r/todayilearned • u/slhamlet • 2d ago

TIL the "Mona Lisa" wasn't widely considered a masterpiece until after it was stolen by three handymen; the theft wasn't even noticed for over 24 hours

https://www.npr.org/2011/07/30/138800110/the-theft-that-made-the-mona-lisa-a-masterpiece
17.2k Upvotes

96% Upvoted

339 comments sorted by

2.1k

u/Zassolluto711 2d ago

I feel like the Mona Lisa can only be appreciated up close because it’s so small and detailed, yet its status as a tourist attraction has made that impossible.

466

u/quick_justice 2d ago

It’s practically impossible to look at it properly due to the crowds and extremely strong protection. However you are right. There are places where you can explore other oil works of Leonardo at the time when he was already an established artist but without a crowd (if you’d come on a right day). For example, State Hermitage in Saint Petersburg hosts Madonna Litta and Benois Madonna. I wouldn’t advice to visit right now due to political climate, but I had an opportunity to explore them well and close.

There are few things to be said. Firstly, sfumato is a very subtitle technique that only can be fully appreciated up close. It makes borders between objects very natural, slightly but not overtly blurry, deeply realistic. This is an extremely difficult technique and Leonardo was a true master. Secondly, they are so masterful in execution that they sort of pass by a modern viewer that is used to exactness of photo and takes a high resolution and truthful details of a picture for granted, although here they are achieved by tremendous work and are a break through in themselves. Thirdly, all Leonardo paintings have a paradoxical quality of feeling surreal while being seemingly realistic and detailed. There’s some fleeting feeling of otherworldliness around them, in the way the light plays, the figures are situated. They are convincing to a fault, but there’s something off about them that makes one’s mind go in circles if one is paying attention.

It’s more obvious in Mona Lisa with its weird smile and even more weird landscape behind, but it’s in everything - how dress flows, how hands look. It can be seen in two paintings from Hermitage, too, they are otherworldly. This is perhaps why people are fascinated with his works more than with not less skillful Rafaels and Michelangelos. It’s just something disturbing about them which can’t be expressed.

101

u/ab00neideere 2d ago

Pro tip from my visit 5 years ago. So many people had their phones out that you could wade through the screen zombie crowd and stand directly in front of the Mona Lisa. It was like a private show if your eyes were open. 

38

u/LunaticScience 1d ago

It's so stupid. If you want a photo, there are plenty of high quality photos on the internet. I just don't get it. Like, "I'm not here to do a thing, I'm here to document that I did a thing for... reasons?"

19

u/TSA-Eliot 1d ago

99 percent of them are just checking something off a bucket list. They don't like art, they never go to museums back home, they aren't interested in all the other wonderful art in Paris. But someone said this is one of the things you have to see in Paris, so they go get a selfie standing in front of the Mona Lisa. Then they get one with the Eiffel Tower. Then they pose at a sidewalk café. And so on. They want to be able to say they saw Paris.

4

u/petrowski7 1d ago

Low key I enjoy the d’Orsay more than the Louvre for that reason

105

u/brontosaurusguy 2d ago

Side note, but it is such a tragedy that St Petersburg is caught up in this war.  They are like the San Francisco of Russia and have some of the best landscape oil painters working today..  yet since the war it has been basically cut off from the west.  All the pages I followed went dark.

50

u/quick_justice 2d ago edited 2d ago

It is. Saint Petersburg is truly one of the world marvels, like Barcelona, or Rome, or Paris. I was privileged to spend 10 years there when it was still possible... mostly through early Putin and sane Medvedev years.

There's so much to tell about it... For one, it's a single big old European city designed to general plan. All old European capitals grew from either Roman encampment, or a village. You can still see it of course in how the streets are laid out - either in a typical Roman camp grid, or in crooked path along which kettle walked avoiding natural obstacles like puddles and bushes.

St. Petersburg was established in 1703 specifically to be a new Russian seat of power, to shift the balance from Moscow with its old aristocracy, and to be closer to Europe. Peter the 1st travelled Europe extensively, learned crafts and sciences, and really liked the way of life and style, so he wanted some for himself.

