The Mona Lisa

eoin2004

The Mona Lisa

Am I the only one who thinks that the "Best" painting i the world is a bit boring?
Will anyone agree with me or will I just get a bit of an asre whooping?

aidan_walsh

I can only decide whether or not to argue this point once you make a proper argument in your prefered direction, and stop playing with the BBCodes... Thats what the test forum is for...

Cabaal

Anyone agree with you?
You don't even make it clear which side your on!

Also I'd have to agree with doodle_sketch, lay off the vbcode will ya...

chewy

i don't think it's reffered to as the best... its the most famous

PurpleFistMixer

Well, it's pretty tiny.
And I've never liked that style. Too realistic for my liking.
Yeah, not the best.
Don't even know why it's so famous. I mean, there are a lot of paintings out there that are from a technical point just as good and they're even more interesting! And yet no one knows them.

DadaKopf

Amazing how a painting that was neglected for centuries has risen to such prominence.

Still, Leonardo was one of the best painters of his generation and invented (or at least vastly improved) many of the tricks painters have used ever since.

Personally I think it's a bland painting compared to his other stuff, although I haven't seen it in the flesh. Perhaps its appeal is down to the stories that surround it and this boring argument over whether she's smiling or not

I dont think Mona Lisa is a ride and some crazy people even think it's a portrait of Leonardo himself, the narcisstic retard. I'd compare his skill and style to Dalí, who was also a self-obsessed retard who made boring paintings.

chewy

you dont like dali????

DadaKopf

Nope. A skillful illustrator but a charlatan.

Kitty Kat

Dali and Leonardo were genius's in my opinion! Both crazy and self-obsessed, but werent all the greats!?

Is your adoration for Mona Lisa a Da Vinci Code thing by the way!? :rolleyes:

davej

I saw the mona lisa about 2 years ago and thought it was quite good but I'd say it has been hyped somewhat. I was a lot more impressed with the Picasso museum in Paris actually.

As for Dali, I tend to agree with Dadakopf with regards to him being a charlatan. Although I think he sometimes managed to pull the wool over his own eyes on occasion.

It's interesting though, he must have done something right. The fact that there are hundreds of thousands of his prints on walls all over the world. Whether one dismisses this as simply clever marketing, it cannot be denied that he has a certain appeal. One of the definitions of a great artist (and it's as good as any other definition) is how popular he is. A similar argument "raged" recently over Vettriano's paintings. I guess these debates often end when someone utters the words "I don't know much but i know what I like".

It's nice to see that some other artists are now beginning to get their dues though. The travelling exhibitions these days are great. I saw an El Greco exhibition a while ago and was astonished at how "modern" he seemed, the strong influence he had on impressionism.

davej

ykt0di9url7bc3

Rene Magritte has been my favourite for years, Tony Oakey in the same regard....

as for Miss Lisa, I do enjoy looking at that image but I dont think I could ever have a favourite

DadaKopf

SherrarD wrote:

Rene Magritte has been my favourite for years

That's the thing. Magritte was a surrealist in the sense that he managed to actually produce paintings that managed to point toward the 'higher reality' (surreal) written about in Breton's Surrealist Manifesto. The Surrealists themselves didn't rate Dali very highly at all. I'd consider him in the same vain as Hieronymous Bosch - he was a fantasy painter, not as good or intruiging as Bosch, and about as interesting as an illustrator of fantasy novels.

Painters like Magritte and Ernst, or even Duchamp, mastered the complexity of surrealism. There was nothing of the every day in Dali's doodlings. He's more of a clown. A scenester.