When the Mona Lisa was stolen from the louvre museum in paris in 1911

  • Thread starter wolram
  • Start date
  • #1
wolram
Gold Member
Dearly Missed
4,397
559
When the Mona Lisa was stolen from the louvre museum in paris in 1911, and
was not recovered for two years, more people turned up to stare at the empty
space than had ever come to see the painting.

In 1961 Henri Matisse's painting Le Bateau was hung upside down at new yorks
museum of modern art for 46 days before anyone noticed.

A painter who has the feel for breasts and buttocks is saved (renoir) :devil:

It takes 570 gallons of paint to cover the White house.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Answers and Replies

  • #2
arildno
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Gold Member
Dearly Missed
10,089
135
In my opinion, the arts went downhill when artists started scoffing the idea that art should be pleasurable to the senses, and mistakenly started believing that, instead, the task of art was to convey the deepest philosophical "truths" about mankind.
 
  • #3
wolram
Gold Member
Dearly Missed
4,397
559
arildno said:
In my opinion, the arts went downhill when artists started scoffing the idea that art should be pleasurable to the senses, and mistakenly started believing that, instead, the task of art was to convey the deepest philosophical "truths" about mankind.

Quite true, i think Renoir had the right idea.
 
  • #4
gurkhawarhorse
44
0
i even heard that vinci's monalisa was copied and there were 12 such paintings and no one knows where is the real one. the one in the musem could be a faulty one!
 
  • #5
Smurf
396
3
gurkhawarhorse said:
i even heard that vinci's monalisa was copied and there were 12 such paintings and no one knows where is the real one. the one in the musem could be a faulty one!
Yeah! And the pentagon's actually invisible and on an island in the carribean. The one in washington is fake! Infact, there are 12 invisible ones in the carribean and no one knows which one it is either! :eek:
 
  • #6
zoobyshoe
6,551
1,287
Michelangelo's family had pretentions to nobility, and it was for this reason that his father beat the boy when he anounced he wanted to become an artist. At the time artists were considered tradesmen like cobblers, or coopers. This was so ungentlemanly a thing for one of his sons to aspire to when he himself was trying to upgrade the family image that Ludovico Buonarroti felt it was just good parenting to try and beat the idea out of his son, Michelangelo.
 
  • #7
mattmns
1,118
6
My favorite artist is Jan Van Eyck, his paintings are amazing.
 
  • #8
TRCSF
60
0
arildno said:
In my opinion, the arts went downhill when artists started scoffing the idea that art should be pleasurable to the senses, and mistakenly started believing that, instead, the task of art was to convey the deepest philosophical "truths" about mankind.


In my opinion, art went downhill when artists came to the conclusion that art needs to be pleasurable to the senses.
 
  • #9
TRCSF
60
0
mattmns said:
My favorite artist is Jan Van Eyck, his paintings are amazing.

Ah, the Flemish masters. Brueghel the Elder happens to be my favorite.
 
  • #10
wolram
Gold Member
Dearly Missed
4,397
559
What do people see in modern art? if a painting can be hung upside down
and no one notices, how can it have meaning?
 
  • #11
TRCSF
60
0
wolram said:
What do people see in modern art? if a painting can be hung upside down
and no one notices, how can it have meaning?

Quite a bit. Modern art is wonderful. I fully recommend studying it.

Just because it's not a pretty oil painting of a basketful of puppies with an obvious top and a bottom doesn't mean it can't have a meaning.
 
  • #12
arildno
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Gold Member
Dearly Missed
10,089
135
TRCSF said:
In my opinion, art went downhill when artists came to the conclusion that art needs to be pleasurable to the senses.
Well, that's where you are wrong.
 
  • #13
TRCSF
60
0
arildno said:
Well, that's where you are wrong.

No, your opinion is wrong.

:tongue:
 
  • #14
arildno
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Gold Member
Dearly Missed
10,089
135
TRCSF said:
No, your opinion is wrong.

:tongue:
It merely shows how little you know about real art.
You think, I guess, like the idiot highbrows that requirements of appeal to the senses is constraining for artistic expression?
It is not.
It is liberating.
 
