?

  • Thread starter Thread starter jackson6612
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary
The discussion centers around the appreciation of iconic artworks, particularly Leonardo da Vinci's "Mona Lisa" and Kazimir Malevich's "Black Square." Participants express a range of opinions on why these pieces are valued, with some arguing that their fame is tied to historical context and the artists' reputations rather than their aesthetic qualities. The "Mona Lisa" is noted for its enigmatic smile and the effort Da Vinci put into it, while others criticize its perceived lack of beauty and the hype surrounding it. The conversation also touches on the importance of understanding an artist's intent and the narrative behind a piece to fully appreciate its significance. Some participants suggest that art's value often hinges on the artist's notoriety and the story behind the work, rather than purely technical skill or immediate visual appeal. The debate highlights the subjective nature of art appreciation, emphasizing that personal taste plays a crucial role in how artworks are perceived.
  • #31
As a side note, I thought it was a painting of Da Vinci himself, but done up as a woman.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
encorp said:
Enter Mona Lisa, he spent two years painting that smile to make it perfect, and it is perfect.

When was the last time you spent TWO YEARS painting a smile? haha
.

Are you implying that da Vinci was banging this guidette?? Surely she did not come there everyday for 2 years to smile for nothing :biggrin:
 
  • #33
Greg Bernhardt said:
For many kinds of art it is very important to read the artist's story or purpose for the art piece. A painting you find initially unimpressive might be seen as a masterpiece once you figure out what the artist was feeling or had in mind. Great art is rarely just about technical ability or first impressions.

true. what is called "art" in the modern age is mostly narrative. if you are some poor philistine that "just doesn't get it", it either means you don't have access to the narrative or don't find it all that compelling.

http://reverent.org/this_is_art.html

http://ecclesiastes911.net/disumbrated_art.html
 
  • #34
So what I'm getting from this thread is that art is BS? Got it.

If I was mentally screwed up and urinated on a canvas, I would be an artist? That's basically what this thread is saying. It's not what you do, it's how you feel at the time and who you are. Oh, and some people are just better then other people. Stupid.

Let's stop pretending people like the one who did the crayola drawing are all that different from raving psychotics that express their feelings by randomly punching people out in the streets. The former just used a different medium.
 
  • #35
Pengwuino said:
So what I'm getting from this thread is that art is BS? Got it.

If I was mentally screwed up and urinated on a canvas, I would be an artist? That's basically what this thread is saying. It's not what you do, it's how you feel at the time and who you are. Oh, and some people are just better then other people. Stupid.

Let's stop pretending people like the one who did the crayola drawing are all that different from raving psychotics that express their feelings by randomly punching people out in the streets. The former just used a different medium.
I'm an old fogie when it comes to art. For me, if it's not recognizable, then it should be aesthetically appealing. That's just my taste.
 
Last edited:
  • #36
Pengwuino said:
So what I'm getting from this thread is that art is BS? Got it.

If I was mentally screwed up and urinated on a canvas, I would be an artist? That's basically what this thread is saying. It's not what you do, it's how you feel at the time and who you are. Oh, and some people are just better then other people. Stupid.

Let's stop pretending people like the one who did the crayola drawing are all that different from raving psychotics that express their feelings by randomly punching people out in the streets. The former just used a different medium.

Pollock was a deranged drunk, so that's not an unfair characterization of his work, imo.

but just because a few art dealers have figured out how to swindle money from rich people doesn't mean that all art is BS, just overrated is all.
 
  • #37
  • #38
Once I saw an interview with the director of the Metropolitan Museum of Art and the conversation inevitably got around to what makes one work of art better than another.

The director responded that often it is difficult to distinguish good art from bad art and sometimes when he couldn't decide, he would take it home and live with it for a few months. (I never knew directors of art museums had perks like that!) He said that over time he either began to notice flaws in the painting or he began to see more depth and meaning in it and that is the real difference. Unfortunately you don't get that browsing through a museum.
 
  • #39
I like paintings that conjure up a story, like this one by Jack Vettriano:

butler_body_300x255.jpg


http://www.bbc.co.uk/gloucestershire/festivals/lit_fest/2004/jack_vettriano.shtml
 
  • #40
cronxeh said:
I've been saying it for years. Mona Lisa is kind of ugly, and its not art.

Really? Huh.

No accounting for taste I guess...


Megan+Fox+as+Mona+Lisa.jpg
 
  • #42
No attempt at a smile?
DaveC426913 said:
Megan+Fox+as+Mona+Lisa.jpg
 
  • #43
cronxeh said:
Are you implying that da Vinci was banging this guidette?? Surely she did not come there everyday for 2 years to smile for nothing :biggrin:

I thought Da Vinci took the 'other way'?
 
  • #44
jackson6612 said:
But I have always failed to appreciate any beauty or anything good at all about paintings like Mona Lisa by Leonardo da Vinci or Black Square by Kazimir Malevich.
I would not list them alongside. You can yourself paint the latter but not the former.
 
  • #45
simus said:
You can yourself paint the latter but not the former.
This affirmation only proves that you do not realize how difficult it is to obtain a monochrome.
 
  • #46
Some people place a canvas in front of a fan and throw buckets of paint at it and call it art. Others let chickens walk all over a canvas after wetting their feet in different colors of paint. Still others provide an elephant with a brush and whatever it does is called art. Such paintings sell maybe because of the way they were created or because of the painter's notoriority. Or maybe just by chance the result does seem like good art.


As for Mona Lisa, I think it's fame is based more on who produced it than on it's artistic merit. On the other hand you will find art experts waxing melodic about the Mona Lisa's enigmatic smile and how her eyes seem to follow you around the room something I would probably never notice on a conscious level unless they pointed it out.


So I guess that it can be argued that to appreciate the Mona Lisa one needs to have a certain artistic sophistication and that lack of appreciation of its merits simply shows that deficiency. How much merit that argument has in relation to this painting I don't know.

Suffice to say that I wouldn't hang that painting anywhere in my home regardless of its impressive reputation. Neither would it cause me to stand in front of it in awe.
 
  • #47
manzoni.jpg
 
  • #48
NoFreeSpeech.gif
 
  • #49
If you want to understand the Mona Lisa why don't you go to the library or a book store and pick up a book on art history or Da Vinci or Italian Renaissance art etc.? No offence, but people here don't really seem too knowlegeable about art. The Mona Lisa is famous for very good reasons, not just humbug. I could go to an art forum and start a thread discussing how Galileo is over-rated and wasn't very good; it would be much the same as what is going on here.