The Louvre is such a monumental museum. During my visit, I remember feeling overwhelmed by the sheer number of pieces in it (artistic and other). The museum itself is architectonically worthy of admiring. I was honestly surprised to notice the level of indifference most visitors show for the majority of the pieces; and the aggressive drive of people, not even to see the Mona Lisa but, to have a selfie with it. After seeing the famous painting for a couple of minutes, the locals I was there with turned around and told me, “Let’s go home. Now you’ve seen everything there’s to see here”. And I was like, “Wait, what?”.
I taught Korean students in ESL and one of the speaking activities I gave to them is to tell me stories of the places they traveled in. Almost all of them have traveled to my dream places and one of them is Louvre, Paris. I will ask them what is the best paintings they saw and it comes with the same answer: "Mona Lisa". I will proceed to ask what other paintings they saw and they became quiet. This upsets me because they have the chance to see the other paintings of Leonardo Da Vinci, artifacts preserved 6000 years ago and Greek statues that you can only see in movies. And here they are, focusing on that one painting of Mona Lisa. They may not be much of a art buff like some people but can they at least consider exploring the place? They are missing an opportunity where they can see famous pieces that they can only see once in their life time.
@@melodybaoin1425 gosh this is so true, i feel so upset because i would so love to explore the place and the only thing they focus on is a globally known lady with a smile? Dang.
@@Sephoronstew i think its different for common ppl. They only put their attention to the famous ones. Sadly that's how society works. If i were in that museum id stay all day admiring the masterpieces there
Although it’s been 10 years since my last visit what amazed me was to see the variety of world famous paintings, statues, and timeless art pieces… the most ironic was the direct opposte wall of Mono Lisa was one of the largest canvases, near entire wall of a painting. I saw it as her view of the art world not us visitors .
"Girl with pearl earring" is much more engaging. The Mona Lisa could use a good cleaning and restoration to remove centuries of schmutz and bring back the original color.
@@ericalbany definitely but current day conservation techniques can help not only revitalise the paintings, but are now also removable without harming the painting itself!
@@ericalbany AFAIK they weren't lost, it was fashionable at the time to shave them, many renaissance dames are shown with no eyebrows or with extremely thin ones, same goes for the big forehead
I'm pretty sure Leonardo would've agreed with you here. It's definitely overrated, as a Da Vinci painting goes. Leo's other areas of work were far more remarkable than this small portrait.
Leonardo worked on the Mona Lisa for decades right up to his death. He considered it his most important work, and he drew from all of his scientific and artistic knowledge to paint it. I don't think Da'Vinci would agree.
@@oswalddupree6064 Don't conflate the time it took to paint it with how much he cared for the piece. To start, it did not take "Decades", it took 4 years to paint because he was suffering from partial paralysis. It wouldn't even make sense for it to take multiple decades. The subject would look considerably different from when he started and he would need to keep redoing it.
No, as a scientist he has no merit, and his name is never mentioned in serious history of science, of the simple reason that he never made any scientific discovery of importance. And his inventions (which only existed on paper): His "helicopter" was only an upscaled children's toy that had been imported from Asia decades before. The parachute wasn't his idea either. And his "tank" was just silly, so clumsy it could never work.
@@Stroheim333 Not that we were really talking about that, considering this is a video and a comment about the Mona Lisa, I have to argue against the fact that “He held no merit” as a scientist. He conceptualized a lot of very important innovations and concepts. He wasn’t exactly Oppenheimer or something, but he’s definitely more a lauded scientist than the phony goons we have today like Bill Nye or Neil DeGrasse Tyson.
On the opposite wall with Mona Lisa is the Wedding at Cana by Paolo Veronese. Infinitely more impressive wall size painting with vibrant colors, many characters and lots of action and yet no one is looking at it; everyone flocks to the Mona Lisa replica behind the glass with a 2m barrier. This room is a satire of human kind.
it is a really beautiful painting indeed, i would never call mona lisa worse in any sort of way, but it's kinda frustrating that she takes all the spotlight for herself
If you want to engage with the Mona Lisa, you could do a better job just watching this video rather than lining up for an hour in the Louvre just to see it from a distance with a packed crowd in front of you, just for you to say "I saw it." Instead, go find something you haven't seen before, that will take your breath away because you haven't seen it reproduced a thousand times already. I think every work of art has value, and I try to honor the famous and non-famous alike.
When I climbed a Mayan pyramid in the Yucatan back in 2020, that was breath taking, even life changing in a way as in opening my eyes on how amazing the world around me can be while also giving me the bragging rights that I climbed such an ancient structure. Seeing a painting like the Mona Lisa, while it might be kind of neat, I imagine will never top my experience there in Mexico.
i just visited the louvre yesterday - theres space on the left and right side of the room where you can walk past the “line” and see the mona lisa in about the same perspective, you just cant get a good picture of it. it was breathtaking seeing such a powerful piece of history, but I cant imagine anyone waiting in a line like that wants to stare and admire the painting for what it is
It's interesting to see that most of the cultural standing the Mona Lisa has today is rooted not in its artistry but in the narrative that was created after the painting was stolen. This narrative is easy to understand, whereas it probably takes years of thoughtful engagement with art to develop the necessary skills to adequately assess and appreciate the artistic value of a painting. Most of the people whose opinions constitute the public opinion probably aren't art experts, so it only makes sense that such a narrative has a great influence on the public perception of art. However, this makes me wonder in which other areas similar narratives might distort reality-especially in areas where I lack the expertise to independently form my own informed opinion.
Coming from someone who spends lots of time reading books on the Second World War I’ve found that people prefer simple and emotionally gratifying explanations rather than accurate ones that involve nuance. Often what they look for in an explanation is either one that gives an inaccurate and simple explanation just to be lazy or, quite unfortunately, one that gives them the ability to be the “smarter” or “correct” one in a conversation. Take early war German military success as an example. One group listens to the simple answer of “blitzkrieg” which can then be regurgitated in front of other people or simply fill a space in their head. Another group listens to the answer that they just got lucky and the Allies were just playing easy, with this explanation being used to put down the first group. Both answers offer simple, gratifying explanations without taking much knowledge to spit out and thus become popular, leaving malformed and inaccurate views as the dominant ones held by the general public. The main factors in this issue as laid out in my example are people being lazy, people aiming to look smart/cultured without putting in the effort to become so or people just trying to find an easy way to put others down. All of this being done instead of aiming to find the most accurate information possible given their resources since that requires a modicum of effort. Unfortunately I see little way to fix this issue in our society but at least we can self spot and prevent foolish behaviour like it in ourselves. I therefore declare that the Mona Lisa is a painting that I don’t really understand!
It's a piece that's works at being famous for the sake of being famous. You don't know the Mona Lisa as the "piece that got stolen" you just know the "Mona Lisa". Our image of what this painting should represent is very artificial if you ask me and it really just feels like it just that. I'm not Picasso or anything but I've done art for about 3 years now and from a artistic point of view it's a impressive portrait that serves its purpose but when viewing things from a artistic design element there is not much distinguish it from the already millions of portraits. It could be just the bias of perspective but if you where to put any other portrait of the time and give it the same story as the Mona Lisa would it be as acclaimed? Depending on how you answer that question you might find what is the answer. I mention bias because maybe it's that our idea of the painting is so strong that maybe something about it really does mean something.
Videogames, for instance, they have an awful reputation for being violent, stupefying and senseless; but as a videogame collector and fanatic, i can tell you that videogames have some of the most engaging and profound stories that i've experienced. Visually and musically. You can take a look at games like GRIS, Gorogoa, Undertale, This war of mine, Papers Please, and the list goes on. If you haven't play and you still have this stigmatic vision of videogames, i really recommend you to start with one of those.
Honestly I always thought the only reason people went to see the Mona Lisa was to appreciate its historical value, not because it looks amazing. It was kind of surprising to me that many people go to see the painting mainly to enjoy the art itself.
I mean, Leonardo painted Mona Lisa for 16 years. He used everything he had, changing and experimenting and he only stopped with his death. It's hardly an ordinary painting, even by Leonardo's standards. And people get disappointed seeing her for the same reason why devoted Christians get disappointed seeing Jerusalem - because it's just a city, and just a painting. It's much less mystical than the image in your head, created by years and decades of second-handed awe. When you have an expectation like that, reality will always disappoint you.
He didn't exactly work on it for 16 years - he did 4, then left it be, then returned to it 11 years later. Also he was partially paralyzed for noticable chunk of this time, which definetly slowed down the process
Yes sure why literally no one is doing this with Velázquez or Rembrandt portraits? The idea of this painting being indeed cr*p comes from academic circles and from a technical standpoint, and prob has bleed into the masses. But comes from an actually informed viewpoint, while the worship comes ALWAYS from ignorance.
@@mazolab To be fair, you have to have a very high IQ to understand Honestly, Nevermind. The lyrics are extremely subtle, and without a solid grasp of Rhyme schemes and wordplay most of the punchlines will go over a typical viewer's head. There's also Drake's nihilistic outlook, which is deftly woven into his songs- his personal philosophy draws heavily from 2pac and Bigge style, for instance. The fans understand this stuff; they have the intellectual capacity to truly appreciate the depths of these songs, to realize that they're not just lit- they say something deep about LIFE. As a consequence people who dislike Honestly, Nevermind truly ARE idiots. of course they wouldn't appreciate, for instance, the humour in Drake's existencial catchphrase "Your pussy is callin' my name, So come on, baby, let's stop playing games" which itself is a cryptic reference to Bigg's song Drownin'. I'm smirking right now just imagining one of those addlepated simpletons scratching their heads in confusion as Drake's genius worldplay unfolds itself on their headphones. What fools... how I pity them. 😂 And yes by the way, I DO have a Honestly, Nevermind tattoo. And no, you cannot see it. It's for the ladies' eyes only- And even they have to demonstrate that they're within 5 IQ points of my own (preferably lower) beforehand.
@@SoftBoiledArt The unique thing about the Mona Lisa from other portraits from a technical standpoint is aerial perspective which was invented by the producer itself, leonardo da vinci. If you took a look at portraits and other various types of art from that time, you'd notice they lack aerial perspective and seem flat due to lack of depth in comparison to Mona Lisa. Hope this helps.
This painting was innovative in: painting technique (sfumatura), the fantasy background and aerial perspective and most importantly, the pose. It was the first angle of it's kind as a portrait as nobles were previously posed as side views and set the template for centuries to come. That is why it is important. 8 out of 10 are not going to know that and the gallery experience is a circus. Particularly when there are equally important paintings in the same room. To discredit it for being too famous is like hating vanilla ice cream. Just an opinion.
The second part of your message is what matters when literally people thinks is the best portrait ever done. In the end for the masses is a pop image and something they've been indoctrinated into, and for people with interest in the arts it's a relic but never something to learn from. The whole thing is kinda fake yes.
@@SoftBoiledArt not fake, just old, redundant and mundane compared to what we can create today. It’s a false representation of the peak of art, a false idol. The best thing to call the Mona Lisa is overrated and misused as the highlight of art, because it is.