  • #15
TRCSF
60
0
arildno said:
It merely shows how little you know about real art.
You think, I guess, like the idiot highbrows that requirements of appeal to the senses is constraining for artistic expression?
It is not.
It is liberating.

Requirements for artistic expression are by definition constraints on artistic expression. :confused:

Other than being a regular customer of Thomas Kinkade art boutiques, what do you know about real art?
 
  • #16
zoobyshoe
6,551
1,287
mattmns said:
My favorite artist is Jan Van Eyck, his paintings are amazing.
I have a book of Flemish Painters wth two of his paintings, reproduced at fairly large scale fo a book.

The one of the wedding couple is like some early surreal work: the strange, pale, spindly groom wears an enormous mad hatter looking hat, and the couple is visible from the rear in a hemispherical mirror hanging on the wall behind them, suggestive of the later works of M.C. Escher. The rigidity of their formal pose, which partly predicts the flavor of American Gothic is, apparently, adopted by the little dog at their feet, who seems to be holding himself still to have his portrait painted, while actually wanting to run around and bark. The detail everywhere is meticulous.
 
  • #17
arildno
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Gold Member
Dearly Missed
10,089
135
TRCSF said:
Requirements for artistic expression are by definition constraints on artistic expression. :confused:
Yes, in the same manner as disciplining your mind to think through issues logically is "constraining" for scientific research.
 
  • #18
TRCSF
60
0
arildno said:
Yes, in the same manner as disciplining your mind is "constraining" for scientific research.

Art is intrinsically different than scientific research.
 
  • #19
wolram
Gold Member
Dearly Missed
4,397
559
TRCSF said:
Quite a bit. Modern art is wonderful. I fully recommend studying it.

Just because it's not a pretty oil painting of a basketful of puppies with an obvious top and a bottom doesn't mean it can't have a meaning.

Or even some non human did it, a chimp elephant whatever, or even a pile of bricks, utter tosh, modern art is not.
 
  • #20
arildno
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Gold Member
Dearly Missed
10,089
135
TRCSF said:
Art is intrinsically different than scientific research.
"Intrinsical". That's a fancy word.
 
  • #21
TRCSF
60
0
wolram said:
Or even some non human did it, a chimp elephant whatever, or even a pile of bricks, utter tosh, modern art is not.

But chimps can't produce modern art. Or elephants. Or toddlers. Any more than they can paint like flemish masters.
 
  • #22
loseyourname
Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
1,802
5
TRCSF said:
Other than being a regular customer of Thomas Kinkade art boutiques, what do you know about real art?

Art can be beautiful without being unsophisticated. Take Dido and Aeneas:

00067201.jpg
 
  • #23
arildno
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Gold Member
Dearly Missed
10,089
135
TRCSF said:
But chimps can't produce modern art. Or elephants. Or toddlers. Any more than they can paint like flemish masters.
From what I know, there are modern "artists" who smear fecal matter onto a white board, and pronounces this to be "art".
A chimp could do likewise; at least the smearing bit.
 
  • #24
TRCSF
60
0
loseyourname said:
Art can be beautiful without being unsophisticated. Take Dido and Aeneas:

00067201.jpg

And art can be art without being beautiful.

http://college-de-vevey.vd.ch/auteur/Picasso/guernica-init.jpg [Broken]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #25
arildno
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Gold Member
Dearly Missed
10,089
135
Look at this brilliant, haunting self-portait Robert Mapplethorpe made:
http://www.guggenheimcollection.org/site/artist_work_md_97A_3.html [Broken]
That's art.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #26
loseyourname
Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
1,802
5
You think Guernica isn't beautiful? Use the [ img ] tags.
 
  • #27
TRCSF
60
0
arildno said:
Look at this brilliant, haunting self-portait Robert Mapplethorpe made:
http://www.guggenheimcollection.org/site/artist_work_md_97A_3.html [Broken]
That's art.

I agree. Although there's a lot of Mapplethorpe's work that isn't considered "pleasurable to the senses."

