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 love the whole background of mystery though - was 'La Giaconda' a man or a woman? Who was he/she? What did this reveal about Leonardo? I absolutely love art and get a lot out of it. I agree with Hackmum. In order to properly appreciate art, the time it was created needs to be considered - what social impact did it have? How ahead of it's time was it?
I do think Leonardo was a genius on so many levels. He was a prolific inventor and thought of many things that still resonate today. Incredibly impressive really.

I saw it last year whilst on my honeymoon, I've always wanted to see it as it is a 'big deal' and I thought it was very beautiful. I did enjoy the Rembrandt's much more though.

I was more underwhelmed by the Venus de Milo to be honest though, which is also in the Louvre.

I love it-it´s only an opinion.

I think Damian Hirst´s stuff is crap-it´s only an opinion.

YANBU - there were far better exhibits in the Louvre which were much more accessible and had no queues to view.

Didn't realise the Louvre was so extensive ... I got lost twice (that was with the map) and by the end of the day my feet were aching

are these better?

The Scream is not something I appreciate. I saw it in RL in Vancouver, and while "interesting" not anything to write home about.

I think you need to see the Mona Lisa when there aren't 2000 American and Japanese tourists also trying to look at it.

It's a nice enough painting. She looks quite a bit like my niece, I've just noticed.

The thing about art is, I think, that people go along with what they are told is good, great art, a 'classic', and out of fear of being called a philistine, they enthuse about how great it is and what the artist was trying to say and the meaning of it all.

When sometimes, it's just a pile of crap and often it's no better done than a hundred other paintings by people who were never given the status 'master' or similar.

I am reminded of a bunch of art critics who were going wild over this wonderful picture they were being shown (i remember watching this on tv). All of them bar one were going on about what the artist was trying to say with this piece. One said it was a pile of rubbish.

Their faces when it was revealed that the artist was in fact an elephant were amazing! They had been exposed as pretentious fools and they knew it.

I prefer to make up my own mind, based on my own eyes. I don't want to be told what is good and what is a classic, who is a master, what art I must appreciate. If it's good, I am capable of seeing that, and if it's shit, no amount of telling me that it's a wonderful interpretation of man's eternal struggle against the universe will make me change my mind

I saw it in the louvre last year. As underwhelmed IRL as when I've seen
It in photos. It is opposite an amazing picture - the marriage at cana by Veronese - which blew me away. I'm not an art person really but that was stunning - massive, colourful, detailed. I couldn't understand why people were milling around the mona Lisa for ages and then only giving this painting a quick glance. It was soooo much better!

It's because they've been told it's the Best Painting In The World and it's been put behind 10ft thick glass, banyan

I've never actually seen it, but would like to. But people who have seen it tell me it's really disappointing and very small. For some reason I always used to imagine it as huge. I'd like to see that Venus rising from the Seashell. That looks as if it would be a magnificent painting. Not sure which gallery it's in though.

banyan DH and I were both stunned that anyone would spend ages look at the ml, when the marriage at cana is opposite; it is a gorgeous painting.

I love Da Vinci, so YA definately BU! Though I've never seen a Da Vinci in the flesh. She/he has such a mocking face - everytime I see it, there's something new to see, bit like a good book or film.

I can see the Mona is such a well used image that it has lost it's impact (a bit like Beethoven's Moonlight Sonata). I think this was the first painting he used the sfumato technique (though I could completely mis-remember this bit) and later perfected it even more. So I think others he did were better (I love The Virgin and Child).

Sigh, should have done art history instead of science....

Birth of Venus-in Florence.

I think with some of these paintings though, it´s also the history that goes with them & that they were quite "ahead of their time"?

YANBU. I've seen it a couple of times and don't find it remotely incredible. We took DD last year. Her response, after looking foreward to seeing it was 'is that it?'.
Da Vinci was a genius and did invent and pain some wonderful things. She isn't one IMO.
OTOH, I don't find <a class="break-all" href="http://www.google.co.uk/imgres?imgurl=upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/0/0c/%27Magenta,_Black,_Green_on_Orange%27,_oil_on_canvas_painting_by_Mark_Rothko,_1947,_Museum_of_Modern_Art.jpg/220px-%27Magenta,_Black,_Green_on_Orange%27,_oil_on_canvas_painting_by_Mark_Rothko,_1947,_Museum_of_Modern_Art.jpg&imgrefurl=en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Rothko&h=288&w=220&sz=12&tbnid=_B4fpoqZvrXWlM:&tbnh=96&tbnw=73&prev=/search%3Fq%3Dmark%2Brothko%26tbm%3Disch%26tbo%3Du&zoom=1&q=mark+rothko&usg=__NyjfcjQtV80kXcHMCTJnEl4bn7w=&docid=o5lExe_Hc816VM&hl=en&sa=X&ei=ZdTdT4WiHeKH0AWQ3qmGCw&sqi=2&ved=0CGYQ9QEwAQ&dur=1220" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Rothko's work incredible either. DH does.

Thanks Diddl.

Diddl

Diddl, I am not the biggest Hirst fan but happened to visit his exhibition at Tate Modern with my 1 year old. Wierdly, we thoroughly enjoyed it - not my taste but that giant ashtray makes a good anti-smoking lesson and the butterfly room was fun.

I completely agree with everything Hecate has posted.

I love visiting art galleries (my own preference is surrealism) but I am equally happy to look at student art work or street artists - of which there are very, very many talented individuals who will never become "known".

I can´t help thinking that Hirst is an example of the Emperor´s new clothes.

But just because i don´t like it...

Its one of the first in 3D, if you look at other paintings of that era they are 2D, flat, no dimension. Da Vinci was also a scientist and used to cutting open cadavers, thus had a detailed observation of the human body and could infuse his paintings with detail.

I like the Mona Lisa. It's unlike anything painted at the time and she looks like a real woman.

It's iconic innit?

I found the Mona Lisa a big let down when visiting the Louvre. But then I'm no art connaisseur.

Hecate is a philistine

It's true, I am.