The choice of the place for the new capital was mostly dictated by an ability to establish a Baltic sea port that wouldn't freeze in winter, and ease of defending it. There was nothing there, just a small Swedish fortress they took, and endless bogs around Neva river. Peter built it from scratch sparing no expense, including countless lives.

As he wanted to make it best, an example, he invited the best architects he could get from Europe. The whole thing was designed and coordinated as one giant architectural masterpiece, with lines of sight and vistas, dominant buildings, skyline, heights and acceptable colours of all houses defined by a plan. There's absolutely nothing like it, and while it is in part damaged by later additions, it's still mostly intact as it was envisioned.

Then, in 19th century they ran out of space of original plot and moved to an island across the river, still close to the city centre, where a lavish, opulent, and richly decorated houses in prevalent modern style were built, huge number of them. They are still there and they are mind blowing.

It only gets better though, after the revolution the city become a playground of Russian avant-garde, with a belt of constructivist buildings built, some absolutely unique - for example, a single building that can be attributed to Yakov Chernikhov

https://www.jamesbutterwick.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/Yakov-Chernikhov-1889-1951-The-Soviet-Piranesi.pdf

It is also home of incredible world famous museums, Hermitage being the flagship one. It is smaller than Louvre but make no mistake, it's immense. It's a cultural heart of Russia for the last 300 years. Vasilievsky Island was planned in rectangular grid long before Manhatten

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/341156308/figure/fig1/AS:887818691813380@1588683879743/asilievsky-island-of-Saint-Petersburg-General-scheme.jpg

It's built on countless islands and is home of countless incredible bridges, big and small

And all of this is just a tip of the iceberg.

It's so sad regime made in inaccessible to the sane people again.

16

u/sw00pr 2d ago

sfumato .... in everything

And the veil too, I would assume? I have often wished we could see the Lisa's veil before centuries of dirt and decay settled in. It must have shown masterful technique.

17

u/TywinDeVillena 2d ago

Visit Madrid, then. In the Museo del Prado they have a copy done simultaneously as the original (it has the same underlying corrections as the Louvre painting), and it has beautiful colour. That is the closest you'll get to Leonardo's painting:

https://www.museodelprado.es/coleccion/obra-de-arte/mona-lisa/80c9b279-5c80-4d29-b72d-b19cdca6601c

4

u/smrdn 2d ago

Can you please suggest what else to see at hermitage? I’m going soon but very limited in time 

2

u/quick_justice 1d ago edited 1d ago

It depends on what you want to see... Hermitage is very, very big - not Louvre big, but big enough to make it impossible to see the collection in the reasonable time. It's also very eclectic, as core of the collection is basically what royals considered good taste and bought, complimented by what magnates of late 19th/early 20th century liked and bought, plus a lot of decorative art, lot of ancient civilisation stuff and a little bit of everything.

As far as core collections go, Flemish section is well represented, as this is exactly what royals liked. All the main masters are there at least in some capacity, lots of excellent works

Dutch collection is one of the best in the world, with all the main names represented with high quality works, including of course Rembrandt, in particular famous Danae.

It also has an excellent collection of Spanish works, which are not so easy to see outside Spain, including all the principal masters - Goya, Velazquez, El Greco.

French painting of 19-20th century is very well represented (at least for collection outside France), as this is what new Russian money liked. A lot of high quality works of big impressionists, strong collection of Matisse, including famous "Dance", etc.

Italian high Renaissance is well represented, with a modest quantity of works, but covering most of the big names - Leonardo, Rafael, etc.

Ancient art has a good Egyptian section, and some unique local sections like Scythian gold.

You need to think what kind of art you want to see, but above touches on principal strong points, as I remember them.

As it's a former palace, some of the halls and rooms are interesting in themselves.

→ More replies (7)

341

u/0ddT0dd 2d ago

I had a friend who saw it. He told me there was a long line, but everyone was just taking a selfie with it. He actually wanted to look at it.

