To think that the Mona Lisa is a boring painting

[AKMD]

For reference.

To me, it is a small, dingy portrait of an average-looking woman. If it wasn't roped off and covered in bullet-proof glass I would walk straight past.

Anyone else think the same or AIB a savage heathen in need of re-education?

I agree, there are other paintings (not that I know anything about art) I like better.

It's the enigmatic smile though that people flock too isn't it? Like she knows something but not going to say.

I don't like van gogh either.

It's rubbish. Miserable bitch.

Saw it last year and don't remember the bullet proof glass?

You are a philistine in need of re-educating. And besides: YABU.

I remember being distinctly underwhelmed when I saw it as a teen. And didn't bother to go and see it again on subsequent trips to the Louvre.

Admittedly the last time I saw it was several years ago on a VIth form French trip.

I didn't think she has an enigmatic/mysterious/smirky smile at all. Her eyes are pointing the wrong way but that's the only odd thing about it that I can see.

What is it you like about the painting Alliwant?

It's a good painting in that it looks realistic, but like shouty says, she does look a bit arsey

Just looked at pics we took and it is behind glass. Didn't even notice at the time!

I prefer the term 'savage heathen'. Much easier to spell y'know.

I do like van Gogh though.

My honest opinion is that it is entirely unremarkable in every way and if it wasn't a Da Vinci it would be well at home as a bought-in 'ancestor' in a parvenu's over-decorated country mansion. The only reason people think it is remarkable is because they are told that it is.

Classic example of Emperor's New Clothes syndrome.

I don't get the big deal about it either. There are so many truly amazing paintings out there, I just don't get the big deal about that one.

It is much smaller than you imagine it would be. I am also not a Van Gogh fan. His sunflowers look to me like something some one did in a still life class on a Tuesday evening at an adult learners group.

Call me a philistine. It's all speculative isn't it. I often spend an hour or so at the National Gallery and just look at a few paintings that really grab me.

Da Vinci was a genuine genius thought wasn't he, I can imagine that'd make people think he must have done it to be like that on purpose.

Didn't he carry it round for years on end, painting over it again and again? Or was that someone else?

i think the detail and the brush stokes are very good. to me it's not the image but the way it is painted.

I could never see anything very special about it until I saw the actual painting. It was mesmerising. Her face looked alive.

yanbu

I suspect though that sometimes these things are special because they were the first artist to do things in a certain ay, or the best one around at the time. (clearly not read anything in the link)

I reckon she was one of his cadavers, hence the distant expression and odd pose. It's just rigor mortis.

:o tethersend

Da Vinci was definitely a genius but I much prefer the glider drawings.

I have never seen the painting, but I loved learning about the Renaissance in history at school. I think that is represents a certain era in history and art. I know nothing about art, being a lowly childminder!! But I do think it is something special. Having said that, I would probably also be disappointed if I saw it! Heard that it is disappointing in RL from more than one source.

I think it's one of those paintings you have to consider in the context of its time. Leonardo was one of the first artists to paint ordinary people (as opposed to figures from religion or mythology) and to paint them realistically. Her expression is half-way to a smile - it's as if he's captured her in the act of smiling, which is again fairly unusual.

I give your the pearl earring painting its abit shit isnt it

Agree, it's really underwhelming isn't it? I 'took' DP to the Louvre recently (he's not really an arty person), and he was really surprised 1) by how interesting he found it (the Louvre) and many of the paintings, and 2) by how small and fairly dull the ML is.
It's all about celebrity - the celebrity status of Leonardo, the mystery of the sitter (now solved) etc. You only have to look around when you're standing in front it - more people taking pictures of themselves with the painting than actually looking at it :) It's pretty much famous because it's famous, iyswim?!
The Leonardo exhibition at the NG in London did a good job of explaining how/why he was so celebrated at the time - he really was an innovator in his time, in art and other areas. Also the fact that he actually only seems to have finished a handful of portraits, of which not all survive.
I did an Art History degree, and we did an absolutely fascinating module about what is art, how/why certain artists gain status, how it is that certain artists/works can command such huge sums of money (and reverence) etc. One of the most interesting parts of the course!

I love it. The ordinariness of her. The detail in the background. The fact its tiny. I have been lucky enough to go and see it several times, and if I get the chance to be in Paris it's one of the paintings I return to time and again to see. Can't explain any better than that. P'raps it's like marmite? (forgive me comparing ML to Marmite!)

I quite like it, but am not overwhelmed by it. I find the Louvre a bit meh, on the whole.

Orsay is much better.

YANBU. I didn't bother looking at it when I was at the Louvre, because it was surrounded by a crowd of people 5 deep, all desperately trying to photograph it.

If like the painting, fair enough, but I don't think it deserves that kind of attention!