in my opinion it is because, when beatrice Il moros wife, started to act fun, she attracted everyone, everyone new who she was and Il moro begun to lover her, she knew how to measure people, and after she became popular with everyone, everyone loved her, she was no longer the plain wife of the duke, but a beatiful girl, and everyone saw she had a good soul, that was when she had something made the craftsman, or whatever, made it as perfect as he could , everyone employed by her knew that he was not in competition with other craftsmen; he was in competition with perfection itself. so after poor beatrice died, some time passed and a merchant came in and wanted to talk with leonardo, and he said he wanted a portrait done of his wife, as he presented salai with his wife , salai thought she looked like beatrice (he was in love with her) so then he gets her painted and i guess that leonardo to thought of her as beatrice and wanted to make that portrait perfect just as the others had done they wanted for her stuff to be perfect, in this case leonardo kept the painting for his life making a little change here and there over the years, and i gess she was poor because she wore no fancy stuff... but there is something about her smile if you see, its like it fits your mood somewhat, and its eyes seem to follow you wherever you go... to me she is not beatiful it is the art that is beatiful, and she is not as big as u think if u see her up and personal
2006-09-02 10:35:48
·
answer #1
·
answered by Prada Marfa 6
·
0⤊
1⤋
The sitter's enigmatic smirk is just one of the mysteries that historians, scientists and conspiracy theorists have been debating since the artist touched his last brushstroke to the canvas.
Even the year it was painted is not known for sure. It is widely believed to have been finished in 1506, but experts say that's no more than a good guess. Toting it with him his entire life, da Vinci likely touched it up in subsequent years.
What's the fuss?
The painting currently hangs in the Louvre Museum in Paris. It is set behind a wall of bulletproof glass and watched over by armed guards.
So what's all the fuss about?
"There's no reason for it," said Frank Fehrenbach, Renaissance expert and professor of art history at Harvard University. "It is a beautiful portrait, but only historical coincidences have made it so famous."
The Romantic Movement in the 19th century had a lot to do with popularizing the work, Fehrenbach said.
"Romantic writers created the popular image of the 'Mona Lisa,'" Fehrenbach told LiveScience. Because of her bemused smile, "they said she must hold secrets, that she was the quintessential ‘femme fatale.' With all of these new ideas about the Renaissance being discussed, the 'Mona Lisa' became the symbol of that."
2006-09-02 16:19:40
·
answer #2
·
answered by They call me ... Trixie. 7
·
1⤊
0⤋
The Mona Lisa is and will always be a picture that people love. The reason is she has a look to fit what ever the mood is that you are in. For example have you ever noticed that she looks happy when you are and sad at times when you are as well. She is not a beautiful woman but modest so she is easily excepted rather then hated for her beauty. So simple yet refined and there is wonder about her as well sought of what is she thinking and why.
2006-09-02 16:25:16
·
answer #3
·
answered by Barry G 5
·
2⤊
0⤋
There's a mystique to the Mona Lisa that made her one of the most famous paintings in the world, and in HER time, she was considered stunning. Tastes change. Also, the use of a changing horizon line helped to draw her out and that's one of the factors that fascinates people. She always seems to be looking at you, as though she knew some deep secret. This was done through the horizon line. It's slightly higher on one side than the other, but few people notice it if they aren't looking for it.
But no, not everyone likes her. I've never been fond of her and if you see her at the louvre, although she is fascinating for style and skill, the painting is far smaller than most people expect, kept in a dark case and is rather dark in colour itself. I'm more of a Monet Girl myself.
2006-09-02 16:23:03
·
answer #4
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
0⤋
Why does something have to be necessarily beautiful to be special? I find the Mona Lisa quite special for the use of colors; making the dull yet somewhat alive lighting, the peculiar expression and pose of the woman, etc. And it has such a mysterious touch to it... also, "beauty" is very different depending on the person!
Hope this answered you!
2006-09-02 16:19:01
·
answer #5
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
0⤋
Mona Lisa is famous for her facial expression and the subtlety of the transitions of tone and color.
The portrait presents the subject from just above the bust, with a distant landscape visible as a backdrop. Leonardo used a pyramid design to place the woman simply and calmly in the space of the painting. Her folded hands form the front corner of the pyramid. Her breast, neck, and face glow in the same light that softly models her hands. The light gives the variety of living surfaces an underlying geometry of spheres and circles, which includes the arc of her famous smile. Sigmund Freud interpreted the 'smile' as signifying Leonardo's erotic attraction to his dear mother;[5] others have described it as both innocent and inviting. It is said by some that the painting is centered on the heart, as is illustrated in this version.
