Why I Dislike the Mona Lisa 

"Girl with pearl earring" is much more engaging. The Mona Lisa could use a good cleaning and restoration to remove centuries of schmutz and bring back the original color.

The Louvre is such a monumental museum. During my visit, I remember feeling overwhelmed by the sheer number of pieces in it (artistic and other). The museum itself is architectonically worthy of admiring. I was honestly surprised to notice the level of indifference most visitors show for the majority of the pieces; and the aggressive drive of people, not even to see the Mona Lisa but, to have a selfie with it. After seeing the famous painting for a couple of minutes, the locals I was there with turned around and told me, “Let’s go home. Now you’ve seen everything there’s to see here”. And I was like, “Wait, what?”.

I'm pretty sure Leonardo would've agreed with you here. It's definitely overrated, as a Da Vinci painting goes. Leo's other areas of work were far more remarkable than this small portrait.

On the opposite wall with Mona Lisa is the Wedding at Cana by Paolo Veronese. Infinitely more impressive wall size painting with vibrant colors, many characters and lots of action and yet no one is looking at it; everyone flocks to the Mona Lisa replica behind the glass with a 2m barrier. This room is a satire of human kind.

I mean, Leonardo painted Mona Lisa for 16 years. He used everything he had, changing and experimenting and he only stopped with his death. It's hardly an ordinary painting, even by Leonardo's standards. And people get disappointed seeing her for the same reason why devoted Christians get disappointed seeing Jerusalem - because it's just a city, and just a painting. It's much less mystical than the image in your head, created by years and decades of second-handed awe. When you have an expectation like that, reality will always disappoint you.

Honestly I always thought the only reason people went to see the Mona Lisa was to appreciate its historical value, not because it looks amazing. It was kind of surprising to me that many people go to see the painting mainly to enjoy the art itself.

If you want to engage with the Mona Lisa, you could do a better job just watching this video rather than lining up for an hour in the Louvre just to see it from a distance with a packed crowd in front of you, just for you to say "I saw it." Instead, go find something you haven't seen before, that will take your breath away because you haven't seen it reproduced a thousand times already. I think every work of art has value, and I try to honor the famous and non-famous alike.

It's interesting to see that most of the cultural standing the Mona Lisa has today is rooted not in its artistry but in the narrative that was created after the painting was stolen. This narrative is easy to understand, whereas it probably takes years of thoughtful engagement with art to develop the necessary skills to adequately assess and appreciate the artistic value of a painting. Most of the people whose opinions constitute the public opinion probably aren't art experts, so it only makes sense that such a narrative has a great influence on the public perception of art. However, this makes me wonder in which other areas similar narratives might distort reality-especially in areas where I lack the expertise to independently form my own informed opinion.

I can see the reasons why you dislike the Mona Lisa. When I was younger, I thought the painting was pretty boring. Actually, today this is the exact reason why I love the Mona Lisa; it became a symbol of empowerment to me. The Mona Lisa has no vibrant colours, no excitement, actually it looks like an ordinary woman with dark, matte tones. And this is what I love: Especially women often are supposed to be beautiful, shining and vibrant. Mona Lisa is an ordinary, boring looking woman and she STILL holds power. Her smile shows the confidence in herself, the knowledge of that power that she doesnt have to show off. The message to me is: You dont need to be special, nor vibrant or obvious to be powerful, to make a change or have a meaning. That painting reminds me of what is truly important in life and that it'S always worth to take a second look at things. Mona Lisa is art to me.

Finally, someone who can see and admit that this small painting is at least underwhelming. Yes, it is boring.

This painting was innovative in: painting technique (sfumatura), the fantasy background and aerial perspective and most importantly, the pose. It was the first angle of it's kind as a portrait as nobles were previously posed as side views and set the template for centuries to come. That is why it is important. 8 out of 10 are not going to know that and the gallery experience is a circus. Particularly when there are equally important paintings in the same room. To discredit it for being too famous is like hating vanilla ice cream. Just an opinion.

