• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Why is the Mona Lisa considered a good painting?

It's been studied a billion times. If you can't figure it out, look up the damn wiki page and read. It'll tell you.
 
If I'm not mistaken, i do believe it was the first portrait ever that was not a profile.

If you take a gander at many of the paintings of the age, portraits are profiles, and mostly 2D. Mona Lisa is a 3/4 angle with perspective (perspective being totally cool at the time--just ask Giotto (yeah, he was like a hundred years earlier or so, but not everyone had caught up))

There's something going on with the background too, but I don't remember. It's also what defined the phrase, "doesn't live up to hype." Seriously, just try and find some space to look at the tiny ass portrait amongst the throngs of picture-snapping Japanese tourists.

The damn thing has its own room, and you still can't fit in there.

Also, DaVinci has, I think, 4 or 7 paintings known to be his that exist. Only a few of them aren't cruddy and faded. The fool sucked ass at fresco--which is why the Last Supper is nothing more than a stain on the wall (kind of like how Milan is a stain on Italy; maybe that was his point all along?). For all the bitching he did about Michalengelo's painting, the dude (who abhorred painting), could paint circles around DaVinci. His shit is still around for one thing.
 
zinfamous said:
If I'm not mistaken, i do believe it was the first portrait ever that was not a profile.

If you take a gander at many of the paintings of the age, portraits are profiles, and mostly 2D. Mona Lisa is a 3/4 angle with perspective (perspective being totally cool at the time--just ask Giotto (yeah, he was like a hundred years earlier or so, but not everyone had caught up))

There's something going on with the background too, but I don't remember. It's also what defined the phrase, "doesn't live up to hype." Seriously, just try and find some space to look at the tiny ass portrait amongst the throngs of picture-snapping Japanese tourists.

The damn thing has its own room, and you still can't fit in there.

Also, DaVinci has, I think, 4 or 7 paintings known to be his that exist. Only a few of them aren't cruddy and faded. The fool sucked ass at fresco--which is why the Last Supper is nothing more than a stain on the wall (kind of like how Milan is a stain on Italy; maybe that was his point all along?). For all the bitching he did about Michalengelo's painting, the dude (who abhorred painting), could paint circles around DaVinci. His shit is still around for one thing.
Click to expand...

I sat here rackin my brain - because I actually knew this answer once. Than I read your answer and I was back in Year 12 Art History.. Thats exactly what we learnt (well the first half anyway)🙂
 
It's kind of like having the first respose in a thread or blog post. You get the glory of being FIRST! 😀 The first entries in the art field may not look particularly great, but they pioneered the way for everyone else to copy them, so people hold them in high respect because they opened the door to whatever style they created - colors, 3D, etc.
 
I was watching the History Channel. And they were saying that supposedly the Mona Lisa is actually a self portrait of DaVinci himself(slightly modified of course).
 
d4mo said:
I was watching the History Channel. And they were saying that supposedly the Mona Lisa is actually a self portrait of DaVinci himself(slightly modified of course).
Click to expand...

Every time an artist paints, a little of themselves gets in the painting, Most old artists would use themselves for models, and just paint their own face for hours on end.

One of the biggest reasons the mona lisa is famous is because Leonardo was commissioned to paint it, he painted it, and then he didn't give it to his patron. Its the only painting he never gave away or sold, he supposedly said something to the effect that it was "too perfect to part with".

Given that he became wildly famous, and that all his paintings are now worth tons, doesn't it follow that the painting he said himself was the best, and that he loved the most would be worth the most?
 
Last edited:
To me, and I am an artist, I find nothing special about it. If someone famous says something is great then other people tend to follow the trend whether they agree or not. Da Vinci is famous for a lot of things and because he was so are his paintings. Even today it holds true and that is why famous people endorsing products is such a big deal.

I think someone like Salvador Dali is way more talented but he doesn't get the same recognition. His painting truly speak for what he was thinking. My favorite is called Autumn Cannibalism.
http://www.scottzagar.com/arthistory/timelines.php?page=event&e_id=2073
 
Modelworks said:
To me, and I am an artist, I find nothing special about it. If someone famous says something is great then other people tend to follow the trend whether they agree or not. Da Vinci is famous for a lot of things and because he was so are his paintings. Even today it holds true and that is why famous people endorsing products is such a big deal.

I think someone like Salvador Dali is way more talented but he doesn't get the same recognition. His painting truly speak for what he was thinking. My favorite is called Autumn Cannibalism.
http://www.scottzagar.com/arthistory/timelines.php?page=event&e_id=2073
Click to expand...

Wow that is an F'd up painting. Pretty cool though.
 
Cogman said:
Every time an artist paints, a little of themselves gets in the painting, Most old artists would use themselves for models, and just paint their own face for hours on end.
...
Click to expand...

Yea, like the time we got a drawing done at Central Park and the result made us look half Oriental when we aren't but the artist was.
 
Da Vinci used the complementary colors technique to make her smile shimmer, sort of like the optical illusion spirals that get posted here from time to time but a bit more restrained.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top