Is the Mona Lisa really overrated?

  • Thread starter Thread starter jackson6612
  • Start date Start date
AI Thread 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.
jackson6612
Messages
334
Reaction score
1
I have always liked paintings where an idea, concept is conveyed. The good example of this would be http://www.themasterpiececards.com/...itian's Allegory of Prudence-resized-600.JPG".

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.

What is so good about them? Could you please guide me?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
Platonic Forms...check out the smile.
 
I'm kind of a big fan of portraits myself. I think the human face is just as interesting and worthy of artistic representation as scenes.
 
I've been saying it for years. Mona Lisa is kind of ugly, and its not art.
 
Hmm, the Mona Lisa, I've seen it in the Louvre. Hard to miss the crowd in front of it and the security things, in an otherwise rather empty room. Pure objectively, it's a big disappointment. It would be a rather obscure inobstrusive piece, if it wasn't for its history.

Lots of brilliant large colorful paintings around too hardly getting any attention.
 
I think it is well documented and understood why Mona Lisa is widely considered one of the most important masterpieces in the history of painting. You will not obtain here on PF a better discussion than the material you can find in a few minutes browsing. You may however obtain quite a few short statements in the style "yeah, I don't like it either, LOL".
 
Paintings are valued based on how popular or 'wanted' they are. The Mona Lisa generally speaking wasn't that popular back in the day and it wasn't deemed as one of the more expensive paintings. While it was 'famous' it was just among the other famous paintings, prehaps even less so.

However many people started writing about it, famous artists began reproducing their own variations of it, mystery generally surrounds it, the detail is pretty awesome... and that smile... adds to the mystery, the painting was stolen. All this adds up to making the painting pretty famous, hence expensive.

That's all that sets the 100million paiting apart from the $500 painting, the fame of the artist and of the work itself. There are expceptions of course, perhaps a billionaire really wants a painting so he buys it for some extraordinary price.
 
De gustibus non est disputandum. That's latin and means that she stays in the crowded room for the time being.
 
I've always assumed I don't know enough about the historical context to 'get' the Mona Lisa.

(Waring - opinion of a total art noob follows...) But I think if you have to spend too much time explain why the art is important, maybe it's not so important. Sort of like having to explain why a joke is funny.

An example of art that needs no explanation: Michaelangelo's David. You look at David's eyes, he wants soooo bad to kick Goliath's @ss, in his head he's already won the battle. You may not even notice the sling shot on his shoulder. Its inconspicuousness says the battle is fought in the human heart, not with sheer brute force.

OK, maybe you need to know the David and Goliath story to really 'get' David.
 
  • #10
lisab said:
Michaelangelo's David. You look at David's eyes, he wants soooo bad to kick Goliath's @ss, in his head he's already won the battle.

Yeah ok, like you were looking at his eyes :rolleyes:
 
  • #11
Jimmy Snyder said:
De gustibus non est disputandum. That's latin and means that she stays in the crowded room for the time being.

hmmm wouldn't that be something like "is subsisto in populus cella pro vicis res"?
 
  • #12
Jimmy Snyder said:
De gustibus non est disputandum. That's latin and means that she stays in the crowded room for the time being.

It means that peoples tastes can't be objectively disputed.
 
  • #13
jackson6612 said:
I have always liked paintings where an idea, concept is conveyed. The good example of this would be http://www.themasterpiececards.com/...itian's Allegory of Prudence-resized-600.JPG".

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 liked Mona Lisa better and did not find anything good about yours one.


What is so good about them? Could you please guide me?

Mona Lisa is "price of Mona List"/"price of Titian's Allegory of Prudence" better than Titian's Allegory of Prudence.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #14
On the topic of art I don't get, here's a good one:

No._5%2C_1948.jpg
 
  • #15
leroyjenkens said:
On the topic of art I don't get, here's a good one:

No._5%2C_1948.jpg

That looks awesome, imagine it on your wall. You're saying you it wouldn't look great there?
 