It's frankly only famous because it was stolen. Da Vinci has made far more incredibly works that have now gone unnoticed due to the Mona Lisa's iconography. The Baptism of Christ is, in my opinion, incredibly underrated, especially with how early in his career it was made.

In my case, I found the Mona Lisa underwhelming since I was a child because it was boring. Yeah, she has a cute mysterious smile but I can see talented actresses on Tv do it but in some cases, even better. I enjoy looking at artworks that make me feel something. Looking at the Mona Lisa makes me go, "Huh, she is kinda cute but I have seen better."

When the Mona Lisa was painted, people had never seen anything so realistic before. Contemporary Renaissance painting was essentially outlines that had had colour painted between them, very much as children's colouring books are today. Leonardo's sfumato created the illusion of atmosphere and of three dimensions that had never been seen before. That stated, Realism has come a long way in the past 500 years; so, she doesn't have the effect she had back in 1510. The problem is, of course, that "people look at paintings with their ears," and swallow the rubbish that art popularists tell them. Her smile, by the way, is a pun on her name. "Giocondo" means "light-hearted" or "carefree," in Italian. Leonardo often puns in his paintings: the juniper bush (ginepro) behind his Ginevra de' Benci is another example.

Well fair enough. I'm someone who still believes that the Mona Lisa is a really really REALLY great work of art because, let's face it, even after 500 years of it's existence, it still conveys every single detail. You can see the subtle shadow of her eyelids on her eyes, her soft smile, every single shadow beautifully merged into the face, the drapes (Leonardo's speciality) of her sleeves with their tremendous golden detail. The background that makes you focus on nothing but the person on the painting. The sheer softness of the art piece is mind boggling to me. It's the softness that only Leonardo's paintings can bring. It's a treat to the eyes and almost soothing. While I understand that the thought provoking factor is important in a painting, it's not mandatory. Especially in portraits. I think over time people forgot that The Mona Lisa is a portrait and not a piece of artistic thought and emotion painted on canvas. Not every painting needs to have a meaning, not every painting needs to provoke thought. Some paintings just need the softness and sheer beauty like the Mona Lisa has

Who is really interrested in paintings will find his own piece of art. The "Mona Lisa" is more a cultural thing than a painting, but there is no reason to not like it.

I hope that people living in the US have an opportunity to see Da Vinci’s Ginevra de’ Benci at the National Gallery in DC (free admission). It’s the only Da Vinci oil painting in the Western Hemisphere (for public viewing, at least). It’s a lovely painting, and without a mob that typifies the Mona Lisa experience at the Louvre, there is ample time to scrutinize the painting (front and back). It’s in a gallery room with contemporaries Fra Lippi and Botticelli, so you can compare painting styles and see why many gravitate toward Da Vinci. Also, if you have time, docent tours restarted this week. I went on two different ones and both covered the painting (plus an interesting story about how the National Gallery acquired the painting)

I was lucky enough to visit the Louvre in 2019 fresh out of highschool and I remember being incredibly disappointed at the Mona Lisa, it's a fairly generic portrait on a small canvas a room away But like, a room or two over there are huge masterpieces of historic figures like Jeanne d'Arc and myths like the Odyssey and it makes this tiny portrait even less impressive

The Mona Lisa genuinely makes me uncomfortable. It causes a rush of anxiety, uneasiness. It legitimately scares me.

Two things. First, The Mona Lisa isn't actually small, it's a very average sized painting. I was really annoyed when my sister told me how tiny it was, only to find out that her personal disappointment had lead to an exaggeration of the truth. Secondly, Leonardo DaVinci didn't even like that painting. It's an unfinished piece that tormented him. In that aspect, I think there is an importance and meaning behind it. The struggle of an artist, especially one with ADHD. It wasn't what was intended but to me that's what it has become. In another way, The Mona Lisa is essentially that time when you post some work that you're not proud of yet, only for it to get more likes than all of the stuff that you are actually proud of.

