Originally posted by long pig
True art doesn't need to be explained. He shouldn't have to take a course in history to realize a painting's beauty, it should be apparent.The Mona Lisa is overrated. The painter isn't, the painting is.
True art? I'd love for you to explain that. What is your definition of true art?
Art is more about beauty and the appreciation thereof. There are not too many people who will call Francis Bacon's art beautiful, does that make it not "true art"? Art is also about creativity, expression, impression, technique, inspiration, reaction, influence and so on.
BartmanX asked, What's so great about the Mona Lisa." The fact that different elements were explored in that painting that hadn't been explored before, and the fact that it inspired great works from other artist's is just one reason among many why it is considered a great work of art.
To say," It's ugly, and it looks like the person in it is half man half woman sorta." May be a personal opinion of aesthetic preference, but it is a rather immature way to view art. I suggested an art history book or courses due to the fact that his view of art seems rather limited and I could see his questions being answered more effectively there than by a number of members trying to educate him on the subject on a movie forum.
Re: Re: Re: Re: The 'Mona Lisa'
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
What I mean is, where did you see the Mona Lisa? Did you see it in a magazine? Most likely you have seen a picture printed on to paper. Do you know how think the painting is? A photo will not reproduce that kind of detail.
I've seen it on TV, pictures in magazines, posters, ect. But never in a museum or the real thing. How come it will not produce that kind of detail?
Originally posted by BartmanXno one says you have to like it 😖
Oh yeah huh. I forgot about that. Even still, it's ugly and old.
and Our Vinci is better anyway 😊
La dama con l’ermellino
if it doesn't show up, click
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/pl/c/cd/Dama_z_%C5%82asiczk%C4%85.jpg
I took some art classes, and for its time it was a wonderful work of art. It has different layers, and was one of the best examples of a work of art that included color to show a difference in distance (the background). I believe its called a three-point perspective. I can understand why people like it, and how it was a breakthrough peice.....
but honestly I think its ugly.
I've been to the Louvre an seen it, and the first thing that struck me was how small it was. For some reason I've always thought it was larger, guess I've never seen it compared to a person or something else...
And I must agree that I don't find Mona Lisa particulary fantastic, but I hadn't that big expectations either. Personally I'm not that big a fan of these kinds of paintings, but I do find structures and wall/ceiling paintings fantastic.
I loved Notre Dame, Sacre Ceur, Versailles, l'Arc de Triomphe, le Tour d'Eiffel etc, I find these more physically astounding pieces of work easier to appreciate I guess 🤓
That's why I'd love to go to Rome, I've seen pictures and it looks fantastic. Probably why I also loved Athens...