  • #16
leroyjenkens said:
On the topic of art I don't get, here's a good one:
If you listen to the critics, they'll tell you it's not as bad as it looks.
 
Last edited:
  • #17
zomgwtf said:
That looks awesome, imagine it on your wall. You're saying you it wouldn't look great there?

You mean wouldn't a child running wild for a few hours with a box of crayolas look great on my wall?
 
  • #18
Pengwuino said:
You mean wouldn't a child running wild for a few hours with a box of crayolas look great on my wall?

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.
 
  • #19
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.

Not only that but this looks far from anything that a wild running child could make with a box of crayons on the wall. If you find one Peng, then kidnap him and send him my way... lots of money to be had.
 
  • #20
Pengwuino said:
You mean wouldn't a child running wild for a few hours with a box of crayolas look great on my wall?

Peng, you said it quite right. Who would call this random network of lines and curves a piece of art?! It somehow reminds me of Google Earth, when you start zooming in.
 
  • #21
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.

Agree completely. You need the whole story. In addition, an understanding of the history of art is useful. Black Box is important because it was a departure from the norm at the time. Art is largely about timeliness, not just timelessness. Malevich was flipping the bird to Socialist Realism.
 
  • #22
jackson6612 said:
Peng, you said it quite right. Who would call this random network of lines and curves a piece of art?! It somehow reminds me of Google Earth, when you start zooming in.

I disagree with both of you (and I have 2 kids under the age of 4 which I let run riot with crayons). The layering of color, texture, movement and flow are important in abstract art. In addition, I believe it has been suggested that the most appealing abstract paintings have a fractal nature.
 
  • #23
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.

Who paints it is also a big factor. If I painted that picture instead of Jackson Pollock, it would be worthless, no matter what my story, purpose, or feelings were.
 
  • #24
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.

I was basically going to bring this up.

WRT to Mona Lisa you have to have an appreciation for Davinci himself.

Davinci is obviously a very famous artist, ML took him two years to complete. One of his major weaknesses as an artist was in painting teeth and mouths - he never felt he could do them very well.

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

That's why it's important.
 
  • #25
encorp said:
I was basically going to bring this up.

WRT to Mona Lisa you have to have an appreciation for Davinci himself.

Davinci is obviously a very famous artist, ML took him two years to complete. One of his major weaknesses as an artist was in painting teeth and mouths - he never felt he could do them very well.

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

That's why it's important.

I could easily spend two years painting a smile and it would never, ever be important.
 
  • #26
GeorginaS said:
I could easily spend two years painting a smile and it would never, ever be important.

Right. But you are not Davinci, and you are not historically appreciate for your artistic merit.

Everyone who appreciates Davinci understands how tough the Mona Lisa was for him and how it was a personal accomplishment. And so they celebrated it.

It's like clapping when your kid FINALLY paints a body on a person, instead of drawing the legs right out from the bottom of the head. Hahaha
 
  • #27
a picture is worth a thousand words, but words and any language in that matter is made up of random lines.
 
  • #28
encorp said:
Right. But you are not Davinci, and you are not historically appreciate for your artistic merit.

Apparently it took him four years to complete.

Anyway, I'm going to do more reading.
 
  • #29
The main problem with the many complains I read here is that they have no understanding of what it means to be "art". "Art" is not how well you capture the face of a person you draw. Art is an abstraction. Its meant to represent something by way of a concept or idea, not a physical representation. The latter is called photography. Once you understand this, you can begin to understand art.
 
  • #30
Oh, and I've seen The Mona Lisa live and in person in the Louvre and initially was struck at how small the canvas was. For a painting of its time, it's a very scaled-down work. It was also difficult to see because it's roped off and you have to stand way, way back from it. And! It's behind a thick pane of glass that makes it even harder to see. It's hard to appreciate in person because of the security surrounding it.

It was, nonetheless, gorgeous.
 
  • #31
As a side note, I thought it was a painting of Da Vinci himself, but done up as a woman.
 
  • #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.
 
  • #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.
 

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top