/ic/ - Artwork/Critique

[Anonymous No.4733599]

So do people actually think this is the pinnacle of art or is it just sheep liking the things they're told to like

[Anonymous No.4733714]

>>4733599
it's fucking ugly! i hate this face so much!

[Anonymous No.4733747]

>>4733599
Search why this painting is famous before thinking this is the pinnacle of art

[Anonymous No.4733875]

>>4733747
That's the thing though, do 99% of people who "like" this painting actually know or care why it's famous?
As a stand-alone painting it's ugly. There's thousands of artists today who can make something far more appealing within a few hours.

[Anonymous No.4733927]

Have you actually seen it in person though?
When I saw it, it definitely had a unique aura to it, like her expression seemingly changing while you look at her, that's real.

[Anonymous No.4733938]

>>4733927
I saw it in person. Really underwhelming. But when I saw her hands, and that may sound a little obscene, but what can I say - I had a boner

[Anonymous No.4733949]

To be fully appreciated by this board it has to be redone like this.

[Anonymous No.4733956]

>>4733938
Let's have a hand for this gentlemen here

[Anonymous No.4733987]

>>4733927
Hmmm. To be fair I haven't so I'll at least believe there's something more to it that I haven't seen yet

[Anonymous No.4734086]

people who think this painting looks ugly and could be done by any run-of-the-mill painter are retarded plebs without the slightest sense of taste.

[Anonymous No.4734095]

>>4733599
Lol, I remember going to the Met when I was in NY. I stayed a lot in the Bougerau area (the two paintings he had) because of course I am a reactionary.

It was mostly alone, but during the time I spent there I noticed how much people stood to watch the paintings. They were extremely surprised and asked who was the painter, if he was famous, acting like they saw a revelation

The Van GoGh area is close to it (1 terrible painting with huge security). It attracted many people but they saw it was shit and ran away, if they noticed it was a Van Gogh they stood a little more

Fine art is a meme and (((they))) they decide who gets the attention

[Anonymous No.4734113]

>>4733599
THIS is the pinnacle of art.

[Anonymous No.4734199]

famous painting bad lol

/ic/ is pretty crappy atm

[Anonymous No.4734216]

Sheep obviously, art peaked in the 19th century and that cannot be disputed

[Anonymous No.4734316]

>>4734086
this anon gets it, you /beg/s just don't understand the genius of drawing yourself with tits and fucking up your background.

[Anonymous No.4734318]

>>4734316
Gmi

[Anonymous No.4734365]

Is it ugly? No. Is it the best that the Louvre has to offer? No. Is it overrated? Yes yes yes.
I go to the Louvre on a weekly basis since 2010. Before global lockdown, the museum has gotten very difficult to get in unless you have a member card. You need to book tickets days before your visit during summer last year, it never happened. And when I went in to see the usual Mesopotamian art (the museum has 4 entrances and the fastest way to reach Mona Lisa is to take the entrance that starts with a bit of Mesopotamian art), it was overcrowded. Everybody was blindly following the small sign that tells you how to get to Mona Lisa. Everybody was ignoring all the beautiful paintings by Guido Reni, Valentin of Boulogne, even Caravaggio. I don’t even want to mention all the rooms not connected or neighboring Mona Lisa’s: the big 19th century “red room”? Empty. 18th century French masterpieces? Empty. 17th century Nicolas Poussin and his pals room? Empty.

What happened was that art historians had huge boners for da Vinci during the 19th century and early 20th century. That’s pretty much it and the myths around famous paintings perpetuate themselves. Fuck Puta Lisa.

t. art history phd

[Anonymous No.4734371]

>>4734365
Didn’t the fact that it’s been stolen a few times have something to do with it? None of davincis other work is nearly as famous

[Anonymous No.4734389]

>>4734371
Yes, indeed, it did help. But it’s also no coincidence that plebs know iconic works by the biggest Renaissance artists.
Then by the mid-20th century, critics and historians had a huge boner for Impressionists and so on. 19th century art and especially French Academism was finally rediscovered in the 1980s with the inaugural of a museum dedicated to it (Orsay Museum). Up until the 1980s, continental art historians had a huge disdain for 19th century art in general except for Impressionism. Which is why most people don’t know about Bouguereau, Gerome, Delaroche, etc.

[Anonymous No.4736274]

it's unique because nobody went that dark in value around the face and body before

da vincis sfumato technique is unmatched by his contemporaries

even raphael tried to copy it (pic related)and it just came out whatever

[Anonymous No.4736938]

>>4733938
Get this ambulance

[Anonymous No.4736980]

>>4733599
it got most its fame by being stolen and causing a massive world wide drama about that

before being stolen no one cared for mona lisa desu

[Anonymous No.4736990]

Why did Leonardo draw himself as a tranny, though?

[Anonymous No.4737065]

>>4734095
Twp painters always underwhelm every time I see them IRL. Van Gogh, his work always looks chalky and unexciting, yet in reproductions I love them. And Vermeer, his paintings have a slight blue up close and the woman aren't attractive, so they are weird, but I can't get enough of that period and I love his contemporaries, maybe more.

