Art Hysteria 101
For my money the Mona Lisa may surely be one of the most overrated paintings in all the history of art. From the time I first saw it in the Louvre I've wondered what the fuss was all about. There's nothing particularly special about the technique, it in no way reflects anything significant about the times or culture it came from, nor does it tell us much of anything about the sitter. An enigmatic smile? One man's enigmatic is another man's bland. Alas, it has set the standard for five centuries of bad portraiture, pictures that mummify the subjects while attempting to glorify and idealize them.
posted by John M Crowther @ 7:54 AM
8 Comments:
Hey, I get it! Now that you’ve all have raised Schulz, Maudlin and Hirschfield to the top of the pantheon, the time has come to dis Leonardo. Who’s next Botticelli? Fra Angelico? I’ll admit that maybe the Mona is not his finest hour. You want my opinion? That Annunciation in Florence is! And sure Mona has been over-hyped but how about that wonderful misty perspective with the mountains? And how about that snaky road on the left that perfectly balances the curve on her right shoulder and the same design repeated in the lower sleeve? And what about the delicate skin tones and the soft shadows on the face? All done with paint, my friend. What kind of soft shadows do you find in Hirschfield for gods sake? It’s all squiggly lines, and it’s all ink. It’s about as subtle as a Humvee running over a rabbit. The Mona Lisa is gorgeous. Chacun à son goût. One man’s filet is another man’s hamburger.
Squiggley lines are hard to draw. roger
Great cartoon John... I like how you've incorporated the painting. And the caption says it all about the subjectivity of not only the art... but the artist and sitter as well.
I remember being rather disappointed by the Mona Lisa too. I was surprised how small it is in real life. I wonder now if it was even worth the ten minutes or so it took to push and excuse my way through the 30 deep mob of Japanese tourists to get a closer look... only to discover that the painting was still at least 30 feet away behind barricades... behind glass... and illuminated only by (protective) dim lighting.
Give me Botticelli any day. And knowing how you admire Carravaggio... it's not surprising that the Mona falls way short in your estimation. Mine too.
Everyone is a critic. Some know more than others....but some are artists and others just love to find fault.
Thanks, Jean. The first time I saw Miss Mona was long ago, when I walked into a big gallery and there she was, virtually alone.
Hey, anon, Snaky road? Misty perspective? Compositional balance and repeated curves? Delicate skin tones and soft shadows? C'mon, man, you have to do better than that, you've talking basics. I'll take Hirschfeld over Leonard any day.... it's his ability to do so much more with so much less. Check out the complexities in those squiggly lines. And for the record, I think filet is wildly overrated, unless we're talking about good Dover sole.
Okay, now I don’t get it. If it isn’t Rembrandt’s humanity or his use of light and shadow, if it isn’t Leonardo’s sense of design and perspective, if it isn’t Picasso’s wonderful invention and reinvention of space, if it isn’t color or brush technique what the hell meets your highest standard of artistic beauty or even aesthetics? The ability to draw mud with a few lines? Hey, maybe less isn’t more. Maybe less is only less.
I may not always agree with Anonymous out there but as Voltaire or some other Frenchman once said I will defend to the death his right to say he knows what he likes. As for me, I think old Leonardo would be delighted with John’s use of perspective, especially when it comes to creating the illusion of a canvas on an easel.
How did you do that John? Yes, I have been a silent observer.
Ellie
Post a Comment
<< Home