Mmm. The pose had been in use by at least 30 years - by Leonardo and others. For example, the portrait of Ginevra de' Benci was painted ~30 years earlier, possibly by Leonardo himself, and it has the same pose. Jacob van Eyck's 'Man in a Red Turban' is from the 1430s. Fantasy landscapes in aerial perspective are also way older than the Gioconda, as is the use of sfumato. It's not even the first painting to combine all four attributes - the Madonna of the Carnation (if one allows it as a 'portrait') was painted also about 30 years earlier, it uses sfumato, a front-facing pose of the two characters, and it has a fantastic landscape in the background, seen from an elevated perspective. First 'non-religious work' etc. etc. - maybe, but it starts sounding like one is building a case for the Gioconda by Leonardo being the first example of the Gioconda by Leonardo.
@@dlevi67 I am only relaying what I learned. I did mention it pertained to noble portraiture and not the standard pose of madonnas with baby. The earlier examples being by him were not perhaps the best representation and culminated most elegantly with this portrait. Ginevra is a head shot, the inclusive ½ pose with the hands made the difference. There is also the little extra where the mouth oscilates from a serious gaze into a subtle smile depending on whether you are looking at her eyes or not. That in itself is a special trait most, if not all portraits have failed to achieve. I am not a crazed advocate for the painting but I certainlyappreciate innovative painting when it exists.
@@AI-xs4fpNot really (leaving aside that you described the pose innovation as "front rather than profile"): 1/2 bust pose with hands - Lady with Ermine; late 1480s. Portrait of a Musician; early 1480s. And that's sticking to Leonardo's oeuvre. Plenty more in Netherlandish painting (Rogier van der Weyden as an example - he died in 1464, when Leonardo was 12) It's a very nice painting (like pretty much anything coming from Leonardo, or even from that period), but even the "innovativeness" is part of the pop culture legend rather than the reality.
I can see the reasons why you dislike the Mona Lisa. When I was younger, I thought the painting was pretty boring. Actually, today this is the exact reason why I love the Mona Lisa; it became a symbol of empowerment to me. The Mona Lisa has no vibrant colours, no excitement, actually it looks like an ordinary woman with dark, matte tones. And this is what I love: Especially women often are supposed to be beautiful, shining and vibrant. Mona Lisa is an ordinary, boring looking woman and she STILL holds power. Her smile shows the confidence in herself, the knowledge of that power that she doesnt have to show off. The message to me is: You dont need to be special, nor vibrant or obvious to be powerful, to make a change or have a meaning. That painting reminds me of what is truly important in life and that it'S always worth to take a second look at things. Mona Lisa is art to me.
@@xeibei4804 They wrote an entire message about how the art was highly engaging and life changing for them yet you keep repeating the same thing like a trained puppy because you are a sheep that doesnt have a mind to think for himself. Shut it.
This comment up me is actually very correct, the fact that such a boring painting is famous kinda gives it power... however, I think the Mona Lisa shouldn't have as much attention, we are ignroing other pieces of art at the Louvre for this woman
@@berberrb-3754 I agree with you. However, the attention a painting receives is always given by people, it has little to do with the actual painting but with our decision what we praise. So in my opinion we can still see the Mona Lisa as the masterpiece that it is and appreciate other paintings. We can appreciate and give attention to every kind of art without taking down another. Maybe its not about the Mona Lisa at all, but about the mindset with which a lot of people approach art in general.
In my case, I found the Mona Lisa underwhelming since I was a child because it was boring. Yeah, she has a cute mysterious smile but I can see talented actresses on Tv do it but in some cases, even better. I enjoy looking at artworks that make me feel something. Looking at the Mona Lisa makes me go, "Huh, she is kinda cute but I have seen better."
It's frankly only famous because it was stolen. Da Vinci has made far more incredibly works that have now gone unnoticed due to the Mona Lisa's iconography. The Baptism of Christ is, in my opinion, incredibly underrated, especially with how early in his career it was made.
This is simply false- and I hope you don't take this to heart since it is not personally aimed at you, however I've observed in these comments many people who say similar things as you and it simply made me realise how much people want to hate things. And it is also not only famous because it was stolen, and it was also known before that Da Vinci deeply cared about it, being one of the paintings he chose to take with him to Paris and the fact that he discontinuously worked on it for 16 years until his passing and never calling it a finished work say a lot about it in my opinion.
The Reason it was Stolen is because it's Famous. Not the other way around. A lot of modern art people just cannot fathom how a small insignificant painting can easily outshine most gigantic masterpieces. Yes, it look disappointing to the common man upon seeing, because it's just a simple by the waist portrait which is no different to millions of other portrait. Portraits of great men and women throughout. It pains most art theorist cannot explain away the unique beauty or the simple banality of the painting. It's hard piece to characterize, analyze or internalize. Some do try but never brought about a real consensus. Perhaps the Mona Lisa exemplify what Art is, totally inexplicable and continually contentious.
This is an honestly painful to read load of bs. Art is not democratic and the value is decided among a few noblemen or billionaires for reasons not directly related to creative or technical aspects. For the middlemen it's literally the only portrait they know and they've been "educated" to "know" that's one of the most important pieces ever done because there's a HUGE economic interest in doing so. And the middleman don't have reference or education to even know if this is comparatively worse or better than any other portrait or in wich way. It's literally just a pop icon.
I was lucky enough to visit the Louvre in 2019 fresh out of highschool and I remember being incredibly disappointed at the Mona Lisa, it's a fairly generic portrait on a small canvas a room away But like, a room or two over there are huge masterpieces of historic figures like Jeanne d'Arc and myths like the Odyssey and it makes this tiny portrait even less impressive
When the Mona Lisa was painted, people had never seen anything so realistic before. Contemporary Renaissance painting was essentially outlines that had had colour painted between them, very much as children's colouring books are today. Leonardo's sfumato created the illusion of atmosphere and of three dimensions that had never been seen before. That stated, Realism has come a long way in the past 500 years; so, she doesn't have the effect she had back in 1510. The problem is, of course, that "people look at paintings with their ears," and swallow the rubbish that art popularists tell them. Her smile, by the way, is a pun on her name. "Giocondo" means "light-hearted" or "carefree," in Italian. Leonardo often puns in his paintings: the juniper bush (ginepro) behind his Ginevra de' Benci is another example.
Not necessarily, paintings from the 1400s show that people were able to get similar results and we're still very detailed, such as the Arnolfini Portrait. Not to mention his previous works like The Last Supper which was in 1498 or any of his other previous portraits. There was also The Triumph of Virtues which was dated circa 1502, Michelangelo was doing similar techniques around the same time as he painted the Sistine Chapel. My point being Da Vinci wasn't the only person who invented the technique nor was it the first time people saw such realism
I never really considered my thoughts towards the Mona Lisa. Which were none. The thought provoking question of whether or not she was smiling was just a passing moment that I never really got back to because...well..to me it's not that thought provoking. This is a great topic and honestly makes me think more about the art of loss but not forgotten. Just like things in life there are things that we don't appreciate until it's removed. In my opinion, a good example of that is Unus Annus. The build up for the channels ultimate departure was massive. And the recognition of that departure is part of what drove everyone to witness essentially it's end. Personally I think that is a far more compelling discussion rather than having to talk about facial expressions. Which funnily enough, wasn't even Leonardo da Vincis intention. Another great video dood! Keep up the great work!
I hope that people living in the US have an opportunity to see Da Vinci’s Ginevra de’ Benci at the National Gallery in DC (free admission). It’s the only Da Vinci oil painting in the Western Hemisphere (for public viewing, at least). It’s a lovely painting, and without a mob that typifies the Mona Lisa experience at the Louvre, there is ample time to scrutinize the painting (front and back). It’s in a gallery room with contemporaries Fra Lippi and Botticelli, so you can compare painting styles and see why many gravitate toward Da Vinci. Also, if you have time, docent tours restarted this week. I went on two different ones and both covered the painting (plus an interesting story about how the National Gallery acquired the painting)
Well fair enough. I'm someone who still believes that the Mona Lisa is a really really REALLY great work of art because, let's face it, even after 500 years of it's existence, it still conveys every single detail. You can see the subtle shadow of her eyelids on her eyes, her soft smile, every single shadow beautifully merged into the face, the drapes (Leonardo's speciality) of her sleeves with their tremendous golden detail. The background that makes you focus on nothing but the person on the painting. The sheer softness of the art piece is mind boggling to me. It's the softness that only Leonardo's paintings can bring. It's a treat to the eyes and almost soothing. While I understand that the thought provoking factor is important in a painting, it's not mandatory. Especially in portraits. I think over time people forgot that The Mona Lisa is a portrait and not a piece of artistic thought and emotion painted on canvas. Not every painting needs to have a meaning, not every painting needs to provoke thought. Some paintings just need the softness and sheer beauty like the Mona Lisa has
If you believe "only Leonardo's paintings could bring that softness", then you know nothing about art and you should keep on learning. Mona Lisa is one of his lesser works, besides Leonardo was a lousy painter compared to the true masters.
Who is really interrested in paintings will find his own piece of art. The "Mona Lisa" is more a cultural thing than a painting, but there is no reason to not like it.
If it’s original state had been preserved, the vibrant colors and the subtly in the process of coloring the layers of glaze, i’m confident it could live up to the hype. But sadly we cant do the standard cleaning and repair methods of revarnishing, as so satisfyingly portrayed in youtube videos, without removing that very element.
I nominate Fallen Angel by Alexandre Cabanel it has so much power and overwhelming passion! I really just reasonate with it, It saddens me that at the time he painted it. It got shitted on cause pretentious religious judges didn't understand it and found it controversial. It is beautiful and feels powerful with how it relays complex emotion.
Yes for the most part the Mona Lisa is famous for being famous. That said, the image was and is a step forward in portraiture. Secondly, the influence that the painting has had on later artists is not addressed. I have seen it. I found those crowded around the painting more interesting than the painting itself because most of the people viewing it had no idea of what they were looking at or its significance. I think more than any thing else the painting verifies that most people are intellectually lazy. The Mona Lisa is in the final analysis, an important marker of how media has influenced the public in the worse way in the 20th and 21st Centuries.
I think the Mona Lisa can be appreciated in one sense in that it has surpassed the “normal-ish portrait of a woman.” I agree it is not exactly breath-taking by itself. But while at the Louvre, I saw the never ending line of people to take a selfie with her as a form of performative art not unlike Jackson Pollock’s videotapes performances for the public. This small, (almost) unremarkable painting is now a part of pop art, the internet of things and the people going to see her are a part of the experience. I sat back and enjoyed to see how some people tried to get as close as possible to her, while others shuffled awkwardly past, only taking a second to pause and look, seemingly to check it off their bucket list. I found it more interesting than the actual painting by itself!
The reason I find the Mona Lisa interesting and alluring is not for the image itself, or even its popularity. Its origins are far more involved and hilarious than the simple "portrait" we see today. For example, her name is not Mona Lisa. It is just Lisa. "Mona" means "my lady", so this is a title of her name, Lisa. This painting is Da Vinci's "My lady, Lisa." The other reason is its sheer history. There are DOZENS of layers of paint beneath the image we see now. There are theories that Da Vinci carried this canvas as a sketchpad, basically, to paint on when he was inspired, or for practice, and then painted over again later. Plus, my favorite theory: that this is a self-portrait of Da Vinci in drag. It would be hilarious, and would explain the cheeky smile "she" gives the audience. The idea is that Da Vinci painted himself as a woman as a joke, and it became a running gag that he managed to impress anyone with it all.
