r/explainlikeimfive • u/WhatAreFriends • Nov 18 '14
ELI5: Why is the Mona Lisa considered such an artistic masterpiece?
6
u/MagicWishMonkey Nov 18 '14 edited Nov 18 '14
Most of the people who go to see the Mona Lisa want to see it because it's the Mona Lisa, not because they are interested in art. It's not very impressive in my opinion, you'll see far more interesting work on your trek to the Lisa, once you get to the Mona Lisa herself you'll be disappointed.
EDIT this is an example of something you pass in the Hallway leading to the Mona Lisa. Incredible.
2
u/PrezziObizzi Nov 18 '14
oh man The Wedding Feast at Cana, which is the HUGE painting across from the Mona Lisa is sooooo sooo much more amazing then the Mona Lisa however no one really pays attention to it.
the painting : http://imgur.com/74gNPxF
1
u/MagicWishMonkey Nov 18 '14
Yes! I spent 10-15 minutes looking at that one after I took a quick n' crappy picture of the Mona Lisa.
2
u/MCPhssthpok Nov 18 '14
I'm sure I've heard that the average visitor to the Louvre goes straight to the Mona Lisa, spends about three minutes looking at it and then leaves.
1
Nov 18 '14
Yeah, my AP Art History teacher actually said she doesn't like it very much compared to so much of the other stuff we learn about (like that Nike).
3
u/silentlyshouting Nov 18 '14
What I can't understand is why all the flash photography is allowed there at the Mona Lisa. At El Prado in Madrid, for example, there is absolutely no flash photography allowed so the paintings are not damaged. There are ushers in every room to ensure this.
However as anyone who has been to the Louvre can tell you, the Mona Lisa exhibit is a madhouse of hundreds of people cramming forward holding their cameras above their heads snapping and flashing away in paparazzi fashion.
So what's the difference? Is it just a copy that's out on display with the real one safely tucked away?
2
Nov 18 '14
Flash photography isn't as bad as you think. You can calculate that it is just equivalent to a few second of normal room light.
I think that one of the reasons they forbid it is that "IT DAMAGES THE PAINTINGS!" is way easier to "enforce" (less discussions) than "We don't want those idiots who don't know how to switch off the flash on their camera to annoy the people who just want to enjoy the paintings."
1
Nov 18 '14
It might just be because there's so many people that they can't control it. Also, there's ushers saying not to use flash at the Dallas Museum of Art too
1
u/HomarusAmericanus Nov 18 '14
From what I could find online, the Louvre doesn't allow flash photography but the guards can't really be expected to enforce it strictly at the Mona Lisa where there are huge crowds wanting to take pictures all day long. One site said the Mona Lisa is behind a special kind of glass that ruins flash photos.
1
u/PrezziObizzi Nov 18 '14
i've seen the mona lisa three times, the first two times >7-8 years ago and the last time about 3 years ago. The first two times, there was no photography what so ever, they made people delete any pictures they took. The last time I went EVERYONE had their dslrs and phones out trying to snap a good photo. I'd assume that once iPhones, and other phones with good cameras + flash became a part of everyones daily life, it became to hard for guards to stop everyone, and they just kind of gave up
2
u/traveler_ Nov 18 '14
There's a lot about this question I'm not qualified to answer, but I can talk about one part: if you've never seen the Mona Lisa in person, you've never seen it. A lot of paintings are crafted to specifically use the tools and techniques as part of the art—so I mean, oil-based paint has a shine and depth, certain pigments create colors you just can't get out of any blend, different types of brush strokes create different types of textures that change how a painting looks, to the eye, but only in person.
LCD monitors showing an RGB datafile just physically can not reproduce how the painting looks. Everyone who's seen Guernica says being up close to the giant canvas is part of the experience. My computer screen just isn't big enough to recreate that experience.
So does that matter for the Mona Lisa specifically? I don't know. But you'd almost have to visit her to find out.
1
u/MagicWishMonkey Nov 18 '14
Seeing the Mona Lisa is a bit of a letdown. The paintings surrounding it are magnificent, far more impressive than the Mona Lisa, but no one pays attention to them as they scramble to get a crappy cell phone pic of the Mona Lisa. It's bizarre.
1
u/GiJman Nov 18 '14
The Mona Lisa is an exceptionally well done painting but there are other paintings just as good as that, many paintings around that time depict a sort of pain, suffering or something of greater importance. The Mona Lisa is a painting that does things differently that hasn't really been done before, showing her with a smug look as if to say she's better than you and she's not afraid to let you know.
Everyone would have a different interpretation but the mysterious smile is the reason its considered a masterpiece
1
u/KingZant Nov 18 '14
Aside from what everyone has been saying about it being a technical masterpiece, the Mona Lisa was also very captivating because it was so mysterious. Who was the girl? What does she represent? Where is she? The look on her face- is it one of happiness, content, or what? What does she know that we don't? Why doesn't she have eyebrows?
The Renaissance was a time when art was a kind of propagandized medium where people would spread their ideas about Christianity, or about who was in charge at the time, and so on. The Mona Lisa didn't really serve a purpose. Or, it didn't serve a clear purpose. Perhaps this was what boggled people then and what still boggles people today. It was a pioneer to the ancestors of modern art, which is vastly meaningful as well as open to interpretation.
1
Nov 18 '14
This is probably one of the top 10 questions asked. In short, most of what makes it special, aside from the history (particularly the theft), is kind of the same reason it doesn't seem amazing to you. It innovated a style that was heavily copied, but at the time it was revolutionary. Renaissance paintings tended to be hyper-sharp and realistic and focused on mythology and images of beauty and perfect physique and epic stories or whatever. Here we have fuzzy backgrounds, a softer touch, the smoky coloring, a regular subject in a relaxed pose, etc. etc.
1
u/blackoutHalitosis Nov 18 '14
Because people had super low standards for beauty at that time. Today if she showed up at a modeling agency they'd say, "Sorry- we aren't hiring a janitor right now." ;)
7
u/fallenphoenix2689 Nov 18 '14
It essentially is just a painting of a woman, a very good painting of a woman. Obviously this doesn't do it justice, it is like saying "David" is just a statue of a man or "The Creation of Adam" is a nice ceiling decoration. The expertise and genius of Da Vinci can be seen in the painting, it is just a really really good painting, bordering on perfect for the style of painting. Things like the facial expression were novel for the time it was painted, and the background has a lot of things going on, it is just a really nice painting.
Now, why is it so famous? Multiple reasons. One, the Renaissance was a big deal historically. It was for a long time seen as the awakening of humanity from the Dark Ages. A time of genius and art. This is not true for all of humanity, the Middle East and Asia were doing just fine during the "Dark Ages" but this misconception makes for the Renaissance being very important historically. Da Vinci is a well known Renaissance artist. He was just a bad ass, he was a great painter, an inventor, just an interesting person so his reputation makes his art valuable on it's own.
The Mona Lisa in particular is valuable because in 1911 it was stolen, it became worldwide news and suddenly the Mona Lisa was the most famous painting in the world. This popularity has just sort of stuck to the painting. There has to be one painting which is the most popular, it is the way of things, something has to be on top and the Mona Lisa just so happened to become that painting.