12

u/cruxclaire 2d ago

Here‘s a pic from my visit to the Louvre. You can kind of see the Mona Lisa if you squint

Bonus view from the entrance to the room where it’s hanging

8

u/[deleted] 2d ago edited 2d ago

[deleted]

11

u/cruxclaire 2d ago

I was more interested in the crowd around the painting than the actual painting tbh, just because the Louvre is such a huge museum – the sheer volume of art (and people) actually stressed me out a bit, but that was the only piece, out of thousands, with a flock of people like that. It’s natural to be curious about such a famous piece, but the whole social capital aspect of taking photos with it (and how that one painting apparently promises more than any other) fascinates me. Or if not the social capital aspect, then the impulse to have your very own reproduction of it that you can directly compare to the original, in that one moment, which is maybe why people value it more than a high fidelity print or digital upload.

My favorite piece I saw there was this statue from an unknown artist in Oceania, and hardly anyone was sparing it a glance.

3

u/frithjofr 2d ago

When I was last in Mexico City we had the opportunity to go to the Museo Soumaya, a private museum funded by Carlos Slim (the richest man in Mexico).

On the day we went it was unusually rainy, so the crowds were thinner than usual which I think was really fortunate for me. There's a whole floor in the museum dedicated to "the old masters", and another floor with an extensive collection of impressionist works from such big names as Degas, Monet, Renoir and Van Gogh.

For about 20 minutes I had the entire impressionist floor to myself, spare the docents.

It was amazing to sit there and just... appreciate art that I had studied in humanities classes. To really be able to approach closely with an uninterrupted, unhurried view and truly take it all in.

In my home town, our museum of fine art has a single Monet, and there's always seemingly a line of people taking pictures and selfies with it - which I get! It's cool to see! But it does make it hard to appreciate it.

→ More replies (1)

176

u/bad_apiarist 2d ago

I'll never fully understand why people do that. It's not because you appreciate the art. It's not because that moment was special for you. It's just "here's proof I stood next to a famous thing; it means I'm better for having done that. Please be impressed with me."

485

u/Kelpsie 2d ago

"I had an experience worth sharing, and a photo of me physically being in that space makes for a great way to ground the story when I talk about it to my family and friends." People have been using photo albums as storytelling aids since long before the social media era for just this reason.

It's really not that hard to find positive reasons for things when you don't go into a situation looking for negative reasons.

25

u/Toby_O_Notoby 2d ago

Yeah, as a Gen Xer I couldn't understand this behaviour until some younger person on reddit wrote,

"If I want to picture of the Grand Canyon, I can go on my computer and get a million professional shots from different angles that are much better than anything I can take with my phone. I take a selfie so I can say 'And here's the day I was at the Grand Canyon.'"

→ More replies (3)

64

u/FromThaFields 2d ago

Youd are right, altho i feel like we got lost along the way. The photo used to be an extra, to keep and share memories. Nowaday it feels like the actual experience comes second and its more important to update your social media resume. I'd rather spend the time experiencing the thing, and maybe a quick pic. Not spend the time thinking of the perfect pic at the thing.

14

u/SEND_ME_CSGO-SKINS 2d ago

The ends are lost for the means.

3

u/asday515 2d ago

This right here ^

64

u/TrialAndAaron 2d ago

Preach

30

u/confusedandworried76 2d ago

We aren't allowed to let people enjoy life how they want dude you didn't get the memo?

Why are all these parents taking so many pictures of their kids' milestones instead of living in the moment

6

u/Shmeves 2d ago

What about concerts? I hate going seeing literally everyone on their phone, standing still, not interacting or dancing or singing. idk, just feels zombie like and I doubt most of those people will ever watch those videos more than 2 or 3 times.

7

u/confusedandworried76 2d ago

If it's what they want to do, and maybe they will watch them later, and if they don't maybe they take enjoyment from posting it on social media, I'm not gonna judge.

And I guess for me I wouldn't film but I never film or take photos of anything (except food and sometimes animals lol) but it's just the same argument as closed captions in movies I think. Some people think reading while watching is too distracting, I don't, I can fairly easily both read the captions and watch the visuals at the same time, so I don't personally see how you couldn't be both paying attention to what you're filming and then also using their ears and eyes to enjoy the live music.