The thing about art is that its appreciation is entirely subjective. There is no "I'm sure you will all agree with me" in art. I heard many people saying that while calling the urinal piece a piece of trash, and also being sure that everyone would agree with them (and I do, but I don't pretend that my opinion is the "right" one by any means, it's only mine). The Mona Lisa doesn't do "more harm than good" any more than the urinal thing does and what it means for people's exposure to its brand of contemporary art. There are absolutely no absolutes in art. There are no "right reasons" or "wrong reasons" to like, appreciate, engage, or give importance to a certain piece of art. You personally find no way of engaging with the Mona Lisa, but some people do. Same goes with music, literature, and any other form of artistic expression.
Touché, what an underappreciated comment. Like, a dude with the artsy hipster looks tries to dethrone Mona fucking Lisa in the internet. This tells more of flaws in our culture today than of any flaw in the original painting, nor any flaw in our collective cultural conscience, that has made this painting so popular. Like, for example, the video hipster doesn't seem to know that this painting revolutionised the art of portrait painting. Also the paintings and themes he chooses as "intellectually aspiring" or something look like a fucking mess, subjectively to me.
Art is full of people who feel the owners of the "right taste", so to say, and anyone else who doesn't agree must be because thy "don't want to think" or be challenged intellectually or some absurdity like that. Any online forum is full of this kind of toxic discourse that cannot seem to be able to enjoy what they enjoy without putting down what others enjoy. Shakespeare's fans belittling teenage girls for enjoying YA dystopias, and hipsters with their obscure indie writers belittling people who love the classics because they're "overrated". People who feel superior because they go to the opera versus people who scoff on the ones who enjoy opera. Can't we just enjoy what we like and let everyone else do the same without judgment?
Love your perspective on it! I personally never really had an opinion on the Mona Lisa. As an artist myself, I could never exactly tell why I just could not bring myself to care about the Mona Lisa. I just thought it was pretty. While finding other art pieces, like the black paintings by Francisco Goya to be much more interesting. But eh it’s my personal taste!
For me, the painting is just bland. Allowing a boring painting to be the benchmark for greatness and respectability in artistic achievement breeds more bland artwork as people are inevitably influence by its status.
Exactly. There's no comparison whatever between the Mona Lisa and, say, Bosch's 'The Garden of Earthly Delights.' They aren't in the same ball park, and the Mona Lisa has actually influenced next to no one.
@@iainrobb2076 Hey! This is wrong though- since it's pretty much the most known painting ever at this point, I believe it has influenced and inspired many people, that's bound to happen. And you can see many many hard worked details in the painting upon closer look, it's a Da Vinci afterall- the craftmanship is nothing to joke about. The composition may be bland but it's simply not a bad painting. One shall also note that "the garden of earthly delights" uses a different painting style than Da Vinci used on the Mona Lisa.
@@daandiid it's simply not a bad painting, but not the greatest work of art ever and it's the most iconic just because of happenstance and not for the artistry, or the (lack of) its engaging and inspiring nature the artistry is very much real, the realism, depth, the smile, but even then I think all of it is exaggerated and overrated the public is acting like sheep
Mona Lisa is so emotionally neutral that represents perfect psychological mirror for the viewer. Her value is exactly in that she can give you perfect insight in your own state of spirit. How you see Mona Lisa is actually the way you see yourself psychologically. This picture is not about art at all, this is a gift to humanity.
I don't know about this "mirror" idea. If I felt terribly depressed or ecstatic I highly doubt I would attach either of those to how Mona Lisa seems to be. She looks to be having an ok day, looking kinda fresh but not like she is about to laugh and that's it.
I can't stop agreeing with you, because I love that kind of art that makes me feel something and I also love that kind of art that can make you think and then you found out you are related with this.
Two things. First, The Mona Lisa isn't actually small, it's a very average sized painting. I was really annoyed when my sister told me how tiny it was, only to find out that her personal disappointment had lead to an exaggeration of the truth. Secondly, Leonardo DaVinci didn't even like that painting. It's an unfinished piece that tormented him. In that aspect, I think there is an importance and meaning behind it. The struggle of an artist, especially one with ADHD. It wasn't what was intended but to me that's what it has become. In another way, The Mona Lisa is essentially that time when you post some work that you're not proud of yet, only for it to get more likes than all of the stuff that you are actually proud of.
Wow, you hit the nail on the head. As someone who suffered from Impressionism fatigue, I feel that commercialism is death knell certain works of art. When I see some with a __________ water bottle,. I wonder if they'd missed out on Fragonard or Velaquez or the Bellini Brothers. I had to take two years of art history at school and I'm still discovering people (many of them women). Thanks for introducing to Sylvia Sleigh As for the Mona Lisa,for my money, I prefer Lady with an Ermine.
6:34 That Goya's art work about Saturn devouring his son was later inspired from the Japanese anime and manga hit series, Attack on Titan were the Titans ate humans wherever they attacked within the town of Wall Maria and its neighboring villages.
I remember learning about the Mona Lisa I’m elementary school. They fought us that it was famous because of her half smiling half frowning look. When I went to Paris I took a tour that passed by the Louvre, and I heard the true story of how the painting became famous for the first time. The Mona Lisa had been stolen multiple times, by the same person no less, and it became famous because of that. This story intrigued me in a way I’m sure it did many others, and it makes you want to see what a painting that keeps being stolen looks like. After that trip that particular experience stuck with me. It absolutely baffled me that such a famous peace of history would be so heavily miss taught and miss-interpreted by my school. Instead of telling an engaging story and allowing students to properly contemplate of that, they just said that it was famous for the half smile displayed in the painting.
I went to the Louvre when I was younger. I was fascinated. I dont know a lot about art, but being in a room where the walls are completely covered with awesome paintings that are full of life was incredible. Then my parents dragged me along because we "dont have all day and need to see the Mona Lisa" which was...well....boring as hell. Felt like they put a granola bar in a glass safe and left their gold bars out in the rain.
She can't be dethroned because she was never throned. She's not a building, she is a mountain; part of the landscape of the human mind. To replace her would be to level the redwoods and replace them with a rose garden.
I went to the Louvre years ago so I don't remember most of the paintings I only remember two things the disappointment I felt in the Mona Lisa room and the awe I felt when I saw the statue of Nike of Samothrace
My least favorite part of art museums is having to push through and wait for the idiots with their cameras to move, I don’t understand going to a art gallery just to take a photo and walk away, my Starry Night experience was tarnished by dozens of people taking photos in front of it and walking away and barely even taking a glance at ir
I remember seeing it when I was 14 years old spending a summer in France studying. I had a similar reaction and felt that there was something wrong with me. If someone sent me into only that gallery of the museum, not knowing anything about art, the 'Mona Lisa' would have been at the bottom of my rankings. I saw it again as a middle aged person and felt the same. Maybe it should be taken out of view and returned later to see if there is still as much excitment about it.
The fact that this painting has captivated so many people says enough. Was this art created so people could judge it or enjoy it? If it was so that people enjoy it, it has surpassed all expectations.
everything you stated is exactly how I felt when I saw it. I am an art history nerd and wanted to see what was so amazing about the painting and I just couldn't seem to really like it. Boring is the easiest was to put it or underwhelming. What was super impressive were the massive paintings in the other rooms. Just the scale and effort put into those paintings was mind blowing.
Great video. I also appreciate art that makes me think. Do you think we could also say that the very fact that she’s so dull & overrated - and how people engage in artworks like Mona Lisa just because they’re famous - poses interesting questions (e.g., about the meaning of art)? It’s not a question raised deliberately by the creator, but a question that arises indeed & may still make engagement with the work meaningful. When I see crowds of people taking pictures of famous paintings in museums, it makes me think things like: why bother to visit these works when images of them are easily accessible on the internet? Why do people spend more time looking at the artwork through their cameras than seeing them directly? Going through these thought processes itself could be quite stimulating in a way? :)
This is something that definitely bothered me when visiting museums, people spent more time posing and taking photos than looking at the work, even if it was prohibited taking photos!
Mona Lisa is overrated comapared to other works by Leonardo da Vinci like for e.g his fresque "The Last Supper". What makes Leonardo da Vinci so great is that he made his paintings with lots of precision and put some hidden messages in his works. They recquired great knowledge not only anatomical one but also from other realms of knowledge like for e.g sacred geometry. That's why Leonardo da Vinci still inspires lots of artists like Dan Brown.
I remember watching a documentary about a middle-aged couple (or was it a family?) and the father had always wanted to go and see the Mona Lisa. And when asked how he felt about seeing the painting for the first time, one could tell his words doesn't match his feelings. He might have said it was nice, but I felt a sort of disappointment from him. And I felt so sorry for the man whose experience with art was far too rare and few - to have experienced Mona Lisa in that crowded museum room.
I personally find the soul behind any art more important. To see the mind behind it bleeding through the canvas or frames or clay. Sometimes it's a reflection of personal turmoil. Sometimes it's the boiling point of societal frustration. Sometimes it's small and simple, something made to bring beauty to a battered and desperate mind. I hate soulless art more than anything. Whatever you make, leave your soul within it.
As Da Vinci stated in his CV to Sforza “ I’m an engineer,… and I could also paint” as a last thing on his list of passions in life. But I cannot overlook the fact that he dedicated a good amount of effort on it and took the Gioconda with him wherever he went and, apparently, didn’t finish it the way he wanted.
I live near Paris, so I have the opportunity to go in the Louvres and other museums really often. And indeed, the Louvres have other paintings that destroyed my mind far more the the Mona Lisa ( The work of Eugène Delacroix for example). Even some other museum like the museum of Orsay or the Pompidou museum are really interesting.
A couple weeks ago, I was in Yerevan and visited probably a dozen art museums, including the Sergei Parajanov Museum. One exhibition showcases how Parajanov recreated the Mona Lisa in about a dozen different ways, how he perceives the painting, and the almost ridiculous backstory that inspired all of this. If you get the chance, go visit Yerevan and that museum! As an artist, you would love it, and there is a card you can purchase for cheap that lets you into almost all the museums for free.
I'm glad a serious conversation has begun about this. I've adored her moreso since Great Art Explained's video of her, so my opinion is she's well deserving of her art world throne. And yes, the shallowness of the crowd is indiscreet. That's just the price to pay for crowning (letting, however inevitably) a "world's most important painting," agreeing with it, best, like how you did, to educate; from my point it's good something great like this to 'take another look,' as James said it, seriously.
I wanted to go to the Louvre to see some of the 18th century French realism on display. I saw the Mona Lisa which had a crowd of well over a hundred people in a fairly small room, and the realist paintings… I was the only one there yet they had ten times more to say
I love the texture/curl of her hair and the fact that she has no eyebrows, makes me curious if it was a mistake or intentional. It engages my brain as much as looking at a tree; Pretty, not a ton to it, but still lifts my mood with how simple and serene it is 🤷🏾♀
When I was a child, about 8-9, our art teacher made us do a series of replicas of famous painting for school (including van gogh's Sunflowers, Tarsila's Abaporu, Hokusai's Great Wave, and of course, the Mona Lisa). I honestly think that was the turning point that made me an artist, that flipped the switch. Of course the paintings we did were "bad", but I remember looking into Lisa's eyes and feeling something incredible. Like starring into someone's soul. Like they were reading me, like she could move. So, my experience with Mona Lisa is very positive I guess. Haha. I wish I get to see it live one day.
That's kind of sad my dude, it's a sub-par portrait of a plain looking woman. Her eyes are blank, dead, and as boring as the rest of the piece. It does not deserve it's fame, it's a shit painting.
