Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

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

  1. Aug 18, 2005 #1

    wolram

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    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 any one 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: Feb 4, 2013
  2. jcsd
  3. Aug 18, 2005 #2

    arildno

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper
    Gold Member
    Dearly Missed

    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.
     
  4. Aug 18, 2005 #3

    wolram

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Quite true, i think Renoir had the right idea.
     
  5. Aug 18, 2005 #4
    i even heard that vinci's monalisa was copied and there were 12 such paintings and noone knows where is the real one. the one in the musem could be a faulty one!!!
     
  6. Aug 18, 2005 #5
    :surprised 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:
     
  7. Aug 18, 2005 #6
    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.
     
  8. Aug 18, 2005 #7
    My favorite artist is Jan Van Eyck, his paintings are amazing.
     
  9. Aug 18, 2005 #8

    In my opinion, art went downhill when artists came to the conclusion that art needs to be pleasurable to the senses.
     
  10. Aug 18, 2005 #9
    Ah, the Flemish masters. Brueghel the Elder happens to be my favorite.
     
  11. Aug 18, 2005 #10

    wolram

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    What do people see in modern art? if a painting can be hung upside down
    and no one notices, how can it have meaning?
     
  12. Aug 18, 2005 #11
    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.
     
  13. Aug 18, 2005 #12

    arildno

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper
    Gold Member
    Dearly Missed

    Well, that's where you are wrong.
     
  14. Aug 18, 2005 #13
    No, your opinion is wrong.

    :tongue:
     
  15. Aug 18, 2005 #14

    arildno

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper
    Gold Member
    Dearly Missed

    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.
     
  16. Aug 18, 2005 #15
    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?
     
  17. Aug 18, 2005 #16
    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.
     
  18. Aug 18, 2005 #17

    arildno

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper
    Gold Member
    Dearly Missed

    Yes, in the same manner as disciplining your mind to think through issues logically is "constraining" for scientific research.
     
  19. Aug 18, 2005 #18
    Art is intrinsically different than scientific research.
     
  20. Aug 18, 2005 #19

    wolram

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Or even some non human did it, a chimp elephant whatever, or even a pile of bricks, utter tosh, modern art is not.
     
  21. Aug 18, 2005 #20

    arildno

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper
    Gold Member
    Dearly Missed

    "Intrinsical". That's a fancy word.
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?



Similar Discussions: When the Mona Lisa was stolen from the louvre museum in paris in 1911
  1. Will Lisa work (Replies: 5)

  2. Creation Museum (Replies: 112)

  3. Overrated Mona Lisa? (Replies: 48)

Loading...