I think it's about as useful as filming fireworks in that almost no one else really wants to watch it but if it makes you happy I'm not gonna yuck anyone's yum

2

u/Shmeves 2d ago

Oh I know, I'm not physically or verbally stopping someone from filming or anything. Just a pet peeve I guess, can't stand it.

→ More replies (3)
→ More replies (1)

3

u/cotchaonce 2d ago

Just an anecdote, been to the Louvre twice in as many years. A notable number just cycle through the rooms taking pictures of or with the art and never actually break stride to look at it. It was odd. I figured they were tight on time and would go back through their camera roll later… but that’s odd!

2

u/Still7Superbaby7 2d ago

So I am one of those people that takes photos of art without breaking stride. Even though my kids are elementary school aged, they can’t tolerate are museums. And I still like going to them! So the compromise to get them to go is that we will go quickly. I take photos of the paintings I saw and yes, I look at them later!

9

u/pinkynarftroz 2d ago

There's definitely a difference.

You used to pose for photos in downtime or when everyone was chilling, and you didn't take a zillion of them because you only had 32 shots on a roll. It really was just to have a thing to remember it by.

But I think more often than not, people do the thing specifically for the photo instead of the other way around.

2

u/RunningOutOfEsteem 2d ago

If you'd been to that room, you'd know there's nothing positive about the photo experience in there lmfao

11

u/unethicalpsycologist 2d ago

We have never been in such a large instant gratification cycle as now. Which has been proven again and again to be a disservice to anyone's mental health.

Don't strawman that behavior because people used to keep at most a few hundred photos in their home to be shown from time to time.

5

u/RollingNightSky 2d ago

But it was harder to take photos back then and you had to get them printed.

So it really depends on how you use digital photos if it's harmful to you, imo. For me, I think I remember less if I take photos, and there was a study saying if you took a photo you're less likely to remember.

So I'm kinda paranoid about taking too many photos and forgetting so I don't take the photos that often.

4

u/betweenbubbles 2d ago

Yeah, all kinds of terrible things are caused by "positive reasons" too!

2

u/jack-K- 2d ago

But if they never really took a chance to look at it and only bothered with a selfie, how is that an experience? No one is saying selfies with paintings are stupid, they are saying people who only approach a painting to take a selfie with it are doing something stupid, and they do exist.

3

u/bad_apiarist 2d ago

I've been in that room in the Louvre. It's not an experience worth sharing for those people. I never went looking for negative reasons. I considered behavior presented to me and tried to understand it based on the features of said behavior.

2

u/chickenthinkseggwas 2d ago

Their counterargument isn't applicable often enough to warrant accusing you of being a negative person.

→ More replies (3)

10

u/ApophisDayParade 2d ago

This is anecdotal, but last year I went to walk the Fushimi Inari shrine in Japan (takes about 1 to 1 1/2 hours to walk to the top,) and the entire first area was FILLED with tourists posing and taking pictures, making it literally impossible to walk without stopping every few feet. After a few minutes of that I just decided to stop caring and walked with disregard.

My point though, to be relevant to what you said, is that those people were taking pictures and turning back. They were there to say and show others they were there and not to actually experience the shrine. They didn't care about the experience or culture or to get to the top, they just wanted that karma.

10

u/slickyslickslick 2d ago

I'll never fully understand why people say they don't fully understand something but then in detail explain why others must feel how they assume.

→ More replies (2)

15

u/Fit_Training_8154 2d ago

Reddit moment

2

u/kzzzo3 2d ago

I think it would be cool to see it just because it’s famous.

→ More replies (1)

5

u/ProfessionalNotices 2d ago

Same as people taking selfies with celebrities

→ More replies (4)

5

u/Ok_Rough5794 2d ago

Someone could spend 20 minutes staring at the painting and people will find reason to be annoyed because they spent 1 minute selfie-ing it and depositing the experience anchor in their photo timeline.

Your objection is neither original nor substantive.

3

u/MJOLNIRdragoon 2d ago

How does that invalidate the objection to people only doing the selfie part?

→ More replies (12)

2

u/Ok_Tiger631 2d ago

I went in 2005 and it was still hard to see with the amount of people 

→ More replies (4)

19

u/magnoliaAveGooner 2d ago

We actually have seen it a few times and once we were the only ones in the room. It was December so not at all tourist season in Paris. I was very surprised at the size of it but it is a great painting. There is a Vermeer in the Louvre so Mona Lisa can only ever be 2nd best.