The thing about art is that its appreciation is entirely subjective. There is no "I'm sure you will all agree with me" in art. I heard many people saying that while calling the urinal piece a piece of trash, and also being sure that everyone would agree with them (and I do, but I don't pretend that my opinion is the "right" one by any means, it's only mine). The Mona Lisa doesn't do "more harm than good" any more than the urinal thing does and what it means for people's exposure to its brand of contemporary art. There are absolutely no absolutes in art. There are no "right reasons" or "wrong reasons" to like, appreciate, engage, or give importance to a certain piece of art. You personally find no way of engaging with the Mona Lisa, but some people do. Same goes with music, literature, and any other form of artistic expression.

I never really considered my thoughts towards the Mona Lisa. Which were none. The thought provoking question of whether or not she was smiling was just a passing moment that I never really got back to because...well..to me it's not that thought provoking. This is a great topic and honestly makes me think more about the art of loss but not forgotten. Just like things in life there are things that we don't appreciate until it's removed. In my opinion, a good example of that is Unus Annus. The build up for the channels ultimate departure was massive. And the recognition of that departure is part of what drove everyone to witness essentially it's end. Personally I think that is a far more compelling discussion rather than having to talk about facial expressions. Which funnily enough, wasn't even Leonardo da Vincis intention. Another great video dood! Keep up the great work!

The fact that this painting has captivated so many people says enough. Was this art created so people could judge it or enjoy it? If it was so that people enjoy it, it has surpassed all expectations.

The reason I find the Mona Lisa interesting and alluring is not for the image itself, or even its popularity. Its origins are far more involved and hilarious than the simple "portrait" we see today. For example, her name is not Mona Lisa. It is just Lisa. "Mona" means "my lady", so this is a title of her name, Lisa. This painting is Da Vinci's "My lady, Lisa." The other reason is its sheer history. There are DOZENS of layers of paint beneath the image we see now. There are theories that Da Vinci carried this canvas as a sketchpad, basically, to paint on when he was inspired, or for practice, and then painted over again later. Plus, my favorite theory: that this is a self-portrait of Da Vinci in drag. It would be hilarious, and would explain the cheeky smile "she" gives the audience. The idea is that Da Vinci painted himself as a woman as a joke, and it became a running gag that he managed to impress anyone with it all.

For me, the painting is just bland. Allowing a boring painting to be the benchmark for greatness and respectability in artistic achievement breeds more bland artwork as people are inevitably influence by its status.

1:12 What is that faded border on background (but on the inside of the white border)? Why is it there?

Mona Lisa is so emotionally neutral that represents perfect psychological mirror for the viewer. Her value is exactly in that she can give you perfect insight in your own state of spirit. How you see Mona Lisa is actually the way you see yourself psychologically. This picture is not about art at all, this is a gift to humanity.

I think the Mona Lisa can be appreciated in one sense in that it has surpassed the “normal-ish portrait of a woman.” I agree it is not exactly breath-taking by itself. But while at the Louvre, I saw the never ending line of people to take a selfie with her as a form of performative art not unlike Jackson Pollock’s videotapes performances for the public. This small, (almost) unremarkable painting is now a part of pop art, the internet of things and the people going to see her are a part of the experience. I sat back and enjoyed to see how some people tried to get as close as possible to her, while others shuffled awkwardly past, only taking a second to pause and look, seemingly to check it off their bucket list. I found it more interesting than the actual painting by itself!

I went to the Louvre when I was younger. I was fascinated. I dont know a lot about art, but being in a room where the walls are completely covered with awesome paintings that are full of life was incredible. Then my parents dragged me along because we "dont have all day and need to see the Mona Lisa" which was...well....boring as hell. Felt like they put a granola bar in a glass safe and left their gold bars out in the rain.