I couldn't agree more, thank you for this. I really never could stand all the hype, while I find the painting boring I could always appreciate the artistry. In a way it also elevated from a work of art, to proof or statement of how vulnerable people can be to exaggeration, hearsay, marketing for experiences or products. If people stopped for even just a minute to think critically about why they desire for things and experiences, they could become at peace and better selves.
I'm absolutely with you on this. I find the painting dreary and tedious. I also have no enjoyment looking at most of the works of Van Gogh. With so many beautiful, challenging and engaging artworks in the world, how on earth did these rise to the status they now hold?
I feel that your inference that the Mona Lisa as an agent of misdirection for many is somewhat overstated as you, perhaps understandably, extend a considerable portion if thoughtfulness to the average observer. That they are considering concepts such as brushwork, process, impact, intent, etc. However, as a severely lapsed artist I know that near paramount among reasons that I’ve allowed to stifle me is an early and growing awareness that, by far, most observers, so-called, 'appreciation' of art tends to be based on either one, two or both camps - First, that they’ve accepted an edict issued by people they regard to be more knowledgeable than themselves. Second - probably most influential - their own ingrained belief that they, themselves, are incapable of producing art of any kind much less on the order of a DaVinci. Many will mock a Picasso or Pollock until they attempt to mimic them only to discover their own level of capability or incapability and change their tune to either determine the effort involved more worthy of praise than they’d thought OR proclaim that they simply regard the work unworthy of praise based on their presumption of having a personal taste to apply for judgement - “It doesn’t look realistic.“ A position which, one often finds, regards 50’s era pulp magazine cover art at leas near equal to the work of Jan Vermeer! It’s unfair to blame Mona Lisa for this state of affairs.
i remember visiting the louvre with my mother. i was already an art fiend so i told my mother not to expect anything much from the mona lisa. we went in early, glanced at the mona lisa and off we went. i was far more excited to see monet's water lilies, which actually made me weep a little because of their sheer size and tranquil beauty. seriously, you have no idea how large monet's canvases where until you are standing right in front of them.
Eu sempre fui uma pessoa que amo muito arte, e quero fazer arte mas eu quase não conhecia pinturas lindas interessantes e cheias de história porque estava sempre sendo limitada pelos os quadros mais famosos, que não deixam o trono e não querem deixar espaço para outras pinturas reinarem também
I mean I gotta agree, I felt cheated when I saw the painting at the Louvre. For me it was because it was small. For some reason I thought it would be bigger
I went to Vienna this September and I saw the Kiss by Klimt. It was impressive! It was huge and the gold leaf was giving it an almost deified glow. It was leagues more impressive than any print of the painting I have seen. The Mona Lisa in comparison does leave you a bit wanting....
It is more than art, one could say the same thing about a famous building, a bridge, or a view. Millions of people say for example that Peggy's Cove is the most picturesque place in Canada, but I bet that there are many who don't feel this way, but part of the human experience is to not go against the flow. I myself found the cove absolutely charming and took many photos and just stood there to feel the place and would happily go back again, there is nothing to say against it, yet I have seen other places that I thought were equally beautiful in their own way. Is the "hype" surrounding the Mona Lisa due to the artist, the painting, the feelings one gets looking at it, the smile or is it just the so many people have said it's the best that no one wants to go against that, the emperor's new clothes, or in todays argot FOMO. The other aspect is that even if I don't get any feel good memories from something, that doesn't mean others don't as well. Further many artists being long dead cannot be asked certain whys about their work. Without knowing exactly why the artist chose that scene, or their mood during the time of the commission, its may not be possible to truly understand it. However, while I agree with you for many reasons, I also ask why do you think its necessary to perhaps tell millions of people that they were wrong in enjoying that piece. I truly enjoy your take on great art, and will certainly view more of your work,
It's kind of funny that people complain about the Mona Lisa being small, but if it were bigger (and therefore harder to steal), the theft that sensationalized it so much in the first place might have never happened.
I agree with your comments about the Mona Lisa, though I don't presume to judge it myself, not having seen it. If I go to Paris I will be looking for Manet's 'Olympia' instead. My first priority in looking at art is visual reward rather than philosophy, which comes as a bonus on occasion. The only time I have reacted overwhelmingly to a painting was when seeing A Landscape of Delft by Vermeer, when alone with it for twenty minutes on a cold November Sunday, but I can enjoy looking at or trying to read art without feeling obliged to intellectualise the experience.
size is a weird thing for me, i remember being in the prado and seeing one of their dürers, i think. and it was tiny! and i'd known that painting forever and seeing how small it was, kinda really put it in perspective. not in a bad way but in a sort of, oh, books show us a blown-up version of this! i think painting size is really important and it conveys a lot about how much canvas the person had to give their idea life and the logistics of carrying it around and what that meant for everything else. like, big things cost more money and they take longer and you have to understand the size of the thing and where it will go, and few people would have invested in this for the sheer love of it. idk, anyway, i haven't seen the mona lisa and i'm very much not going to under the circumstances (crowds??!!) and it doesn't really interest me, people just sort of seem obsessed with it and i'm not sure the portrait has that much it has to say. so thank you for putting this into words, that was really helpful.
Another wonderful video. Your arguments here, as they often are, were compelling. I’ve never liked this painting or any what I call classical painting because it just so dull
Mona Lisa has always been a portrait of someone looking for a fight for me. I knew because I had faught with people who gave me "that look". Personally the painting is overpraised
Totally agree. You can visit the Louvre for free on Friday nights and I probably visited the galleries of the Louvre a dozen times I almost never stopped in front of the mona lisa I love many parts of the museum but I never related to the success of that painting
A well made video and cannot fault it - yet I respectfully disagree. I love the nuances that have to occur for something to become as successful as it will become. Sgt Peppers is the greatest album of all time - except it very much isn’t. The Mona Lisa transcends everything.
you're actually wrong here. the mona lisa has been confirmed over and over again that it was one of the most popular paintings in the louvre before it was stolen.
I walked past the doorway of the room the Mona Lisa was in, saw the crowds, glanced at the painting, decided it was not worth the effort and walked on by to see the other wonderful art in the Louvre.
HELL YES. It is overexposed and everyone knows it by heart. It’s better in our mind than in reality. The idea has grown way way way beyond the actual painting. It shows great skill no doubt about it.
I have too like many others stood before this painting at Louvre. I have then, as I do I now, see nothing worthwhile. It’s something I can’t understand maybe but it’s mind boggling that ppl have elevated something normal if not mediocre to a stature of text materiel in childrens books. Love this video for its truth
When I visited the Louvre we had someone in our group who told us all to sink our watches so we could leave on time. She practically sprinted to the Mona Lisa and left. Years later she took a class in college about art and says she really regrets that day. I do as well...
I'm the opposite. Spent a full day at the Louvre and now think "Damm, I couldn't care less about art. Should have done something else instead" Guess it's a perspective thing
I am not interested in the average viewer. I am not interested in what these disappointed crowd thinks. I am interested in knowing what Leonardo thought about it! And that is still a mystery! The skill, the mastery, the genius and the mystery of Leonardo da vinci will be lost on the average viewer who get their kicks from watching digital culture of 21st century. And as of you, it is a lottery through shock!! Shock the people and get views!! 👎
It is a great picture just because of who painted it.Also it is a very human expression in her face almost photographic.Although I have never given her a crown.
I personally think that this opens up an entire conversation about art in general and what society puts on pedestals and what society throws away. While I certainly see value in speaking the methods, the medium, history, and techniques artist use to create master pieces; I think that society, specifically art enthusiast put way to much emphasis in value on a piece that is quote on quote normal like a portrait. Artists learn from other artists, it's the first thing I was taught in college for my degree. And in art history we learn the past through paintings and how artists can and some have been very critical of their society. But in reality they are just that, artwork. They're beautiful, stunning and certainly creative but at the end of the day one painting shouldn't be held to such a high degree on a pedestal than another.
For a moment there, I thought you were going to say, "let's steal another more engaging painting so we can dethrone the Mona Lisa" hahaha But this is such a great video. And I agree, there are far more interesting paintings that deserve the spotlight and attention. And yes, the Mona Lisa is famous for being famous.
Never thought of Mona Lisa as intresting. Honestly yeah it was impressive for the time when it was created. But now it's just..... there's nothing striking about it.
if I recall, DaVinci himself didn't want to show this painting to anyone. He said it was unfinished, as he basically carried it wherever he would travel to. I'll bet he was frustrated with how uninspired and unengaging it was, but knew there was potential in it. He never finished it.
you said it right: Mona Lisa is famous for being famous, like the Kardashians. There may be another angle, which is that the Louvre has a vested economic interest in keeping the Mona Lisa going, ie her fame brings in lots of dollars
Telling the story about La Gioconda's fame just beginning in 1911 when it was stolen is a pretty hopeless oversimplification. If you haven't already done so, you should read Donald Sassoon's book "Mona Lisa. The History of the World's Most Famous Painting" (2001).
Exactly what I am thinking too. Mona Lisa doesn't deserve the monumental place it has in art history. I also disregard the experts who tell us the painting is "well preserved"; it is obviously not well preserved at all, with these colors that all has faded into a uniform murkiness (there is, for example, no reason for the face to be yellowish). Compare with the copies made by Da Vinci's own disciples; they are generally much more well preserved, everyone can see that at a glance.
The Louvre is such a monumental museum. During my visit, I remember feeling overwhelmed by the sheer number of pieces in it (artistic and other). The museum itself is architectonically worthy of admiring. I was honestly surprised to notice the level of indifference most visitors show for the majority of the pieces; and the aggressive drive of people, not even to see the Mona Lisa but, to have a selfie with it. After seeing the famous painting for a couple of minutes, the locals I was there with turned around and told me, “Let’s go home. Now you’ve seen everything there’s to see here”. And I was like, “Wait, what?”.
I taught Korean students in ESL and one of the speaking activities I gave to them is to tell me stories of the places they traveled in. Almost all of them have traveled to my dream places and one of them is Louvre, Paris. I will ask them what is the best paintings they saw and it comes with the same answer: "Mona Lisa". I will proceed to ask what other paintings they saw and they became quiet.
This upsets me because they have the chance to see the other paintings of Leonardo Da Vinci, artifacts preserved 6000 years ago and Greek statues that you can only see in movies. And here they are, focusing on that one painting of Mona Lisa. They may not be much of a art buff like some people but can they at least consider exploring the place? They are missing an opportunity where they can see famous pieces that they can only see once in their life time.
@@melodybaoin1425 gosh this is so true, i feel so upset because i would so love to explore the place and the only thing they focus on is a globally known lady with a smile? Dang.
@@Sephoronstew i think its different for common ppl. They only put their attention to the famous ones. Sadly that's how society works. If i were in that museum id stay all day admiring the masterpieces there
Although it’s been 10 years since my last visit what amazed me was to see the variety of world famous paintings, statues, and timeless art pieces… the most ironic was the direct opposte wall of Mono Lisa was one of the largest canvases, near entire wall of a painting. I saw it as her view of the art world not us visitors .
@@Sephoronstew is it a smile though 😉
"Girl with pearl earring" is much more engaging.
The Mona Lisa could use a good cleaning and restoration to remove centuries of schmutz and bring back the original color.