Many researchers have tried to explain why the smile is seen so differently by people. The explanations range from scientific theories about human vision to curious supposition about Mona Lisa's identity and feelings. Professor Margaret Livingstone of Harvard University has argued that the smile is mostly drawn in low spatial frequencies, and so can best be seen with one's peripheral vision[6]. Thus, for example, the smile appears more striking when looking at the portrait's eyes than when looking at the mouth itself. Christopher Tyler and Leonid Kontsevich of the Smith-Kettlewell Institute in San Francisco believe that the changing nature of the smile is caused by variable levels of random noise in human visual system.[7] Dina Goldin, Adjunct Professor at Brown University, has argued that the secret is in the non-static position of Mona Lisa's facial muscles, where our mind's eye unconsciously extends her smile; the result is an unusual dynamicity to the face that invokes subtle yet strong emotions in the viewer of the painting.[8]
It is also notable that Mona Lisa has no visible facial hair at all - including eyebrows and eyelashes. This is probably because it was common at this time for genteel women to pluck them off, since they were considered to be unsightly.[9] [10] For modern viewers this adds to the slightly mysterious semi-abstract quality of the face.
2006-09-02 16:18:06
·
answer #6
·
answered by DanE 7
·
2⤊
0⤋
Spin and revision.
Using the Mona Lisa to mediate between high and low culture is not new. Soon after the turn of the 20th century, the Dada movement revolted against the "high cultural" content of the visual arts. In doing this, in some cases the Dadaists elevated the mundane into the world of the "aesthetic" by forcing observers to look at everyday objects in surprisingly new contexts. At other times cherished objects and symbols were ridiculed. The most well known act of degrading a famous work of art is probably Marcel Duchamp's L.H.O.O.Q., a cheap postcard-sized reproduction of the Mona Lisa upon which in 1919 the artist drew a mustache and a thin goatee beard. On one hand L.H.O.O.Q. must be understood as one of Duchamp's "readymade" works of art -- works that he didn't make, but which, by having been placed intellectually within a conceptual framework of "Art," he forces the observer to see ordinary objects from new perspectives. In this way their innate aesthetic contents would make themselves manifest -- as happens in one of his more infamous works: the urinal turned on its side and rebaptized "Fountain." However, to most observers, instead of elevating the ordinary, Marcel's Mona Lisa works in the opposite direction; it defaces (literally) that which has been cherished, and brings a famous work down to the level of vulgar vandalism and cheap reproduction. The title makes the point, too, but obscurely, since when pronounced in French "L.H.O.O.Q." reports as a pun on the phrase "Elle a chaud au cul," which translates colloquially as "She is hot in the ***."
In his 1968 catalogue for the Dada and Surrealism exhibit at the Museum of Modern Art in New York (p. 19), curator and author William Rubin suggests that L.H.O.O.Q. is a puzzle, made enigmatic by its title, the "scurrilous solution" to which is posed as a explanation for Mona's mysterious smile. We have already seen some contemporary efforts to suggest (witty) explanations for this leonardesque emblem of puzzling contentment. But if the Duchamp's graffito removes Mona from her ancient pedestal, it also works in the other direction, since it elevates the crude commercially printed card from that of a cheap distributable image to a signature work of art. In this fashion, it may be understood as the mother of pop-art Monas, especially those by Andy Warhol, and, in this respect, a direct predecessor of the kinds of kitsch Monas presented at the outset of this article.
2006-09-02 16:25:59
·
answer #7
·
answered by anotherthirteen 2
·
1⤊
0⤋
The truth is the art historians and fine art dealers sya she is great and worth a lot of money and the people who are rich and stupid enough to fall for it are prepared to pay.
Forget the idiots leave them to their fantasies of grandeur. Stay in the real world. Fail to do this and you will start thinking half a dead cow or a pile of bricks is high art!
You have been warned!!!!
2006-09-02 16:22:54
·
answer #8
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
0⤋
The picture sure looks lke Di Vinci , if he was a female.look at his pic and ML side by side.....
I agree it's not a classically beautiful painting of a woman.......
The attraction is that she has no expression ..thats cold for a female right ?
People are intrigued , wnt to figure out what she's thinking , what's behind that blind stare....
That's what I believe..........
2006-09-02 16:20:28
·
answer #9
·
answered by cesare214 6
·
1⤊
0⤋
She's not beautiful, but the painting is. Look at the gorgeous setting in the background. I think she has a very maternal quality about her...full figure, serene...
2006-09-02 16:18:45
·
answer #10
·
answered by just browsin 6
·
1⤊
0⤋