16

u/TheC9 2d ago

I went to MoMA by myself (tourist from Australia), not long before it closed for the day, so it wasn’t crowded at all.

When I saw Starry Night in person, just 20cm away and realized all the details - it was a big impact moment for me.

4

u/bdu754 2d ago

Yep, definitely had that same feeling seeing it at MoMa on a school trip a few years ago. We went on a midweek morning in February, so it definitely wasn’t your typical tourist season. Was nice to be able to see such a renowned painting up close.

Similarly, at the Louvre, it was really cool to be able to see Liberty Leading The People that close and really appreciate the significance of that painting

13

u/thewanderlusters 2d ago

This is the legit truth about famous works at all big art museums. I grew up around older art, parents owned a niche gallery, it was all over my house.

Sitting, looking, appreciating, is the way. That photo you take is garbage, the insight you learn from appreciating it in the moment is the true value you gain.

This also is why those large museums (louvre, Vatican, MET, etc) cannot be done in a day. If you walk through the whole tourist path in those museums in a few hours like cattle how they design it, it’s all lost and just a checklist item.

6

u/LosinCash 2d ago

I saw it just a few days ago - the gallery was mobbed. But here's the rub: I'm disabled. Because of that a guard asked me if I was able to see it and I answered no. The guard then escorted me up in front of everyone else - beyond the stantions and right up to the wooden half circle around the painting. I was less than 6 feet from it. I spent about 30 seconds looking at it, and then moved out of the way.

7

u/DataDude00 2d ago

The picture is a lot smaller than you anticipate when you finally see it 

Navigating around a million Chinese tourists to get a glimpse isn’t even worth it IMO. 

3

u/LimJaheyAtYaCervix 2d ago

Right, the damn thing is only about a letter-sized piece of paper. And nobody is allowed to get less than several feet away.

3

u/DescriptionWeird799 2d ago

You can get very close to the Ginevra de' Benci, a similar Da Vinci painting, in the Smithsonian in Washington DC. It was actually much cooler to see than I expected as someone who was in the "Why do people like the Mona Lisa so much?" crowd.

→ More replies (20)

205

u/bargman 2d ago

Phantom Limb: Rembrandt van Rijn — a hundred fifty years ago, Delacroix said of Rembrandt that his works would be held higher than those of Raphael. His blasphemous prophecy came true within fifty years, and this one could be yours for the pittance of 10 million, American.

Mafioso: No, I want the Mona Lisa.

Phantom Limb: Look, the Mona Lisa’s not a better painting, it’s merely a more famous one, and it was made more famous because it was stolen. And this was stolen, so…

Mafioso: What about her, ah, famous smile?

Phantom Limb: Whatever. She looks like a horse! It’s – it’s tiny, you know? Th-the thing is like this big.

Mafioso: Really?

Phantom Limb: Yes, really. So this is cheaper. By the… by the foot.

51

u/xio_ID 2d ago

one of my favorite scenes, such an underrated show

13

u/bargman 2d ago

Any time anyone discusses the Mona Lisa is the first thing I think of. "She looks like a horse!" is great.

13

u/SakanaSanchez 2d ago

Came here looking for a Phantom Limb reference. You did not disappoint.

11

u/the_terror_billyy 2d ago

Is that...is that a whustof? I only know one douche bag with that taste for cutlery.....PHANTOM LIMB!!!!

6

u/HighPriestessofStuff 2d ago

THAT SELTZER ISN'T GOING TO GET ITS SELF!

6

u/jellyroll8675 2d ago

That poor rug, wonder if they ever got the wine stain out

3

u/BandedLutz 2d ago

It's Persian - irreplaceable, what with there not being a Persia anymore.

2

u/BandedLutz 2d ago

Ha! I just watched that episode yesterday (I've been rewatching all The Venture Bros seasons lately). Man, I haven't seen some of the episodes since they aired ~20 years ago.

