60 ms·

The original you see today isn’t the original that would have been seen immediately after it was painted. Mona Lisa is pretty crap anyway, if you ever find you

The original you see today isn’t the original that would have been seen immediately after it was painted. Mona Lisa is pretty crap anyway, if you ever find yourself in the Louvre, look at what’s hung on the opposite wall. Now that is an impressive painting.

jjtheblunt 4y ago
(totally agree, and found myself laughing reading this)
spapas82 4y ago
In case anyone wonders which is the painting... http://www.worldsbestpaintings.net/artistsandpaintings/painting/6/ http://www.worldsbestpaintings.net/artistsandpaintings/paint...
- iamacyborg 4y ago
  There’s a very good book written about it’s history which was published recently. https://thamesandhudson.com/napoleons-plunder-and-the-theft-of-veroneses-feast-9780500252574 https://thamesandhudson.com/napoleons-plunder-and-the-theft-...
cratermoon 4y ago
> The original you see today Exactly proving my point. A $15 print of the Mona Lisa makes it look good. In truth, the painting is suffering from deterioration, the poplar panel is warped, the columns that used to frame her are missing, and restoration has obscured some details. A print doesn't convey the physicality of the cracked, rough surface of the paint, the sfumato technique, the almost total lack of visible brushstrokes, the gauzy veil, Mona Lisa's hair, the luminescence of her skin and the overall impression of glowing. Whatever the actual quality and condition of the original, no reproduction will adequately represent it.
- sizzle 4y ago
  Wow do you have an art background, really enjoy how you described design elements in detail.
  - cratermoon 4y ago
    A very minor side interest of mine. Enough to know the basics of art history, criticism and conservation. I know terms to use and where to look up details I don't recall off the top of my head. My side gig is photography, using film, and making physical prints. As with painting, a digital image or calendar page can't quite match the experience of seeing say an original Ansel Adams or Robert Frank print in person.

jjtheblunt 4y ago

(totally agree, and found myself laughing reading this)

spapas82 4y ago

In case anyone wonders which is the painting... http://www.worldsbestpaintings.net/artistsandpaintings/painting/6/ http://www.worldsbestpaintings.net/artistsandpaintings/paint...

iamacyborg 4y ago
There’s a very good book written about it’s history which was published recently. https://thamesandhudson.com/napoleons-plunder-and-the-theft-of-veroneses-feast-9780500252574 https://thamesandhudson.com/napoleons-plunder-and-the-theft-...

cratermoon 4y ago

> The original you see today Exactly proving my point. A $15 print of the Mona Lisa makes it look good. In truth, the painting is suffering from deterioration, the poplar panel is warped, the columns that used to frame her are missing, and restoration has obscured some details. A print doesn't convey the physicality of the cracked, rough surface of the paint, the sfumato technique, the almost total lack of visible brushstrokes, the gauzy veil, Mona Lisa's hair, the luminescence of her skin and the overall impression of glowing. Whatever the actual quality and condition of the original, no reproduction will adequately represent it.

sizzle 4y ago
Wow do you have an art background, really enjoy how you described design elements in detail.
- cratermoon 4y ago
  A very minor side interest of mine. Enough to know the basics of art history, criticism and conservation. I know terms to use and where to look up details I don't recall off the top of my head. My side gig is photography, using film, and making physical prints. As with painting, a digital image or calendar page can't quite match the experience of seeing say an original Ansel Adams or Robert Frank print in person.