Cleanings in the distant past actually removed some of the surface details. She's lost her eyebrows for one thing,
@@ericalbany definitely but current day conservation techniques can help not only revitalise the paintings, but are now also removable without harming the painting itself!
@@ericalbany AFAIK they weren't lost, it was fashionable at the time to shave them, many renaissance dames are shown with no eyebrows or with extremely thin ones, same goes for the big forehead
They should get the old lady who 'restored' the mural of Jesus to do it 👍
@@juliee.7072 🤣
I'm pretty sure Leonardo would've agreed with you here. It's definitely overrated, as a Da Vinci painting goes. Leo's other areas of work were far more remarkable than this small portrait.
Leonardo worked on the Mona Lisa for decades right up to his death. He considered it his most important work, and he drew from all of his scientific and artistic knowledge to paint it. I don't think Da'Vinci would agree.
@@oswalddupree6064 Don't conflate the time it took to paint it with how much he cared for the piece. To start, it did not take "Decades", it took 4 years to paint because he was suffering from partial paralysis. It wouldn't even make sense for it to take multiple decades. The subject would look considerably different from when he started and he would need to keep redoing it.
I’m sorry but did you call LEONARDO DA VINCI “leo” as if hes your friend😂😂😂😂😂
No, as a scientist he has no merit, and his name is never mentioned in serious history of science, of the simple reason that he never made any scientific discovery of importance. And his inventions (which only existed on paper): His "helicopter" was only an upscaled children's toy that had been imported from Asia decades before. The parachute wasn't his idea either. And his "tank" was just silly, so clumsy it could never work.
@@Stroheim333 Not that we were really talking about that, considering this is a video and a comment about the Mona Lisa, I have to argue against the fact that “He held no merit” as a scientist. He conceptualized a lot of very important innovations and concepts.
He wasn’t exactly Oppenheimer or something, but he’s definitely more a lauded scientist than the phony goons we have today like Bill Nye or Neil DeGrasse Tyson.
On the opposite wall with Mona Lisa is the Wedding at Cana by Paolo Veronese. Infinitely more impressive wall size painting with vibrant colors, many characters and lots of action and yet no one is looking at it; everyone flocks to the Mona Lisa replica behind the glass with a 2m barrier. This room is a satire of human kind.
true
@@OGBrVb geez dont be so aggressive
@@OGBrVb bro just wanted to express what he feels about this topic don't be so aggressive💀
it is a really beautiful painting indeed, i would never call mona lisa worse in any sort of way, but it's kinda frustrating that she takes all the spotlight for herself
@@OGBrVb Yes, but artist aside, Mona lisa is a shit painting compared to the wedding, objetively
If you want to engage with the Mona Lisa, you could do a better job just watching this video rather than lining up for an hour in the Louvre just to see it from a distance with a packed crowd in front of you, just for you to say "I saw it." Instead, go find something you haven't seen before, that will take your breath away because you haven't seen it reproduced a thousand times already. I think every work of art has value, and I try to honor the famous and non-famous alike.
When I climbed a Mayan pyramid in the Yucatan back in 2020, that was breath taking, even life changing in a way as in opening my eyes on how amazing the world around me can be while also giving me the bragging rights that I climbed such an ancient structure.
Seeing a painting like the Mona Lisa, while it might be kind of neat, I imagine will never top my experience there in Mexico.
i just visited the louvre yesterday - theres space on the left and right side of the room where you can walk past the “line” and see the mona lisa in about the same perspective, you just cant get a good picture of it. it was breathtaking seeing such a powerful piece of history, but I cant imagine anyone waiting in a line like that wants to stare and admire the painting for what it is
Swoon..........
More like the "I can't see!" Lisa, am i right???? 😆😆😆
you are so right
It's interesting to see that most of the cultural standing the Mona Lisa has today is rooted not in its artistry but in the narrative that was created after the painting was stolen. This narrative is easy to understand, whereas it probably takes years of thoughtful engagement with art to develop the necessary skills to adequately assess and appreciate the artistic value of a painting. Most of the people whose opinions constitute the public opinion probably aren't art experts, so it only makes sense that such a narrative has a great influence on the public perception of art. However, this makes me wonder in which other areas similar narratives might distort reality-especially in areas where I lack the expertise to independently form my own informed opinion.
true as is.
Coming from someone who spends lots of time reading books on the Second World War I’ve found that people prefer simple and emotionally gratifying explanations rather than accurate ones that involve nuance. Often what they look for in an explanation is either one that gives an inaccurate and simple explanation just to be lazy or, quite unfortunately, one that gives them the ability to be the “smarter” or “correct” one in a conversation.
Take early war German military success as an example. One group listens to the simple answer of “blitzkrieg” which can then be regurgitated in front of other people or simply fill a space in their head. Another group listens to the answer that they just got lucky and the Allies were just playing easy, with this explanation being used to put down the first group. Both answers offer simple, gratifying explanations without taking much knowledge to spit out and thus become popular, leaving malformed and inaccurate views as the dominant ones held by the general public.
The main factors in this issue as laid out in my example are people being lazy, people aiming to look smart/cultured without putting in the effort to become so or people just trying to find an easy way to put others down. All of this being done instead of aiming to find the most accurate information possible given their resources since that requires a modicum of effort.
Unfortunately I see little way to fix this issue in our society but at least we can self spot and prevent foolish behaviour like it in ourselves. I therefore declare that the Mona Lisa is a painting that I don’t really understand!
It's a piece that's works at being famous for the sake of being famous. You don't know the Mona Lisa as the "piece that got stolen" you just know the "Mona Lisa". Our image of what this painting should represent is very artificial if you ask me and it really just feels like it just that. I'm not Picasso or anything but I've done art for about 3 years now and from a artistic point of view it's a impressive portrait that serves its purpose but when viewing things from a artistic design element there is not much distinguish it from the already millions of portraits.
It could be just the bias of perspective but if you where to put any other portrait of the time and give it the same story as the Mona Lisa would it be as acclaimed? Depending on how you answer that question you might find what is the answer. I mention bias because maybe it's that our idea of the painting is so strong that maybe something about it really does mean something.
In every way but don’t overthink it cause if you needed years of training to have good taste in art then no human would have any hope
Videogames, for instance, they have an awful reputation for being violent, stupefying and senseless; but as a videogame collector and fanatic, i can tell you that videogames have some of the most engaging and profound stories that i've experienced. Visually and musically. You can take a look at games like GRIS, Gorogoa, Undertale, This war of mine, Papers Please, and the list goes on. If you haven't play and you still have this stigmatic vision of videogames, i really recommend you to start with one of those.
Honestly I always thought the only reason people went to see the Mona Lisa was to appreciate its historical value, not because it looks amazing. It was kind of surprising to me that many people go to see the painting mainly to enjoy the art itself.
I mean, Leonardo painted Mona Lisa for 16 years. He used everything he had, changing and experimenting and he only stopped with his death. It's hardly an ordinary painting, even by Leonardo's standards.
And people get disappointed seeing her for the same reason why devoted Christians get disappointed seeing Jerusalem - because it's just a city, and just a painting. It's much less mystical than the image in your head, created by years and decades of second-handed awe. When you have an expectation like that, reality will always disappoint you.
He didn't exactly work on it for 16 years - he did 4, then left it be, then returned to it 11 years later. Also he was partially paralyzed for noticable chunk of this time, which definetly slowed down the process
Yes sure why literally no one is doing this with Velázquez or Rembrandt portraits? The idea of this painting being indeed cr*p comes from academic circles and from a technical standpoint, and prob has bleed into the masses. But comes from an actually informed viewpoint, while the worship comes ALWAYS from ignorance.
fr, if any other painting had such fame it would still be a dissapointment
@@mazolab To be fair, you have to have a very high IQ to understand Honestly, Nevermind. The lyrics are extremely subtle, and without a solid grasp of Rhyme schemes and wordplay most of the punchlines will go over a typical viewer's head. There's also Drake's nihilistic outlook, which is deftly woven into his songs- his personal philosophy draws heavily from 2pac and Bigge style, for instance. The fans understand this stuff; they have the intellectual capacity to truly appreciate the depths of these songs, to realize that they're not just lit- they say something deep about LIFE. As a consequence people who dislike Honestly, Nevermind truly ARE idiots. of course they wouldn't appreciate, for instance, the humour in Drake's existencial catchphrase "Your pussy is callin' my name, So come on, baby, let's stop playing games" which itself is a cryptic reference to Bigg's song Drownin'. I'm smirking right now just imagining one of those addlepated simpletons scratching their heads in confusion as Drake's genius worldplay unfolds itself on their headphones. What fools... how I pity them. 😂 And yes by the way, I DO have a Honestly, Nevermind tattoo. And no, you cannot see it. It's for the ladies' eyes only- And even they have to demonstrate that they're within 5 IQ points of my own (preferably lower) beforehand.
@@SoftBoiledArt
The unique thing about the Mona Lisa from other portraits from a technical standpoint is aerial perspective which was invented by the producer itself, leonardo da vinci. If you took a look at portraits and other various types of art from that time, you'd notice they lack aerial perspective and seem flat due to lack of depth in comparison to Mona Lisa. Hope this helps.
This painting was innovative in: painting technique (sfumatura), the fantasy background and aerial perspective and most importantly, the pose. It was the first angle of it's kind as a portrait as nobles were previously posed as side views and set the template for centuries to come. That is why it is important. 8 out of 10 are not going to know that and the gallery experience is a circus. Particularly when there are equally important paintings in the same room. To discredit it for being too famous is like hating vanilla ice cream. Just an opinion.
The second part of your message is what matters when literally people thinks is the best portrait ever done. In the end for the masses is a pop image and something they've been indoctrinated into, and for people with interest in the arts it's a relic but never something to learn from.
The whole thing is kinda fake yes.
@@SoftBoiledArt not fake, just old, redundant and mundane compared to what we can create today. It’s a false representation of the peak of art, a false idol. The best thing to call the Mona Lisa is overrated and misused as the highlight of art, because it is.
Mmm. The pose had been in use by at least 30 years - by Leonardo and others.
For example, the portrait of Ginevra de' Benci was painted ~30 years earlier, possibly by Leonardo himself, and it has the same pose. Jacob van Eyck's 'Man in a Red Turban' is from the 1430s. Fantasy landscapes in aerial perspective are also way older than the Gioconda, as is the use of sfumato.
It's not even the first painting to combine all four attributes - the Madonna of the Carnation (if one allows it as a 'portrait') was painted also about 30 years earlier, it uses sfumato, a front-facing pose of the two characters, and it has a fantastic landscape in the background, seen from an elevated perspective. First 'non-religious work' etc. etc. - maybe, but it starts sounding like one is building a case for the Gioconda by Leonardo being the first example of the Gioconda by Leonardo.
@@dlevi67 I am only relaying what I learned. I did mention it pertained to noble portraiture and not the standard pose of madonnas with baby. The earlier examples being by him were not perhaps the best representation and culminated most elegantly with this portrait. Ginevra is a head shot, the inclusive ½ pose with the hands made the difference. There is also the little extra where the mouth oscilates from a serious gaze into a subtle smile depending on whether you are looking at her eyes or not. That in itself is a special trait most, if not all portraits have failed to achieve. I am not a crazed advocate for the painting but I certainlyappreciate innovative painting when it exists.