[Anonymous No.4737070]

>>4734365
>>4734371
The Da Vincis don't nearly as much interest in London's' National Gallery, whereas everyone is shoving to get to the Van Gogh sunflowers. All around it are other Impressionist masterpieces being ignored, and you can't see them because of the crowds.
The Caravaggios always draw a lot here too, though.

[Anonymous No.4737355]

>>4733599

It is indeed the pinnacle of art, but not for the reasons you might think.

What you see in that picture is the absolute peak when it comes to fluency of design, design of form and constructive, idealist colouring.

Here's what you need to know, this person did exist, but most likely did not spend as much time sitting as is the norm nowadays. I'd be surprised if the person sat more than a few hours. So most if not all of this painting is done from Da Vinci's mind. His studies on anatomy/morphology allowed him to fill in every single gap that he couldn't directly observe.

Not only is this amazing, it's also done in such a subdued manner that 99% of you will never be able to see all the details. You need to train your eyes for years to be able to discern every single tiny halftone that went into this. So not only did Da Vinci have to invent a person, he had to go beyond reality and into the highest tops of design to make it a readable image with no visual flaws.

And lastly, all of these colours he used were done in an idealistic manner. Which means he didn't put paint at the end of his brush to match what was in front of him. He worked out an entire system of colour and applied it perfectly over months if not years. Not a single colour mistake in this entire painting.

To give you some reference on the difficulty of these steps:
1) most contemporary concept artists use heavy stylisation or photographs to fill in the gaps when they lost access to a model.

2) The amount of care and delicacy for rendering is something only Velasquez could equal. But even Velasquez wasn't able to get this smooth of a result. Even Ruan Jia or whatever contemporary icon you have in painting cannot match the delicacy in this work. Every single edge is perfectly controlled. Every single one of them. All to help carry the end result forward.

3) To this day(except for Rubens), nobody has found the principles of colour construction.

[Anonymous No.4737468]

>>4733599
im practicing to be one of those chinese bootleggers.

[Anonymous No.4737831]

>>4734365
Your post reminded me how I missed going to museums multiple times a week before the lockdown. When you're under 26 and French it's all free.

[Anonymous No.4737844]

>>4737065
>his work always looks chalky and unexciting

From what I understand he was terrible at choosing pigments (amongst being terrible at many other things) and he and others took very little care of his paintings because they were shit

That's the reasoning VanGoghfags always give, his paintings actually looked better when he painted them

[Anonymous No.4738047]

>>4733938
You caught me off-guard good sir, have a (You) on the house.

[Anonymous No.4739187]

>>4733938
Too based for words.

[Anonymous No.4739189]

>>4733938
Good taste

[Anonymous No.4741650]

>>4733599
No one I know thinks that it is the pinnacle of art they like the story behind it. The mystery behind who made it, who was it, and how many people fell in love with the painting and suicided due to it oh and the juicy art thief stories. Many other works are better pic related but not near as spicy lore wise.

[Anonymous No.4741692]

>>4733599
I bet Leo didn't even use his full power on that one. Yet it's better than anything you can ever paint.

[Anonymous No.4744592]

>>4734113
bruh i had an art exam about this painting, had to analyse it <.<

[Anonymous No.4744640]

Virgin Leo vs. chad Mike

[Anonymous No.4744774]

>>4733949
Peak soul

[Anonymous No.4744781]

>>4736990
Because Leonardo was secretly gay. That’s also the reason why Leonardo is a girl in the Fate series.

[Anonymous No.4744786]

>>4737355
Yes but did he study Loomis?

[Anonymous No.4744802]

>it’s disgusting when tourists clamor around the painting not because they actually like it but because they know it’s popular and valuable
acceptable
>it’s not da vinci’s best work
i’ll take it
>its ugly
kill yourself

[Anonymous No.4744833]

>>4733599
> pinnacle of art
At its time. Now days i dont know why the big deal and its feckin small, that what caught my surprise the most.

[Anonymous No.4744835]

>>4733927
>>4733938

>her

[Anonymous No.4745193]

When I went to the Louvre I skipped the mona lisa because I had seent it many times on pictures and never found it particularly appealing, plus there were like 200 people in front of it, all taking pictures of it. Why do they do this ? Look at it and move on. Why do you have to take a picture ?

[Anonymous No.4745210]

>>4745193
Don't you take pictures of paintings though? I do, real close ups to see how it's done. That really pisses off all those people that want their friends to get photos of them, standing next to X famous painting.

[Anonymous No.4745211]

>>4745193
When I was there, I saw a guy pick up his kid, go under the railing, put his kid on top of the table barrier and had his wife take a picture of them Leaning on the glass box

It was unreal how close he go and how upset the staff was.

Some people really want to get that family Christmas photo

[Anonymous No.4745237]

>>4734113
Her ring is placed in a weird place, was that a thing of the time?

[Anonymous No.4745436]

>>4733599
Why would there be a true pinnacle of art? It's great, but popularity begets popularity. It has become a symbol.