I nominate Fallen Angel by Alexandre Cabanel it has so much power and overwhelming passion! I really just reasonate with it, It saddens me that at the time he painted it. It got shitted on cause pretentious religious judges didn't understand it and found it controversial. It is beautiful and feels powerful with how it relays complex emotion.

If it’s original state had been preserved, the vibrant colors and the subtly in the process of coloring the layers of glaze, i’m confident it could live up to the hype. But sadly we cant do the standard cleaning and repair methods of revarnishing, as so satisfyingly portrayed in youtube videos, without removing that very element.

I remember learning about the Mona Lisa I’m elementary school. They fought us that it was famous because of her half smiling half frowning look. When I went to Paris I took a tour that passed by the Louvre, and I heard the true story of how the painting became famous for the first time. The Mona Lisa had been stolen multiple times, by the same person no less, and it became famous because of that. This story intrigued me in a way I’m sure it did many others, and it makes you want to see what a painting that keeps being stolen looks like. After that trip that particular experience stuck with me. It absolutely baffled me that such a famous peace of history would be so heavily miss taught and miss-interpreted by my school. Instead of telling an engaging story and allowing students to properly contemplate of that, they just said that it was famous for the half smile displayed in the painting.

thanks for the source material for an essay I had no idea what to do with. I am eternally indebted to you 😅

I remember watching a documentary about a middle-aged couple (or was it a family?) and the father had always wanted to go and see the Mona Lisa. And when asked how he felt about seeing the painting for the first time, one could tell his words doesn't match his feelings. He might have said it was nice, but I felt a sort of disappointment from him. And I felt so sorry for the man whose experience with art was far too rare and few - to have experienced Mona Lisa in that crowded museum room.

Yes for the most part the Mona Lisa is famous for being famous. That said, the image was and is a step forward in portraiture. Secondly, the influence that the painting has had on later artists is not addressed. I have seen it. I found those crowded around the painting more interesting than the painting itself because most of the people viewing it had no idea of what they were looking at or its significance. I think more than any thing else the painting verifies that most people are intellectually lazy. The Mona Lisa is in the final analysis, an important marker of how media has influenced the public in the worse way in the 20th and 21st Centuries.

Im new to the culture of art and painting. But i want to start a conversation. What do you guys think would be a better art icon. The mona lisa or saturn devouring his son? If neither then what would you rather see over throw the mona lisa?

Lucian Freud ile ilgili bir video yapabilir misiniz?

6:34 That Goya's art work about Saturn devouring his son was later inspired from the Japanese anime and manga hit series, Attack on Titan were the Titans ate humans wherever they attacked within the town of Wall Maria and its neighboring villages.

everything you stated is exactly how I felt when I saw it. I am an art history nerd and wanted to see what was so amazing about the painting and I just couldn't seem to really like it. Boring is the easiest was to put it or underwhelming. What was super impressive were the massive paintings in the other rooms. Just the scale and effort put into those paintings was mind blowing.

Love your perspective on it! I personally never really had an opinion on the Mona Lisa. As an artist myself, I could never exactly tell why I just could not bring myself to care about the Mona Lisa. I just thought it was pretty. While finding other art pieces, like the black paintings by Francisco Goya to be much more interesting. But eh it’s my personal taste!

What do you think of “the lunatic of etretat”

Wow, you hit the nail on the head. As someone who suffered from Impressionism fatigue, I feel that commercialism is death knell certain works of art. When I see some with a __________ water bottle,. I wonder if they'd missed out on Fragonard or Velaquez or the Bellini Brothers. I had to take two years of art history at school and I'm still discovering people (many of them women). Thanks for introducing to Sylvia Sleigh As for the Mona Lisa,for my money, I prefer Lady with an Ermine.

What's the art at 4:30 ?

I think Ginevra de' Benci in Washington DC is a much more engaging and interesting portrait of a woman by Leonardo da Vinci

What is the beautiful painting of a man at 4:33 called?

