Maria Santi: Why Mona Lisa? automatic translate
The Gioconda in the Louvre is covered with tourists. And they ignore the «Holy Family» of the same author. «John the Baptist» is more erotic, «Holy Family» is more mysterious. But after the death of Leonardo, it was the «La Gioconda» that fell in love with the French king, Francisco I. It was an imperious, influential man. He highly valued the artist. On the most famous portrait of the monarch he has the smile of Mona Lisa. The king hung Leonardo’s work in the bath-house - a closed VIP club, where only the nearest circle was. And so they began to order her copies in large quantities.
It is interesting that then it emphasized eroticism. In copies, the beauty was often depicted with bare chest. Poets of the 19th century, who sang the fatal Mona Lisa, hardly chose it among other works of Leonardo. It’s easier to be heard, if we talk about the popular.
Now in Russia it is prestigious to love mountain skiing, and under Yeltsin everyone chose tennis. «Prestigious» is not chosen by the referendum of all participants in the process, but is a visible part of the phenomenon of power, it follows large money.
About the «Black Square» say that its only value - the fact of being in the museum. But with the works of a high level of skill the same story.
A significant part of the problems of aesthetics would not have arisen if art still existed in the circle of the estate aristocracy: the owners of paintings that are compared and chosen. Much of the philosophical reflection on art is an attempt to clarify the meaning of art to people who do not need it.
General cultural property? And can you claim your part? The painting still belongs to the one who bought it. We can look, but are powerless to dispose of. And at the antique salons, famous masters of the past are more expensive than forgotten ones.
At the lectures people are amazed to learn that the great artists of the Renaissance are much more than four. Similarly, I am surprised to learn that there exist as genius as Einstein, physicists of the twentieth century. I ask suspiciously: «Why are they not so famous?».
In painting, what is popular is more popular. And people are sensitive to this, although they hardly admit it. Francisco I on the portrait is broader than it is possible anatomically. These are the hands of a warrior, but they are graceful, like the brushes of a ballet dancer. The skin of the face is smooth, like an egg shell. «Sublime,» «beautiful,» «divine» - such epithets are appropriate when describing a portrait, because it, like art in general, is a form of flattery.
Leonardo was lucky. At one time Francis I saved him from poverty. A century later, his manuscript is bought by Bill Gates.
Is this all for what? You have the right to love the famous works, or to be indifferent to them, and at the same time adore bad contemporary artists.