Maria Santi: Why Mona Lisa? Automatic translate
"Mona Lisa" in the Louvre is full of tourists. And the "Holy Family" of the same author, they ignore. "John the Baptist" is more erotic, the "Holy Family" is more mysterious. But after Leonardo’s death, it was the “Mona Lisa” that fell in love with the French king Francisco I. He was a powerful, influential man. He highly appreciated the artist. In the most famous portrait of the monarch, he has the smile of Mona Lisa. The king hung the work of Leonardo in the bathhouse - a closed VIP club, where only the closest circle visited. And so they began to massively order copies of it.
Interestingly, then eroticism was emphasized in it. In copies, the beauty was often depicted with bare breasts. Poets of the 19th century, who sang the fatal Mona Lisa, were unlikely to choose her among other works of Leonardo. It’s easier to be heard when it comes to the popular.
Now in Russia it is prestigious to love skiing, and under Yeltsin everyone chose tennis. “Prestigious” is not chosen by referendum of all participants in the process, but is a visible part of the phenomenon of power, follows a lot of money.
About the "Black Square" they say that its only value is the fact of being in the museum. But with 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 class aristocracy: owners of paintings that are compared and chosen. A significant part of philosophical reflection on art is an attempt to clarify the meaning of art to people who do not need it.
Common cultural heritage? Can you claim your part? The painting still belongs to the one who bought it. We can see, but powerless to dispose. And in antique salons, famous masters of the past are more expensive than the forgotten.
At the lectures, people are amazed to learn that there are more than four great artists of the Renaissance. In the same way, I am surprised to learn that there are physicists of the twentieth century as brilliant as Einstein. I ask suspiciously: “Why are they not so eminent?”.
In painting, what you like is more popular. And people are sensitive to this, although they are hardly recognized. Francisc I in the portrait is wider than the anatomically possible. These are the hands of a warrior, but they are graceful, like the hands of a ballet dancer. The skin of the face is smooth, like an egg shell. “Sublime”, “beautiful”, “divine” - such epithets are appropriate in describing a portrait, since it, like art in general, is a form of flattery.
Leonardo is lucky. At one time, Francis I saved him from poverty. And centuries later, Bill Gates buys his manuscripts.
Is this all for what? You have the right to love famous works, or to be indifferent to them, and at the same time adore bad contemporary artists.