@@AI-xs4fpNot really (leaving aside that you described the pose innovation as "front rather than profile"): 1/2 bust pose with hands - Lady with Ermine; late 1480s. Portrait of a Musician; early 1480s. And that's sticking to Leonardo's oeuvre. Plenty more in Netherlandish painting (Rogier van der Weyden as an example - he died in 1464, when Leonardo was 12)
It's a very nice painting (like pretty much anything coming from Leonardo, or even from that period), but even the "innovativeness" is part of the pop culture legend rather than the reality.
I can see the reasons why you dislike the Mona Lisa. When I was younger, I thought the painting was pretty boring. Actually, today this is the exact reason why I love the Mona Lisa; it became a symbol of empowerment to me. The Mona Lisa has no vibrant colours, no excitement, actually it looks like an ordinary woman with dark, matte tones. And this is what I love: Especially women often are supposed to be beautiful, shining and vibrant. Mona Lisa is an ordinary, boring looking woman and she STILL holds power. Her smile shows the confidence in herself, the knowledge of that power that she doesnt have to show off. The message to me is: You dont need to be special, nor vibrant or obvious to be powerful, to make a change or have a meaning. That painting reminds me of what is truly important in life and that it'S always worth to take a second look at things. Mona Lisa is art to me.
Only because she got stolen. Nothing is special about the painting
@@xeibei4804
They wrote an entire message about how the art was highly engaging and life changing for them yet you keep repeating the same thing like a trained puppy because you are a sheep that doesnt have a mind to think for himself. Shut it.
@@xeibei4804 even before it was stolen the painting was still a masterpiece
This comment up me is actually very correct, the fact that such a boring painting is famous kinda gives it power... however, I think the Mona Lisa shouldn't have as much attention, we are ignroing other pieces of art at the Louvre for this woman
@@berberrb-3754 I agree with you. However, the attention a painting receives is always given by people, it has little to do with the actual painting but with our decision what we praise. So in my opinion we can still see the Mona Lisa as the masterpiece that it is and appreciate other paintings. We can appreciate and give attention to every kind of art without taking down another. Maybe its not about the Mona Lisa at all, but about the mindset with which a lot of people approach art in general.
Finally, someone who can see and admit that this small painting is at least underwhelming. Yes, it is boring.
In my case, I found the Mona Lisa underwhelming since I was a child because it was boring. Yeah, she has a cute mysterious smile but I can see talented actresses on Tv do it but in some cases, even better. I enjoy looking at artworks that make me feel something. Looking at the Mona Lisa makes me go, "Huh, she is kinda cute but I have seen better."
lol. wow very deep deconstruction of a painting.
I thinking that's what's special about it
It's frankly only famous because it was stolen. Da Vinci has made far more incredibly works that have now gone unnoticed due to the Mona Lisa's iconography.
The Baptism of Christ is, in my opinion, incredibly underrated, especially with how early in his career it was made.
This is simply false- and I hope you don't take this to heart since it is not personally aimed at you, however I've observed in these comments many people who say similar things as you and it simply made me realise how much people want to hate things.
And it is also not only famous because it was stolen, and it was also known before that Da Vinci deeply cared about it, being one of the paintings he chose to take with him to Paris and the fact that he discontinuously worked on it for 16 years until his passing and never calling it a finished work say a lot about it in my opinion.
The Reason it was Stolen is because it's Famous. Not the other way around. A lot of modern art people just cannot fathom how a small insignificant painting can easily outshine most gigantic masterpieces. Yes, it look disappointing to the common man upon seeing, because it's just a simple by the waist portrait which is no different to millions of other portrait. Portraits of great men and women throughout. It pains most art theorist cannot explain away the unique beauty or the simple banality of the painting. It's hard piece to characterize, analyze or internalize. Some do try but never brought about a real consensus. Perhaps the Mona Lisa exemplify what Art is, totally inexplicable and continually contentious.
This is an honestly painful to read load of bs. Art is not democratic and the value is decided among a few noblemen or billionaires for reasons not directly related to creative or technical aspects. For the middlemen it's literally the only portrait they know and they've been "educated" to "know" that's one of the most important pieces ever done because there's a HUGE economic interest in doing so. And the middleman don't have reference or education to even know if this is comparatively worse or better than any other portrait or in wich way.
It's literally just a pop icon.
@@SoftBoiledArt this is honestly also painful to read, you genuinely called the mona lisa a "pop icon"
@@daandiid Amazing "argument"
I was lucky enough to visit the Louvre in 2019 fresh out of highschool and I remember being incredibly disappointed at the Mona Lisa, it's a fairly generic portrait on a small canvas a room away
But like, a room or two over there are huge masterpieces of historic figures like Jeanne d'Arc and myths like the Odyssey and it makes this tiny portrait even less impressive
When the Mona Lisa was painted, people had never seen anything so realistic before. Contemporary Renaissance painting was essentially outlines that had had colour painted between them, very much as children's colouring books are today. Leonardo's sfumato created the illusion of atmosphere and of three dimensions that had never been seen before. That stated, Realism has come a long way in the past 500 years; so, she doesn't have the effect she had back in 1510.
The problem is, of course, that "people look at paintings with their ears," and swallow the rubbish that art popularists tell them.
Her smile, by the way, is a pun on her name. "Giocondo" means "light-hearted" or "carefree," in Italian. Leonardo often puns in his paintings: the juniper bush (ginepro) behind his Ginevra de' Benci is another example.
Not necessarily, paintings from the 1400s show that people were able to get similar results and we're still very detailed, such as the Arnolfini Portrait. Not to mention his previous works like The Last Supper which was in 1498 or any of his other previous portraits. There was also The Triumph of Virtues which was dated circa 1502, Michelangelo was doing similar techniques around the same time as he painted the Sistine Chapel. My point being Da Vinci wasn't the only person who invented the technique nor was it the first time people saw such realism
I never really considered my thoughts towards the Mona Lisa. Which were none. The thought provoking question of whether or not she was smiling was just a passing moment that I never really got back to because...well..to me it's not that thought provoking. This is a great topic and honestly makes me think more about the art of loss but not forgotten. Just like things in life there are things that we don't appreciate until it's removed. In my opinion, a good example of that is Unus Annus. The build up for the channels ultimate departure was massive. And the recognition of that departure is part of what drove everyone to witness essentially it's end. Personally I think that is a far more compelling discussion rather than having to talk about facial expressions. Which funnily enough, wasn't even Leonardo da Vincis intention.
Another great video dood! Keep up the great work!
The question of whether or not she’s smiling has as much substance of the debate of Yanny/Laurel, or the black/blue dress
I hope that people living in the US have an opportunity to see Da Vinci’s Ginevra de’ Benci at the National Gallery in DC (free admission). It’s the only Da Vinci oil painting in the Western Hemisphere (for public viewing, at least). It’s a lovely painting, and without a mob that typifies the Mona Lisa experience at the Louvre, there is ample time to scrutinize the painting (front and back). It’s in a gallery room with contemporaries Fra Lippi and Botticelli, so you can compare painting styles and see why many gravitate toward Da Vinci. Also, if you have time, docent tours restarted this week. I went on two different ones and both covered the painting (plus an interesting story about how the National Gallery acquired the painting)
Well fair enough. I'm someone who still believes that the Mona Lisa is a really really REALLY great work of art because, let's face it, even after 500 years of it's existence, it still conveys every single detail. You can see the subtle shadow of her eyelids on her eyes, her soft smile, every single shadow beautifully merged into the face, the drapes (Leonardo's speciality) of her sleeves with their tremendous golden detail. The background that makes you focus on nothing but the person on the painting. The sheer softness of the art piece is mind boggling to me. It's the softness that only Leonardo's paintings can bring. It's a treat to the eyes and almost soothing. While I understand that the thought provoking factor is important in a painting, it's not mandatory. Especially in portraits. I think over time people forgot that The Mona Lisa is a portrait and not a piece of artistic thought and emotion painted on canvas. Not every painting needs to have a meaning, not every painting needs to provoke thought. Some paintings just need the softness and sheer beauty like the Mona Lisa has
This is a really good way of looking at it. Not every great painting has to be challenging.
If you believe "only Leonardo's paintings could bring that softness", then you know nothing about art and you should keep on learning. Mona Lisa is one of his lesser works, besides Leonardo was a lousy painter compared to the true masters.
@@sebber7992 Wrong.
@@oswalddupree6064 Gotta love your reasoning! 😂
@@sebber7992 Who are these "true masters" according to you, almighty stranger?
Who is really interrested in paintings will find his own piece of art. The "Mona Lisa" is more a cultural thing than a painting, but there is no reason to not like it.
If it’s original state had been preserved, the vibrant colors and the subtly in the process of coloring the layers of glaze, i’m confident it could live up to the hype. But sadly we cant do the standard cleaning and repair methods of revarnishing, as so satisfyingly portrayed in youtube videos, without removing that very element.
I nominate Fallen Angel by Alexandre Cabanel it has so much power and overwhelming passion!
I really just reasonate with it, It saddens me that at the time he painted it. It got shitted on cause pretentious religious judges didn't understand it and found it controversial. It is beautiful and feels powerful with how it relays complex emotion.
Yes for the most part the Mona Lisa is famous for being famous. That said, the image was and is a step forward in portraiture. Secondly, the influence that the painting has had on later artists is not addressed. I have seen it. I found those crowded around the painting more interesting than the painting itself because most of the people viewing it had no idea of what they were looking at or its significance. I think more than any thing else the painting verifies that most people are intellectually lazy. The Mona Lisa is in the final analysis, an important marker of how media has influenced the public in the worse way in the 20th and 21st Centuries.
I think the Mona Lisa can be appreciated in one sense in that it has surpassed the “normal-ish portrait of a woman.” I agree it is not exactly breath-taking by itself. But while at the Louvre, I saw the never ending line of people to take a selfie with her as a form of performative art not unlike Jackson Pollock’s videotapes performances for the public. This small, (almost) unremarkable painting is now a part of pop art, the internet of things and the people going to see her are a part of the experience. I sat back and enjoyed to see how some people tried to get as close as possible to her, while others shuffled awkwardly past, only taking a second to pause and look, seemingly to check it off their bucket list. I found it more interesting than the actual painting by itself!
The reason I find the Mona Lisa interesting and alluring is not for the image itself, or even its popularity. Its origins are far more involved and hilarious than the simple "portrait" we see today. For example, her name is not Mona Lisa. It is just Lisa. "Mona" means "my lady", so this is a title of her name, Lisa. This painting is Da Vinci's "My lady, Lisa."
The other reason is its sheer history. There are DOZENS of layers of paint beneath the image we see now. There are theories that Da Vinci carried this canvas as a sketchpad, basically, to paint on when he was inspired, or for practice, and then painted over again later.
Plus, my favorite theory: that this is a self-portrait of Da Vinci in drag. It would be hilarious, and would explain the cheeky smile "she" gives the audience. The idea is that Da Vinci painted himself as a woman as a joke, and it became a running gag that he managed to impress anyone with it all.
The thing about art is that its appreciation is entirely subjective. There is no "I'm sure you will all agree with me" in art. I heard many people saying that while calling the urinal piece a piece of trash, and also being sure that everyone would agree with them (and I do, but I don't pretend that my opinion is the "right" one by any means, it's only mine). The Mona Lisa doesn't do "more harm than good" any more than the urinal thing does and what it means for people's exposure to its brand of contemporary art. There are absolutely no absolutes in art. There are no "right reasons" or "wrong reasons" to like, appreciate, engage, or give importance to a certain piece of art.