Although that's a ridiculous vague term.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #28
wolram
Gold Member
Dearly Missed
4,397
559
TRCSF said:
But chimps can't produce modern art. Or elephants. Or toddlers. Any more than they can paint like flemish masters.

So when does it become art, when some one famous puts brush to canvas?
and when is it a mindless mess, i agree some modern art has merrit, but the
rest is taking the public for a ride.
 
  • #29
TRCSF
60
0
loseyourname said:
You think Guernica isn't beautiful? Use the [ img ] tags.

No, I think it's ugly as hell. Exactly how it was meant to be.
 
  • #30
arildno
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Gold Member
Dearly Missed
10,089
135
TRCSF said:
I agree. Although there's a lot of Mapplethorpe's work that isn't considered "pleasurable to the senses."
That's in the eye of the beholder..:wink:
Although that's a ridiculous vague term.
No more vague than that art is to convey some "deep meaning".
 
  • #31
TRCSF
60
0
wolram said:
So when does it become art, when some one famous puts brush to canvas?
and when is it a mindless mess, i agree some modern art has merrit, but the
rest is taking the public for a ride.

It's kind of like pornography. You know it when you see it. An abstract painting is art whether a broke student does it in his studio apartment/studio. Being famous only effects how much you can sell it for.
 
  • #32
zoobyshoe
6,551
1,287
TRCSF said:
Ah, the Flemish masters. Brueghel the Elder happens to be my favorite.
My book has his The Parable of the Blind reproduced in it. This looks to be "The Blind Leading The Blind", as opposed to the blind men/elephant story.

It is an extremely well executed, dark souled painting. The colors and modeling of form stand out as particularly individual, within the general Flemish style. He is a better draughtsman than Bosch, who also liked this kind of subject matter, but there is still an interesting, naive kind of stiffness to the figures that tells us the transition from the medieval to the renaissance isn't complete yet. The blind men and their situation is grotesque, and the lesson is heavy handed: one suspects this painting had a specific target.
 
  • #33
arildno
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Gold Member
Dearly Missed
10,089
135
TRCSF:
To just give you one type of so-called art that I remain unwilling to call by that name:
Works that are so replete with references to other works, and essentially is completely incomprehensible to anyone who hasn't gone to art school and learned about those references earlier.

A work of art, IMO, should be accessible to ANYONE, it should have the power to provide any person, no matter his educational background, with aesthetic experiences.
Whether those aesthetic experiences are those the artist intended, or not, is irrelevant.

The Mapplethorpe self-portrait is, IMO, accessible in this manner:
It has an arresting, disturbing look to it, but how the viewer proceeds from there is wholly individual.

In particular, the image retains full aesthetic power even for someone who doesn't know that Mapplethorpe was terminally ill from his AIDS condition at the time the photograph was made.
 
Last edited:
  • #34
TRCSF
60
0
arildno said:
TRCSF:
To just give you one type of so-called art that I remain unwilling to call by that name:
Works that are so replete with references to other works, and essentially is completely incomprehensible to anyone who hasn't gone to art school and learned about those references earlier.

A work of art, IMO, should be accessible to ANYONE, it should have the power to provide any person, no matter his educational background, with aesthetic experiences.
Whether those aesthetic experiences are those the artist intended, or not, is irrelevant.

Alright, I thought by saying "art has to be pleasurably to the sense" you were saying something akin to "movies have to have happy endings."

I'm still not getting what you mean by "references." All art in a sense "refers" to work that came before it.

I disagree that it should appeal to everybody. There have always been philistines who cannot appreciate art. There always will be.
 
  • #35
loseyourname
Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
1,802
5
TRCSF said:
No, I think it's ugly as hell. Exactly how it was meant to be.

Well, I'll have to disagree with you on that. This is an ugly image of war:

napalm_victim_400_bg.jpg
 

Suggested for: When the Mona Lisa was stolen from the louvre museum in paris in 1911

  • Last Post
Replies
10
Views
449
  • Last Post
Replies
15
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
14
Views
1K
Replies
19
Views
507
Replies
12
Views
539
Replies
63
Views
1K
Top