Get Rid of the Mona Lisa!

[Brad]

I’ve been to the Louvre about half a dozen times (although not since 2007) and I saw the Mona Lisa the first or second time I was there.

Tourism seems out of control the last few years in Europe with Venice, Barcelona and other cities being ruined by tourists. As the following article makes clear the tourists are out of control when it comes to the Mona Lisa and he suggests that it be moved or removed from the Louvre.  “Leonardo’s painting is a security hazard, an educational obstacle and not even a satisfying bucket-list item. It’s time the Louvre moved it out of the way.”

It’s Time to Take Down the Mona Lisa

 

[Chuck Nessa]

The US is progressing in its destruction of the middle class so tourism will decline.

Hello Dan.

[JSngry]

[Chuck Nessa]

1 hour ago, JSngry said:

Done!

[ejp626]

It's an interesting argument, particularly the fact that many tourists don't feel it lives up to the hype (and the crowding borders on the dangerous both to tourists and other works of art nearby).  That said, this also strikes me as a very elite argument made primarily by people who have already had a chance to view the Mona Lisa (or Venice or whatever else is overcrowded and trendy) and now want to draw up the ladders as it were.

[Guy Berger]

13 minutes ago, ejp626 said:

It's an interesting argument, particularly the fact that many tourists don't feel it lives up to the hype (and the crowding borders on the dangerous both to tourists and other works of art nearby).  That said, this also strikes me as a very elite argument made primarily by people who have already had a chance to view the Mona Lisa (or Venice or whatever else is overcrowded and trendy) and now want to draw up the ladders as it were.

100% agreed

[Kevin Bresnahan]

I was warned by several people that 1) The Mona Lisa was tiny, unimpressive and not worth the wait and 2) It takes hours to get in to see it.

Both times I went to the Louvre, I was able to walk right up to it. No line like I was warned. A crowd, for sure, but not too big.

And yes, it is almost tiny, especially since they put it in that little room about 10 feet away from the viewing window. To be honest, I really wasn't that impressed. In fact, one of the times I was in that room, there was an incredible painting on the adjacent wall that kept my attention for a solid 10 minutes. The Mona Lisa was a glance by comparison.

[ejp626]

My experience was similar.  If you get to the Louvre fairly early and make a beeline to the Mona Lisa, the crowds aren't that bad.  (Obviously, this won't be the case during the special da Vinci exhibit.)  There are other fascinating paintings that don't get anywhere near the attention. 

I'm quite sure the Louvre has a couple of Vermeers and several Rembrandts, and this entire wing was a ghost town on my visit.  (The Dutch rooms are usually busier at the Met, though even so, there are never long line ups to look at their Vermeers either.)

[gmonahan]

It's not the best painting in the room. My vote goes to Titian's wonderful profile portrait of Francis I. If you want to experience completely out of control tourism, try visiting the Palace of Versailles.

 

 

 

gregmo

[Brad]

1 hour ago, ejp626 said:

It's an interesting argument, particularly the fact that many tourists don't feel it lives up to the hype (and the crowding borders on the dangerous both to tourists and other works of art nearby).  That said, this also strikes me as a very elite argument made primarily by people who have already had a chance to view the Mona Lisa (or Venice or whatever else is overcrowded and trendy) and now want to draw up the ladders as it were.

Yes, that’s probably true.  However, there is so many other wonderful things to see there that if that’s all you focus on, yes, you may be disappointed.  The Delacroix are something special. 

[JSngry]

kinda like this, right? Important (enough), famous, eternally popular for a good (enough) reason, awareness "essential", etcetc, but at the end of the day, in no way a good finishing point for anybody/anything, especially if the entry point and finishinling are one and the sme.

[Big Beat Steve]

In a way it's a "cult" item. "Cult" that has become an end in itself - as a "must have seen" that you can boast with afterwards. Much like certain world-famous objects in other fields of art, including recordings in anyone's preferred style of music (including jazz where I'd venture a guess not all of those recordings claimed by some as "must have heard by all means" aural Mona Lisas are THAT mandatory by OBJECTIVE yardsticks of appreciation of the music at large).

[Justin V]

Maybe if they banned cell phones and cameras, less people would crowd the exhibit.  

[Kevin Bresnahan]

This incredible painting is right next to it.

And this one is on the back of the Mona Lisa's little closet:

[sonnymax]

46 minutes ago, bresna said:

This incredible painting is right next to it.

You just like big-ass shit. 

[Dave Garrett]

[JSngry]

They should pump this into the room:

 

[Hardbopjazz]

On 11/8/2019 at 0:18 PM, bresna said:

I was warned by several people that 1) The Mona Lisa was tiny, unimpressive and not worth the wait and 2) It takes hours to get in to see it.

Both times I went to the Louvre, I was able to walk right up to it. No line like I was warned. A crowd, for sure, but not too big.

And yes, it is almost tiny, especially since they put it in that little room about 10 feet away from the viewing window. To be honest, I really wasn't that impressed. In fact, one of the times I was in that room, there was an incredible painting on the adjacent wall that kept my attention for a solid 10 minutes. The Mona Lisa was a glance by comparison.

I just watched a Nova show on Leonardo Da Vinci. The problem with the Mona Lisa and why some are not impressed, it has 500 plus years of grime on it. The colors are all lost. Those in charge of the Louvre are afraid of attempting to clean it. Da Vinci made his own paints, completely different than any other artists of that time. So they don’t want to risk losing it. Through the use of a computer program, scientists were able to re-create what the painting looked like 500 years ago. It was so vibrant in color, unlike the way it looks now. So much is not visible.  There is an entire garden in the lower quarter of the painting. Today that’s not visible. The program did mentioned that tourism and all the flashing cameras and cell phone is adding to the painting demise. 

[JSngry]

8 hours ago, Hardbopjazz said:

I just watched a Nova show on Leonardo Da Vinci. The problem with the Mona Lisa and why some are not impressed, it has 500 plus years of grime on it. The colors are all lost. Those in charge of the Louvre are afraid of attempting to clean it. Da Vinci made his own paints, completely different than any other artists of that time. So they don’t want to risk losing it. Through the use of a computer program, scientists were able to re-create what the painting looked like 500 years ago. It was so vibrant in color, unlike the way it looks now. So much is not visible.  There is an entire garden in the lower quarter of the painting. Today that’s not visible. The program did mentioned that tourism and all the flashing cameras and cell phone is adding to the painting demise. 

I watched that show myself, just last night. A wonderful presentation, recommended to anybody who's interested even slightly.

https://www.pbs.org/video/decoding-da-vinci-93ssvo/