You personally find no way of engaging with the Mona Lisa, but some people do. Same goes with music, literature, and any other form of artistic expression.
Touché, what an underappreciated comment. Like, a dude with the artsy hipster looks tries to dethrone Mona fucking Lisa in the internet. This tells more of flaws in our culture today than of any flaw in the original painting, nor any flaw in our collective cultural conscience, that has made this painting so popular. Like, for example, the video hipster doesn't seem to know that this painting revolutionised the art of portrait painting. Also the paintings and themes he chooses as "intellectually aspiring" or something look like a fucking mess, subjectively to me.
Art is full of people who feel the owners of the "right taste", so to say, and anyone else who doesn't agree must be because thy "don't want to think" or be challenged intellectually or some absurdity like that.
Any online forum is full of this kind of toxic discourse that cannot seem to be able to enjoy what they enjoy without putting down what others enjoy. Shakespeare's fans belittling teenage girls for enjoying YA dystopias, and hipsters with their obscure indie writers belittling people who love the classics because they're "overrated". People who feel superior because they go to the opera versus people who scoff on the ones who enjoy opera. Can't we just enjoy what we like and let everyone else do the same without judgment?
The Mona Lisa genuinely makes me uncomfortable. It causes a rush of anxiety, uneasiness. It legitimately scares me.
I think Ginevra de' Benci in Washington DC is a much more engaging and interesting portrait of a woman by Leonardo da Vinci
Love your perspective on it!
I personally never really had an opinion on the Mona Lisa.
As an artist myself, I could never exactly tell why I just could not bring myself to care about the Mona Lisa.
I just thought it was pretty.
While finding other art pieces, like the black paintings by Francisco Goya to be much more interesting.
But eh it’s my personal taste!
For me, the painting is just bland. Allowing a boring painting to be the benchmark for greatness and respectability in artistic achievement breeds more bland artwork as people are inevitably influence by its status.
Exactly. There's no comparison whatever between the Mona Lisa and, say, Bosch's 'The Garden of Earthly Delights.' They aren't in the same ball park, and the Mona Lisa has actually influenced next to no one.
I agree with this
I agree with this
@@iainrobb2076 Hey! This is wrong though- since it's pretty much the most known painting ever at this point, I believe it has influenced and inspired many people, that's bound to happen. And you can see many many hard worked details in the painting upon closer look, it's a Da Vinci afterall- the craftmanship is nothing to joke about. The composition may be bland but it's simply not a bad painting. One shall also note that "the garden of earthly delights" uses a different painting style than Da Vinci used on the Mona Lisa.
@@daandiid it's simply not a bad painting, but not the greatest work of art ever
and it's the most iconic just because of happenstance and not for the artistry, or the (lack of) its engaging and inspiring nature
the artistry is very much real, the realism, depth, the smile, but even then I think all of it is exaggerated and overrated
the public is acting like sheep
Mona Lisa is so emotionally neutral that represents perfect psychological mirror for the viewer. Her value is exactly in that she can give you perfect insight in your own state of spirit. How you see Mona Lisa is actually the way you see yourself psychologically. This picture is not about art at all, this is a gift to humanity.
That can be said of all kinds of different works of art, of varying quality.
I don't know about this "mirror" idea.
If I felt terribly depressed or ecstatic I highly doubt I would attach either of those to how Mona Lisa seems to be.
She looks to be having an ok day, looking kinda fresh but not like she is about to laugh and that's it.
I can't stop agreeing with you, because I love that kind of art that makes me feel something and I also love that kind of art that can make you think and then you found out you are related with this.
Two things. First, The Mona Lisa isn't actually small, it's a very average sized painting. I was really annoyed when my sister told me how tiny it was, only to find out that her personal disappointment had lead to an exaggeration of the truth.
Secondly, Leonardo DaVinci didn't even like that painting. It's an unfinished piece that tormented him. In that aspect, I think there is an importance and meaning behind it. The struggle of an artist, especially one with ADHD. It wasn't what was intended but to me that's what it has become. In another way, The Mona Lisa is essentially that time when you post some work that you're not proud of yet, only for it to get more likes than all of the stuff that you are actually proud of.
Wow, you hit the nail on the head. As someone who suffered from Impressionism fatigue, I feel that commercialism is death knell certain works of art. When I see some with a __________ water bottle,. I wonder if they'd missed out on Fragonard or Velaquez or the Bellini Brothers. I had to take two years of art history at school and I'm still discovering people (many of them women). Thanks for introducing to Sylvia Sleigh
As for the Mona Lisa,for my money, I prefer Lady with an Ermine.
6:34 That Goya's art work about Saturn devouring his son was later inspired from the Japanese anime and manga hit series, Attack on Titan were the Titans ate humans wherever they attacked within the town of Wall Maria and its neighboring villages.
I remember learning about the Mona Lisa I’m elementary school. They fought us that it was famous because of her half smiling half frowning look. When I went to Paris I took a tour that passed by the Louvre, and I heard the true story of how the painting became famous for the first time. The Mona Lisa had been stolen multiple times, by the same person no less, and it became famous because of that. This story intrigued me in a way I’m sure it did many others, and it makes you want to see what a painting that keeps being stolen looks like.
After that trip that particular experience stuck with me. It absolutely baffled me that such a famous peace of history would be so heavily miss taught and miss-interpreted by my school. Instead of telling an engaging story and allowing students to properly contemplate of that, they just said that it was famous for the half smile displayed in the painting.
It how her smile tricks the eyes. If you stare at her eyes sometimes she smiling sometimes she is not. She seems alive in the canvas.
I went to the Louvre when I was younger. I was fascinated. I dont know a lot about art, but being in a room where the walls are completely covered with awesome paintings that are full of life was incredible. Then my parents dragged me along because we "dont have all day and need to see the Mona Lisa" which was...well....boring as hell. Felt like they put a granola bar in a glass safe and left their gold bars out in the rain.
The mona lisa is only popular because it’s the most expensive painting not because people actually like it.
She can't be dethroned because she was never throned. She's not a building, she is a mountain; part of the landscape of the human mind. To replace her would be to level the redwoods and replace them with a rose garden.
I went to the Louvre years ago so I don't remember most of the paintings I only remember two things the disappointment I felt in the Mona Lisa room and the awe I felt when I saw the statue of Nike of Samothrace
I agree one hundred percent, i prefer Vermeer's Girl with a pearl earring.
My least favorite part of art museums is having to push through and wait for the idiots with their cameras to move, I don’t understand going to a art gallery just to take a photo and walk away, my Starry Night experience was tarnished by dozens of people taking photos in front of it and walking away and barely even taking a glance at ir
I remember seeing it when I was 14 years old spending a summer in France studying. I had a similar reaction and felt that there was something wrong with me. If someone sent me into only that gallery of the museum, not knowing anything about art, the 'Mona Lisa' would have been at the bottom of my rankings. I saw it again as a middle aged person and felt the same. Maybe it should be taken out of view and returned later to see if there is still as much excitment about it.
The fact that this painting has captivated so many people says enough. Was this art created so people could judge it or enjoy it? If it was so that people enjoy it, it has surpassed all expectations.
everything you stated is exactly how I felt when I saw it. I am an art history nerd and wanted to see what was so amazing about the painting and I just couldn't seem to really like it. Boring is the easiest was to put it or underwhelming. What was super impressive were the massive paintings in the other rooms. Just the scale and effort put into those paintings was mind blowing.
Me three. Saw it looking blackened in the Louvre in 1965. Then again in 1981. Turn off. There are so many gorgeous art works in Le Louvre
Great video. I also appreciate art that makes me think. Do you think we could also say that the very fact that she’s so dull & overrated - and how people engage in artworks like Mona Lisa just because they’re famous - poses interesting questions (e.g., about the meaning of art)? It’s not a question raised deliberately by the creator, but a question that arises indeed & may still make engagement with the work meaningful. When I see crowds of people taking pictures of famous paintings in museums, it makes me think things like: why bother to visit these works when images of them are easily accessible on the internet? Why do people spend more time looking at the artwork through their cameras than seeing them directly? Going through these thought processes itself could be quite stimulating in a way? :)
This is something that definitely bothered me when visiting museums, people spent more time posing and taking photos than looking at the work, even if it was prohibited taking photos!
Mona Lisa is overrated comapared to other works by Leonardo da Vinci like for e.g his fresque "The Last Supper". What makes Leonardo da Vinci so great is that he made his paintings with lots of precision and put some hidden messages in his works. They recquired great knowledge not only anatomical one but also from other realms of knowledge like for e.g sacred geometry. That's why Leonardo da Vinci still inspires lots of artists like Dan Brown.
I remember watching a documentary about a middle-aged couple (or was it a family?) and the father had always wanted to go and see the Mona Lisa. And when asked how he felt about seeing the painting for the first time, one could tell his words doesn't match his feelings. He might have said it was nice, but I felt a sort of disappointment from him. And I felt so sorry for the man whose experience with art was far too rare and few - to have experienced Mona Lisa in that crowded museum room.
I personally find the soul behind any art more important. To see the mind behind it bleeding through the canvas or frames or clay.
Sometimes it's a reflection of personal turmoil. Sometimes it's the boiling point of societal frustration. Sometimes it's small and simple, something made to bring beauty to a battered and desperate mind.
I hate soulless art more than anything. Whatever you make, leave your soul within it.
As Da Vinci stated in his CV to Sforza “ I’m an engineer,… and I could also paint” as a last thing on his list of passions in life. But I cannot overlook the fact that he dedicated a good amount of effort on it and took the Gioconda with him wherever he went and, apparently, didn’t finish it the way he wanted.
I live near Paris, so I have the opportunity to go in the Louvres and other museums really often. And indeed, the Louvres have other paintings that destroyed my mind far more the the Mona Lisa ( The work of Eugène Delacroix for example). Even some other museum like the museum of Orsay or the Pompidou museum are really interesting.
A couple weeks ago, I was in Yerevan and visited probably a dozen art museums, including the Sergei Parajanov Museum. One exhibition showcases how Parajanov recreated the Mona Lisa in about a dozen different ways, how he perceives the painting, and the almost ridiculous backstory that inspired all of this. If you get the chance, go visit Yerevan and that museum! As an artist, you would love it, and there is a card you can purchase for cheap that lets you into almost all the museums for free.
"the pinnacle of paintings" should be more than a portrait
I'm glad a serious conversation has begun about this. I've adored her moreso since Great Art Explained's video of her, so my opinion is she's well deserving of her art world throne.
And yes, the shallowness of the crowd is indiscreet. That's just the price to pay for crowning (letting, however inevitably) a "world's most important painting," agreeing with it, best, like how you did, to educate; from my point it's good something great like this to 'take another look,' as James said it, seriously.
I wanted to go to the Louvre to see some of the 18th century French realism on display. I saw the Mona Lisa which had a crowd of well over a hundred people in a fairly small room, and the realist paintings… I was the only one there yet they had ten times more to say
She’s like the Kardashians: famous for being famous and no one can point out why. At least not a good reason.
I love the texture/curl of her hair and the fact that she has no eyebrows, makes me curious if it was a mistake or intentional. It engages my brain as much as looking at a tree; Pretty, not a ton to it, but still lifts my mood with how simple and serene it is 🤷🏾♀
Agreed. Dethrone it. However, I have no trouble engaging with it. The novelty of it's age, history, origins, are intriguing.
