I’d not heard of that painting; I like the idea that the pair of paintings might produce a stereoscopic image.
3 Likes
Last time i checked wikipedia is still free. The quiz questions wouldn’t be ‘write an essay on why Mona Lisa is the last classical portrait’, it would be more like projecting paintings on 4 possible doors, and asking people to walk through the Michelangelo one (the others would be Munch or Picasso or whatever).
But even then, the Louvre charges an admissions fee, so it’s already hostile to the proles if you want to see things that way.
1 Like
Yeah, but in the case of MoMA it’s just a sculpture of a horse-drawn carriage jumping into a pool.
1 Like
True story: when I told my mom I was thinking of becoming an art major she actually discouraged me because she didn’t think I’d ever have the same kind of natural talent for the profession as my uncle. (I mean, she wasn’t wrong, but still.)
10 Likes
Here’s the gist.
It is time for the Louvre to admit defeat. It is time for the Mona Lisa to go.
She needs her own space. Build a pavilion for her, perhaps in the Tuileries, that is optimized for the crowds. Connect it to the main museum via the underground mall known as the Carrousel du Louvre, and sell a single ticket for both locations. Set up prime selfie stations, and let more curious visitors learn about the mysterious Gioconda with supplementary exhibits. Get it up in time for the 2024 Summer Olympics. Let Kylian Mbappé inaugurate it, maybe with Carla Bruni alongside. Sell macarons.
The thing that really strikes me is that the Louvre is still the largest art museum. It is, according to the article, not crowded outside of this one gallery. And, yet, in the referenced list of the 10 most disappointing tourist attractions (all in europe, natch), the Louvre is still disappointing. Is it dragged down by the mona lisa crowds? Is it, apart from the mona list, still prettty awful? It’s probably not that sort of poll.
2 Likes
I like to think that the painting they are photographing is a painting of a photo of the BB webpage of the painting of the photo of the people photographing the painting.
2 Likes
Wasn’t this a plot point in Doctor Who?
1 Like
I remember on my trips to the Louvre, passing by (trying to avoid) the Mona Lisa display, with its guards and multiple “no photography” signs, a non-stop dazzle of flash photographs. No one ever seemed to bother to try to stop anyone, though - it was clearly a lost cause. And that was many years ago, apparently before things got really bad.
Yeah, that. I was last there long enough ago that it was before selfies were a thing, and it was clear, even then, that it should have been in its own space for the people who were there to say they’d seen the famous painting, not there for the art.
2 Likes
EN FRANÇAIS!
3 Likes
At the risk of being cynical, that line is soaking up people so the exhibits worth visiting are less crowded, and no one’s forcing them to visit the Mona Lisa.
5 Likes
Though it too is getting tourist mobbed - not as bad as the Mona Lisa, but bad enough.
1 Like
Probably Mona Lisa crowds. The rest of collection is amazing. I’ve spent two days there and it was still not enough time. I haven’t seen Mona Lisa, but I’m happy that the painting is there because as other posters already said, it makes rest of the museum less crowded.
2 Likes
I see no reason to limit access on whether one knows the history of the painting or not, though. And the cost for entry is relatively reasonable (less than 20 euros, it looks like).
There are probably far more effective ways to deal with this issue than to make a pop quiz a requirement to view a piece of our world heritage.
5 Likes
When I went to the Louvre 15 odd years ago, we went early in the morning, and at that time there were perhaps half a dozen people looking at the Mona Lisa. I spent several minutes looking at it from about 15 feet, then went on to admire the rest of the artworks. It’s nice but if you didn’t know what you were looking at, not too memorable. One thing I found that disappointed me is that the Louvre displays cut off at the Impressionists, and no later; if you want to see Monet, for example, you have to go to a different museum.
5 Likes
Gotta love the first world assumption not only that everyone has constant internet access needed to get to wikipedia, but that the internet will ‘always’ be there.
8 Likes
The Mona Lisa is an overrated small brown painting, whereas the Louvre is a fantastic, huge and well-stocked museum and art gallery - I absolutely concur.
But anything to limit people getting access to any art that states that some people deserve to see it less than others is an absolute bullshit statement that shouldn’t be given the time of day.
10 Likes
Most links I point people to are dead within a couple years.
This definitely includes Wikipedia. Wikipedia gets edited so often that even if the page is still there a couple years from now, it’s been churned over with all new content.
3 Likes
I agree. And I disagree with the commenter up-thread who called them idiots for wanting to see it. They’re just museum patrons with happily different tastes and priorities than myself. 
After all, I sure as heck wouldn’t pass an art history test, but I can still appreciate one of the most amazing collections of art in human history.
6 Likes
Or put up the original and nine copies. If you want have seen the Mona LIsa, then you have seen it. If you can pick out the right one, then you will understand.
1 Like
By “natural talent” I assume she meant the ability to draw and paint, but what about “natural talent” for dealing w/ the commercial art market? That’s a whole different ball game. Usually it takes both to “make it” anywhere, or, of course, the old “who you know” can fill in nicely. Long story short: there are many, many, many artists out there with mind-blowing natural “gifts” or “talent”, but the world-at-large has never heard of them.
Nice paintings by your uncle, BTW, and quite socially relevant, too.
3 Likes