I personally find the soul behind any art more important. To see the mind behind it bleeding through the canvas or frames or clay. Sometimes it's a reflection of personal turmoil. Sometimes it's the boiling point of societal frustration. Sometimes it's small and simple, something made to bring beauty to a battered and desperate mind. I hate soulless art more than anything. Whatever you make, leave your soul within it.

As Da Vinci stated in his CV to Sforza “ I’m an engineer,… and I could also paint” as a last thing on his list of passions in life. But I cannot overlook the fact that he dedicated a good amount of effort on it and took the Gioconda with him wherever he went and, apparently, didn’t finish it the way he wanted.

What is going on in 5:29?

I agree one hundred percent, i prefer Vermeer's Girl with a pearl earring.

Eu sempre fui uma pessoa que amo muito arte, e quero fazer arte mas eu quase não conhecia pinturas lindas interessantes e cheias de história porque estava sempre sendo limitada pelos os quadros mais famosos, que não deixam o trono e não querem deixar espaço para outras pinturas reinarem também

I can't stop agreeing with you, because I love that kind of art that makes me feel something and I also love that kind of art that can make you think and then you found out you are related with this.

I really enjoy your voice and pronunciations 🌀

A couple weeks ago, I was in Yerevan and visited probably a dozen art museums, including the Sergei Parajanov Museum. One exhibition showcases how Parajanov recreated the Mona Lisa in about a dozen different ways, how he perceives the painting, and the almost ridiculous backstory that inspired all of this. If you get the chance, go visit Yerevan and that museum! As an artist, you would love it, and there is a card you can purchase for cheap that lets you into almost all the museums for free.

The mona lisa is only popular because it’s the most expensive painting not because people actually like it.

I remember seeing it when I was 14 years old spending a summer in France studying. I had a similar reaction and felt that there was something wrong with me. If someone sent me into only that gallery of the museum, not knowing anything about art, the 'Mona Lisa' would have been at the bottom of my rankings. I saw it again as a middle aged person and felt the same. Maybe it should be taken out of view and returned later to see if there is still as much excitment about it.

I went to the Louvre years ago so I don't remember most of the paintings I only remember two things the disappointment I felt in the Mona Lisa room and the awe I felt when I saw the statue of Nike of Samothrace

My least favorite part of art museums is having to push through and wait for the idiots with their cameras to move, I don’t understand going to a art gallery just to take a photo and walk away, my Starry Night experience was tarnished by dozens of people taking photos in front of it and walking away and barely even taking a glance at ir

I've immediately subscribed to you and this channel based on the views expressed in this video. Kudos, and keep up this great work.

She can't be dethroned because she was never throned. She's not a building, she is a mountain; part of the landscape of the human mind. To replace her would be to level the redwoods and replace them with a rose garden.

Which painting should replace it. Lascaux?

I'm glad a serious conversation has begun about this. I've adored her moreso since Great Art Explained's video of her, so my opinion is she's well deserving of her art world throne. And yes, the shallowness of the crowd is indiscreet. That's just the price to pay for crowning (letting, however inevitably) a "world's most important painting," agreeing with it, best, like how you did, to educate; from my point it's good something great like this to 'take another look,' as James said it, seriously.

Me three. Saw it looking blackened in the Louvre in 1965. Then again in 1981. Turn off. There are so many gorgeous art works in Le Louvre

It how her smile tricks the eyes. If you stare at her eyes sometimes she smiling sometimes she is not. She seems alive in the canvas.

I told my friend that I found the Mona Lisa creepy and she called me a pick me girl 🧍‍♀️

4:33 what painting is this??

