As it happens, I was in Paris last week and had some time to see a bit of the Louvre Museum. Unlike most of the other tourists, I did not stampede past all the other artwork to see the one “famous” piece of art, but as I prefer paintings to sculpture I visited that wing of the building and eventually went past the thronging masses in front of the Great Work.
So now I’ve seen it. What’s the big deal? Yes, it’s a good work of art, but the Louvre has lots of really good paintings (and even more not-so-good ones, but I digress). so why this one? What makes the Mona Lisa such an outstanding work of art? If you didn’t know the work and it was in a line-up with a bunch of randomly selected other paintings, would you be able to say “That one is special”?
Is it because of when it was painted or by whom? Can one recognize its uniqueness in the art world without any knowledge of its background?
[Dave Barry Voice] “So, where do they keep the BIG Mona Lisa?”[/Dave Barry Voice]
I’m pretty sure there was a thread here a couple of months ago on this very issue – it came down to the original presentation of the subject. I’m not sure if what was sais was true, but the claim was that La Giaoconda presented its subject in a new and exciting way – that three-quarter view, its positioning in front of that gauzy and dreamlike background, even that now cliched smile was a break from prior formality. In context, it was new and original. But suince its innovations have since become standards, this originality is lost on those who grew up with these new standards as part of the culture.
Except that you need to know the Mona Lisa’s history and background in order to know why it is special. Perhaps you just didn’t want to read the little pamphlets that they pass out, but it marked a major switching in painting styles, where the background is out of focus with the foreground. In other words, prior to the Mona Lisa, paintings had been done with all points in the image in perfect focus.
Leonardo da Vinci must have had to do some major stretching of his imagination to figure out how to do it, because he really didn’t have anything to reference off of (if you looked at a real distant landscape, it would be in focus…)
Sometimes, the littlest things can mark a major change.
Well, no, not if you were focusing on something close. By drawing distant objects sharply he wpuld place them on the same focal plane as the close objects, eliminating the three-dimensional effect he had achieved with shading and perspective.
I suppose I vaguely remember all that from Art History 101, but thanks for the reminder.
Still, what bothers me more is not that the Mona Lisa/La Gioconda/La Joconde is so famous (for being famous, as it were), but that BECAUSE it’s so famous that people ignore all the other art in the museum. Get your faces out of the guidebooks and look at the pictures, people! <froth><froth>
I’m with you on that. Mona Lisa, even without crowds, was disappointing. Ditto the Venus di Milo. I’ve seen them countless times in countless contexts before seeing them in real life, that I was like this is it?
If you understand the history/context, then they become more interesting. But I’m one that thinks that art and writing should stand alone.
For example, Frida Kahlo’s art has this big production about her being Diego Rivera’s abused wife, forced to have an abortion, ad nausem. Personally, IMHO her art does not stand on it’s own, but requires all this context for people to look at it or elevate it to pure art.
The Louvre was certainly worth going to, but not the Mona Lisa.
I agree that the Mona Lisa is hard to see, even if there were not hordes of fellow tourists gawking at it and blocking my view when I went to the Louvre.
I was more impressed with Gericault’s Raft of the Medusa, not only for its triangular composition, but also because it was so heartrending.
One thing I liked about my recent european jaunt was a museum in the middle of the Netherlands. It had a lot of Van Gogh’s arranged in chronological order, so you could see the evolution of his style over time.
But the Louvre-- man, the crowds were so bad outside that I skipped that one. Went to the Musees d’Orsay, Rodin, and Pasteur instead, only to see tourists running to the ‘famous’ artworks stand around for 3 minutes, and run off to the next museum.
I went into the room with Manet’s Olympia, at the Orsay, and I had the whole room to myself! Everyone was upstairs looking at all the Impressionists.
You know one thing that really did live up to the hype for me? Michelangelo’s ‘David’. I’d seen it depicted so many times in so many different forms that I fully went in expecting to look at the actual sculpture, think “not bad”, and move on to something I hadn’t already seen a million pictures of.
I was completely wrong. It blew me away. On the same trip I saw the ‘Last Supper’ and the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel, and while those were truly impressive neither had the impact on me that ‘David’ did.
I’ll probably get thrashed for no cite but…
I read an article fairly recently that explained part of the popularity was due in part to an optical illusion.
If you look at her eyes, her smile ‘changes’ from what it would look like if you looked at it directly. Had something to do with shades and shadows. Looking at the accompanying photos and illos, I could see it.
Also, I have to think that the fact that LD painted it had to have something to do with it. He was the hippest thing going back then. People love celebrity.
Side note: At the time it was stolen the joke around Paris was, “I’m going to the Louvre, can I pick you up anything?”
I think it’s a fine piece of art, but one thing still puzzles me about it… Why does everyone talk about her smile? She isn’t smiling! At least, it sure doesn’t look like a smile to me.
Yah, she’s not exactly grinning, is she? But her mouth does have a certain coy mobility at the corners, especially when you compare it to some other (roughly) contemporary portraits of women.
I think a lot of people see the Mona Lisa as a symbol for art. After all, it’s plastered on museum tote bags, museum refrigerator magnets, whatever. The whole thing is self-perpetuating. It’s probably a great painting, but no better than many other works. Art seems to have a quast-religious role for a lot of people–museums are hushed temples of culture.
C K Dexter Haven–terrific staff report, but I have a quibble with your statement that “previously, portraits were invariably full length.” The first three paintings I’ve linked to above show that’s not so. I think you’re right on about Leonardo’s waist-length format showing the hands isbeing innovative and creating an image with psychological presence.