When I was a child, about 8-9, our art teacher made us do a series of replicas of famous painting for school (including van gogh's Sunflowers, Tarsila's Abaporu, Hokusai's Great Wave, and of course, the Mona Lisa). I honestly think that was the turning point that made me an artist, that flipped the switch. Of course the paintings we did were "bad", but I remember looking into Lisa's eyes and feeling something incredible. Like starring into someone's soul. Like they were reading me, like she could move. So, my experience with Mona Lisa is very positive I guess. Haha. I wish I get to see it live one day.
That's kind of sad my dude, it's a sub-par portrait of a plain looking woman. Her eyes are blank, dead, and as boring as the rest of the piece. It does not deserve it's fame, it's a shit painting.
@@RedFlameGamer I honestly couldn't care less about your opinion.
Good for you. I guess thats the entire point of art. Making you feel something
@@vicc19 based
The power of indoctrination on the weak minded, no painting needed.
I couldn't agree more, thank you for this. I really never could stand all the hype, while I find the painting boring I could always appreciate the artistry.
In a way it also elevated from a work of art, to proof or statement of how vulnerable people can be to exaggeration, hearsay, marketing for experiences or products.
If people stopped for even just a minute to think critically about why they desire for things and experiences, they could become at peace and better selves.
I'm absolutely with you on this. I find the painting dreary and tedious.
I also have no enjoyment looking at most of the works of Van Gogh.
With so many beautiful, challenging and engaging artworks in the world, how on earth did these rise to the status they now hold?
I feel that your inference that the Mona Lisa as an agent of misdirection for many is somewhat overstated as you, perhaps understandably, extend a considerable portion if thoughtfulness to the average observer. That they are considering concepts such as brushwork, process, impact, intent, etc.
However, as a severely lapsed artist I know that near paramount among reasons that I’ve allowed to stifle me is an early and growing awareness that, by far, most observers, so-called, 'appreciation' of art tends to be based on either one, two or both camps - First, that they’ve accepted an edict issued by people they regard to be more knowledgeable than themselves. Second - probably most influential - their own ingrained belief that they, themselves, are incapable of producing art of any kind much less on the order of a DaVinci.
Many will mock a Picasso or Pollock until they attempt to mimic them only to discover their own level of capability or incapability and change their tune to either determine the effort involved more worthy of praise than they’d thought OR proclaim that they simply regard the work unworthy of praise based on their presumption of having a personal taste to apply for judgement - “It doesn’t look realistic.“ A position which, one often finds, regards 50’s era pulp magazine cover art at leas near equal to the work of Jan Vermeer!
It’s unfair to blame Mona Lisa for this state of affairs.
thanks for the source material for an essay I had no idea what to do with. I am eternally indebted to you 😅
i remember visiting the louvre with my mother. i was already an art fiend so i told my mother not to expect anything much from the mona lisa. we went in early, glanced at the mona lisa and off we went. i was far more excited to see monet's water lilies, which actually made me weep a little because of their sheer size and tranquil beauty. seriously, you have no idea how large monet's canvases where until you are standing right in front of them.
Eu sempre fui uma pessoa que amo muito arte, e quero fazer arte mas eu quase não conhecia pinturas lindas interessantes e cheias de história porque estava sempre sendo limitada pelos os quadros mais famosos, que não deixam o trono e não querem deixar espaço para outras pinturas reinarem também
I mean I gotta agree, I felt cheated when I saw the painting at the Louvre. For me it was because it was small. For some reason I thought it would be bigger
I told my friend that I found the Mona Lisa creepy and she called me a pick me girl 🧍♀️
I went to Vienna this September and I saw the Kiss by Klimt. It was impressive! It was huge and the gold leaf was giving it an almost deified glow. It was leagues more impressive than any print of the painting I have seen.
The Mona Lisa in comparison does leave you a bit wanting....
I heard it is a self portrait of Da Vinci in drag. His own private joke. Thus the sly smile. Idk. She does look like him though.
It is more than art, one could say the same thing about a famous building, a bridge, or a view. Millions of people say for example that Peggy's Cove is the most picturesque place in Canada, but I bet that there are many who don't feel this way, but part of the human experience is to not go against the flow. I myself found the cove absolutely charming and took many photos and just stood there to feel the place and would happily go back again, there is nothing to say against it, yet I have seen other places that I thought were equally beautiful in their own way. Is the "hype" surrounding the Mona Lisa due to the artist, the painting, the feelings one gets looking at it, the smile or is it just the so many people have said it's the best that no one wants to go against that, the emperor's new clothes, or in todays argot FOMO. The other aspect is that even if I don't get any feel good memories from something, that doesn't mean others don't as well. Further many artists being long dead cannot be asked certain whys about their work. Without knowing exactly why the artist chose that scene, or their mood during the time of the commission, its may not be possible to truly understand it. However, while I agree with you for many reasons, I also ask why do you think its necessary to perhaps tell millions of people that they were wrong in enjoying that piece. I truly enjoy your take on great art, and will certainly view more of your work,
I can literally think of more than 50 painting that are way more interesting and complex than the Mona Lisa.
It's kind of funny that people complain about the Mona Lisa being small, but if it were bigger (and therefore harder to steal), the theft that sensationalized it so much in the first place might have never happened.
I agree with your comments about the Mona Lisa, though I don't presume to judge it myself, not having seen it. If I go to Paris I will be looking for Manet's 'Olympia' instead. My first priority in looking at art is visual reward rather than philosophy, which comes as a bonus on occasion. The only time I have reacted overwhelmingly to a painting was when seeing A Landscape of Delft by Vermeer, when alone with it for twenty minutes on a cold November Sunday, but I can enjoy looking at or trying to read art without feeling obliged to intellectualise the experience.
size is a weird thing for me, i remember being in the prado and seeing one of their dürers, i think. and it was tiny! and i'd known that painting forever and seeing how small it was, kinda really put it in perspective. not in a bad way but in a sort of, oh, books show us a blown-up version of this!
i think painting size is really important and it conveys a lot about how much canvas the person had to give their idea life and the logistics of carrying it around and what that meant for everything else. like, big things cost more money and they take longer and you have to understand the size of the thing and where it will go, and few people would have invested in this for the sheer love of it.
idk, anyway, i haven't seen the mona lisa and i'm very much not going to under the circumstances (crowds??!!) and it doesn't really interest me, people just sort of seem obsessed with it and i'm not sure the portrait has that much it has to say. so thank you for putting this into words, that was really helpful.
Its famous but Ive never heard someone say its genuinely their favorite
Another wonderful video. Your arguments here, as they often are, were compelling. I’ve never liked this painting or any what I call classical painting because it just so dull
Mona Lisa has always been a portrait of someone looking for a fight for me. I knew because I had faught with people who gave me "that look". Personally the painting is overpraised
Totally agree. You can visit the Louvre for free on Friday nights and I probably visited the galleries of the Louvre a dozen times I almost never stopped in front of the mona lisa I love many parts of the museum but I never related to the success of that painting
A well made video and cannot fault it - yet I respectfully disagree. I love the nuances that have to occur for something to become as successful as it will become. Sgt Peppers is the greatest album of all time - except it very much isn’t. The Mona Lisa transcends everything.
The most beautiful painting in the Louvre is The Oath of the Horatii
I feel the same way about this painting. I love your videos. Please make one about David Alfaro Siqueiros, my favorite mexican artist
you're actually wrong here. the mona lisa has been confirmed over and over again that it was one of the most popular paintings in the louvre before it was stolen.
I walked past the doorway of the room the Mona Lisa was in, saw the crowds, glanced at the painting, decided it was not worth the effort and walked on by to see the other wonderful art in the Louvre.
I don't usually look to art to make me think in the traditional sense. I believe good art conveys truths that can't necessarily be put into words.
For me, the monarch of all paintings is with no doubt "The Scream" by Munch.
Which one? There are 4-versions.
i think i'd put starry night at the top of the list
The fact is everyone knows about her and still talks about her. That's why I like this painting. Plain but priceless.
HELL YES. It is overexposed and everyone knows it by heart. It’s better in our mind than in reality. The idea has grown way way way beyond the actual painting. It shows great skill no doubt about it.
I have too like many others stood before this painting at Louvre. I have then, as I do I now, see nothing worthwhile. It’s something I can’t understand maybe but it’s mind boggling that ppl have elevated something normal if not mediocre to a stature of text materiel in childrens books.
Love this video for its truth
When I visited the Louvre we had someone in our group who told us all to sink our watches so we could leave on time. She practically sprinted to the Mona Lisa and left. Years later she took a class in college about art and says she really regrets that day. I do as well...
I'm the opposite. Spent a full day at the Louvre and now think "Damm, I couldn't care less about art. Should have done something else instead"
Guess it's a perspective thing
I am not interested in the average viewer. I am not interested in what these disappointed crowd thinks.
I am interested in knowing what Leonardo thought about it! And that is still a mystery!
The skill, the mastery, the genius and the mystery of Leonardo da vinci will be lost on the average viewer who get their kicks from watching digital culture of 21st century.
And as of you, it is a lottery through shock!! Shock the people and get views!! 👎
It is a great picture just because of who painted it.Also it is a very human expression in her face almost photographic.Although I have never given her a crown.
I personally think that this opens up an entire conversation about art in general and what society puts on pedestals and what society throws away.
While I certainly see value in speaking the methods, the medium, history, and techniques artist use to create master pieces; I think that society, specifically art enthusiast put way to much emphasis in value on a piece that is quote on quote normal like a portrait.
Artists learn from other artists, it's the first thing I was taught in college for my degree. And in art history we learn the past through paintings and how artists can and some have been very critical of their society.
But in reality they are just that, artwork. They're beautiful, stunning and certainly creative but at the end of the day one painting shouldn't be held to such a high degree on a pedestal than another.
For a moment there, I thought you were going to say, "let's steal another more engaging painting so we can dethrone the Mona Lisa" hahaha But this is such a great video. And I agree, there are far more interesting paintings that deserve the spotlight and attention. And yes, the Mona Lisa is famous for being famous.
Never thought of Mona Lisa as intresting. Honestly yeah it was impressive for the time when it was created. But now it's just..... there's nothing striking about it.
if I recall, DaVinci himself didn't want to show this painting to anyone. He said it was unfinished, as he basically carried it wherever he would travel to. I'll bet he was frustrated with how uninspired and unengaging it was, but knew there was potential in it. He never finished it.
The only reason this painting is famous is because some dude stole it .
you said it right: Mona Lisa is famous for being famous, like the Kardashians. There may be another angle, which is that the Louvre has a vested economic interest in keeping the Mona Lisa going, ie her fame brings in lots of dollars
Telling the story about La Gioconda's fame just beginning in 1911 when it was stolen is a pretty hopeless oversimplification. If you haven't already done so, you should read Donald Sassoon's book "Mona Lisa. The History of the World's Most Famous Painting" (2001).
Exactly what I am thinking too. Mona Lisa doesn't deserve the monumental place it has in art history. I also disregard the experts who tell us the painting is "well preserved"; it is obviously not well preserved at all, with these colors that all has faded into a uniform murkiness (there is, for example, no reason for the face to be yellowish). Compare with the copies made by Da Vinci's own disciples; they are generally much more well preserved, everyone can see that at a glance.