Great video. I also appreciate art that makes me think. Do you think we could also say that the very fact that she’s so dull & overrated - and how people engage in artworks like Mona Lisa just because they’re famous - poses interesting questions (e.g., about the meaning of art)? It’s not a question raised deliberately by the creator, but a question that arises indeed & may still make engagement with the work meaningful. When I see crowds of people taking pictures of famous paintings in museums, it makes me think things like: why bother to visit these works when images of them are easily accessible on the internet? Why do people spend more time looking at the artwork through their cameras than seeing them directly? Going through these thought processes itself could be quite stimulating in a way? :)

I couldn't agree more, thank you for this. I really never could stand all the hype, while I find the painting boring I could always appreciate the artistry. In a way it also elevated from a work of art, to proof or statement of how vulnerable people can be to exaggeration, hearsay, marketing for experiences or products. If people stopped for even just a minute to think critically about why they desire for things and experiences, they could become at peace and better selves.

i remember visiting the louvre with my mother. i was already an art fiend so i told my mother not to expect anything much from the mona lisa. we went in early, glanced at the mona lisa and off we went. i was far more excited to see monet's water lilies, which actually made me weep a little because of their sheer size and tranquil beauty. seriously, you have no idea how large monet's canvases where until you are standing right in front of them.

it's like a celebrity who's extremely famous for no good reason

For a moment there, I thought you were going to say, "let's steal another more engaging painting so we can dethrone the Mona Lisa" hahaha But this is such a great video. And I agree, there are far more interesting paintings that deserve the spotlight and attention. And yes, the Mona Lisa is famous for being famous.

I love the texture/curl of her hair and the fact that she has no eyebrows, makes me curious if it was a mistake or intentional. It engages my brain as much as looking at a tree; Pretty, not a ton to it, but still lifts my mood with how simple and serene it is 🤷🏾‍♀

It's kind of funny that people complain about the Mona Lisa being small, but if it were bigger (and therefore harder to steal), the theft that sensationalized it so much in the first place might have never happened.

I live near Paris, so I have the opportunity to go in the Louvres and other museums really often. And indeed, the Louvres have other paintings that destroyed my mind far more the the Mona Lisa ( The work of Eugène Delacroix for example). Even some other museum like the museum of Orsay or the Pompidou museum are really interesting.

I wanted to go to the Louvre to see some of the 18th century French realism on display. I saw the Mona Lisa which had a crowd of well over a hundred people in a fairly small room, and the realist paintings… I was the only one there yet they had ten times more to say

couldn't agree more, I still remember the first time I saw this painting up close

Who want's to strat a Revolution!

Agreed. Dethrone it. However, I have no trouble engaging with it. The novelty of it's age, history, origins, are intriguing.

I'm absolutely with you on this. I find the painting dreary and tedious. I also have no enjoyment looking at most of the works of Van Gogh. With so many beautiful, challenging and engaging artworks in the world, how on earth did these rise to the status they now hold?

I mean I gotta agree, I felt cheated when I saw the painting at the Louvre. For me it was because it was small. For some reason I thought it would be bigger

I went to the Louvre when I was 10. The previous year, I had been to the Ufizi in Florence and had seen David by Michelangelo. When I went to the Louvre, I didn’t even really see the Mona Lisa. There was about 29 metres between me and it, and a million phone screens. I never saw it, and I don’t regret that I didn’t. I was too busy staring at Veronese's Wedding Feast at Cana. Nobody in the room was looking at it. The only people who did, glanced at it whilst walking out after having seen the Mona Lisa. It’s a shame that it is known just as “the painting opposite the Mona Lisa”. It is a much better painting, massive in size - 750 square feet to be exact - and yet it is neglected. It made me sad at the time, and it still does. It’s tragic.

Everyone keeps saying it so small but then I look it up and it is 30 in × 21 in. Seems pretty big to me, not massive or anything but still, nice size. Is it just by itself and are people seeing it from a distance?

I personally think that this opens up an entire conversation about art in general and what society puts on pedestals and what society throws away. While I certainly see value in speaking the methods, the medium, history, and techniques artist use to create master pieces; I think that society, specifically art enthusiast put way to much emphasis in value on a piece that is quote on quote normal like a portrait. Artists learn from other artists, it's the first thing I was taught in college for my degree. And in art history we learn the past through paintings and how artists can and some have been very critical of their society. But in reality they are just that, artwork. They're beautiful, stunning and certainly creative but at the end of the day one painting shouldn't be held to such a high degree on a pedestal than another.

I walked past the doorway of the room the Mona Lisa was in, saw the crowds, glanced at the painting, decided it was not worth the effort and walked on by to see the other wonderful art in the Louvre.

size is a weird thing for me, i remember being in the prado and seeing one of their dürers, i think. and it was tiny! and i'd known that painting forever and seeing how small it was, kinda really put it in perspective. not in a bad way but in a sort of, oh, books show us a blown-up version of this! i think painting size is really important and it conveys a lot about how much canvas the person had to give their idea life and the logistics of carrying it around and what that meant for everything else. like, big things cost more money and they take longer and you have to understand the size of the thing and where it will go, and few people would have invested in this for the sheer love of it. idk, anyway, i haven't seen the mona lisa and i'm very much not going to under the circumstances (crowds??!!) and it doesn't really interest me, people just sort of seem obsessed with it and i'm not sure the portrait has that much it has to say. so thank you for putting this into words, that was really helpful.

The best way to visit the Louvre sounds like the antithesis of what we’re taught in this society : you have to take your time, wander through it without any goal to achieve, with opened eyes and equally open mind, you must accept that you won’t "have it all", which means you won’t see it all, or even won’t be able to keep it all inside your camera, you have to be happy with what you got at this precise moment. Now, about cameras : I can understand people feeling the desire to keep track of beautiful works they didn’t know of, as a way to see them again later (if you don’t know its name, it’s harder to find it on the internet). I wonder if museums like the Louvre wouldn’t be advised to offer their visitors some means to download the pictures of galleries they went through. This way they would be in better position to enjoy the art only with their eyes, without the urge to shoot it instead, knowing they have better pictures just at hand. Wouldn’t change nothing about this selfies’ plague, but that’s already something.

The fact is everyone knows about her and still talks about her. That's why I like this painting. Plain but priceless.

Another wonderful video. Your arguments here, as they often are, were compelling. I’ve never liked this painting or any what I call classical painting because it just so dull

I went to Vienna this September and I saw the Kiss by Klimt. It was impressive! It was huge and the gold leaf was giving it an almost deified glow. It was leagues more impressive than any print of the painting I have seen. The Mona Lisa in comparison does leave you a bit wanting....

I found the Mona Lisa boring in person. The artwork nearby it was more interesting

When I visited the Louvre we had someone in our group who told us all to sink our watches so we could leave on time. She practically sprinted to the Mona Lisa and left. Years later she took a class in college about art and says she really regrets that day. I do as well...

you said it right: Mona Lisa is famous for being famous, like the Kardashians. There may be another angle, which is that the Louvre has a vested economic interest in keeping the Mona Lisa going, ie her fame brings in lots of dollars

The Mona Lisa does what no art critic ever has: it gets people through the front door of an art museum. If she is what draws you in, so be it as long as it means you see the art.

I don't usually look to art to make me think in the traditional sense. I believe good art conveys truths that can't necessarily be put into words.

It is more than art, one could say the same thing about a famous building, a bridge, or a view. Millions of people say for example that Peggy's Cove is the most picturesque place in Canada, but I bet that there are many who don't feel this way, but part of the human experience is to not go against the flow. I myself found the cove absolutely charming and took many photos and just stood there to feel the place and would happily go back again, there is nothing to say against it, yet I have seen other places that I thought were equally beautiful in their own way. Is the "hype" surrounding the Mona Lisa due to the artist, the painting, the feelings one gets looking at it, the smile or is it just the so many people have said it's the best that no one wants to go against that, the emperor's new clothes, or in todays argot FOMO. The other aspect is that even if I don't get any feel good memories from something, that doesn't mean others don't as well. Further many artists being long dead cannot be asked certain whys about their work. Without knowing exactly why the artist chose that scene, or their mood during the time of the commission, its may not be possible to truly understand it. However, while I agree with you for many reasons, I also ask why do you think its necessary to perhaps tell millions of people that they were wrong in enjoying that piece. I truly enjoy your take on great art, and will certainly view more of your work,

The most beautiful painting in the Louvre is The Oath of the Horatii

👍What about Picasso? I’m curious!

Before becoming a museum, Le Louvre was the French Royal Palace and the residence of the kings of France until Louis 14 (yes, I don't use roman numbers)... I think that the main problem with the museum is that it is far too big with far too many works of art, without counting the huge number of art works which are not exhibited and can't be seen by the public... It is definitely impossible to visit Le Louvre in one day, there are far too many great works of art located inside one museum, it's not possible, even for artistically trained eyes, to digest so many art works at once... and the effect of this "too much" is that people tend to underestimate a lot of very good art works because there are too many of them and you can't focus as much as you should on masterpieces.. and, as it is said in the video, when asked about the paintings they have seen in Le Louvre, most people only remember the most publicized painting of all, "La Joconde"... Personnally, when I've read the question in the comments or heard it in the video, I, first, could only remember the sculpture "La Victoire de Samothrace"... and it took me a moment to remember other works of art which definitely are "masterpieces" though... "La liberté guidant le peuple" by Delacroix, "Le Radeau de la Méduse" by Géricault (if I remember well, it was more than 20 years ago, these 2 paintings were in the same room... it means that you could already spend the whole day only in this room, the other paintings by Da Vinci that Shawn mentions in the video (each one of them being at least as good as "La Joconde")... I went quickly to Wikipedia and remembered that there were a lot of other great paintings by Georges de La Tour, Jean Fouquet, David, Fragonard, Watteau, Boucher, Mantegna, Raphael, Van Eyck, Van der Weyden, Rembrandt, Vermeer, Velasquez, Ribera, Tiepolo, Chardin, Hals, Ingres... the list is already too long to be completed here... so you can imagine how long it must take to pay attention to their paintings when only reading or hearing the names of the artists is already taking too much time 😀... I haven't seen it on Wikipedia but now I remember that there must one of the 3 battles of San Romano by Paolo Uccello, one is the Uffizi in Firenze, one in the National Gallery in London... and the third one in Le Louvre in Paris... for each one of these incredible paintings by Uccello, it's not a whole day that you need, it's, at least 15 days 😀 if you arrive early at the opening of the museum and that you leave the room only when they throw you out because the museum is closing 😀... And I haven't been mentioning the Greek, Roman and Egyptian antiquities where the rooms are filled with artistic treasures... Really too much in one place... And far too many visitors in this one place... because there is only one place... It's like for the Piazza dei Miracoli in Pisa (the place with the famous "Leaning Tower")... don't go there during the day when it's overcrowded with tourists... Go there at night, between 3 and 4 o'clock AM, in Autumn or Winter, when there's no one there, to see the place in the moonlight... it is so magical at that moment that you will really understand why it is called "Place of miracles" 😀... But, concerning Le Louvre, it's, according to me, a real problem to have so many masterpieces concentrated in one place with the concentrzation of the visitors... when the rest of France is almost an artistic desert... It is due to the political hyper-centralisation of France inherited from the absolutist monarchy of Louis 14 and the Empire of Napoléon 1... that nobody ever changed 😀... So you have everything in Paris... and almost nothing in the rest of the country 😀... It's kind of : "A country ? What country ? Paris ?" 😀

i felt the exact same way seeing stary night. before that i’d seen so many van gogh paintings and i was so ready to see one of his greats just for it to not even be in the top ten in my opinion

I don't like Mona lisa.

Love your takes