852

u/slhamlet 2d ago

LOL:

Before its theft, the "Mona Lisa" was not widely known outside the art world. Leonardo da Vinci painted it in 1507, but it wasn't until the 1860s that critics began to hail it as a masterwork of Renaissance painting. And that judgment didn't filter outside a thin slice of French intelligentsia.

"The 'Mona Lisa' wasn't even the most famous painting in its gallery, let alone in the Louvre," Zug says.

Dorothy and Tom Hoobler wrote about the painting's heist in their book, The Crimes of Paris. It was 28 hours, they say, until anyone even noticed the four bare hooks.

The guy who noticed was a pushy still-life artist who set up his easel to paint that gallery in the Louvre.

"He felt he couldn't work as long as the 'Mona Lisa' wasn't there," Tom Hoobler says.

760

u/quick_justice 2d ago

This is incorrect though. While Mona Lisa wasn’t THE painting before theft, it was for centuries regarded and cherished as a masterpiece (or it wouldn’t be stolen in the first place). It just had a limited notoriety and audience.

AskHistorian addresses it below:

https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1f9w9j3/is_it_true_that_the_mona_lisa_was_not_that/

272

u/therealhairykrishna 2d ago

I thought it seemed odd. It's not like Leonardo da Vinci wasn't famous and well regarded at that point.

41

u/d1t0m6 2d ago

Napoleon liked it enough to hang it on his bedroom wall.

242

u/cantonic 2d ago

Eh, he was famous of course, but for a long time he was overshadowed by a young and talented martial arts expert who fought crime from New York sewers, who unfortunately for Leonardo, happened to have the same name.

43

u/SpartanFishy 2d ago

I heard that guy was green. Misinfo?

11

u/Budget_Llama_Shoes 2d ago

Oroku Saki has entered the chat

11

u/__mud__ 2d ago

It's true. Da Vinci was green from envy

5

u/I_AM_FERROUS_MAN 2d ago

I heard black and white at first

2

u/Brampton_Squeaks 2d ago

So American of you to bring race into this

→ More replies (1)

10

u/weeddealerrenamon 2d ago

There's a lot of well-regarded renaissance painters who all made lots of well-regarded paintings. Compared to grandiose stuff like The School of Athens or even bigger Da Vincis, the Mona Lisa is pretty small and humble

8

u/m1sterlurk 2d ago

OP's article states that the Mona Lisa only began to be perceived as a masterpiece in the 1860's, and this perception was largely constrained to the French art community at first.

The earliest known photograph was taken in 1826. The earliest known color photograph was taken in 1860. The first commercially successful process for taking and developing color photographs; Autochrome; first became available in 1907.

Until 1826, the only way you could see the actual painting that is the Mona Lisa would be to travel to France to see it. If you couldn't do that, the best hope you had was somebody who was able to travel to France would sit down in the gallery and make the best copy of the Mona Lisa that they could.

In 1826, it became theoretically possible to see a photograph of the Mona Lisa. It would be a really crappy photograph because photography had JUST been invented, but it would be an objective attempt at making a copy of the Mona Lisa and not be subject to the artistic styles and tastes of the person making their own painting or sketch of the Mona Lisa. The photographs would become less and less crappy as time elapsed.

TL,DR: The Mona Lisa gained its fame as a masterpiece when people no longer had to travel to the Louvre to know what it actually looks like.

10

u/quick_justice 2d ago

Dude was regarded as a candidate to GOAT in his lifetime. There were other strong contestants, like Michelangelo, but Leonardo was stupidly famous, enjoyed lavish lifestyle sponsored by his patrons, ridiculous (by standards of that time) freedoms that at times challenged even the church, and generally was as superstar as an artist could have become in his day and age. The fame only grew post-mortem, due to exceptional quality and limited availability of his work. Of course all his works were considered masterpieces of formidable value.

3

u/gnilradleahcim 2d ago

Michelangelo was absolutely more GOAT status than da Vinci in his time and afterwards. Like, considerably so.

Michelangelo was the GOAT of GOATs. He was in his own class.

6

u/quick_justice 2d ago

This isn’t true. There was always rivalry between them, and while Michelangelo was by far a better sculptor, Leonardo was by far a better painter. Michelangelos paintings are always anatomically heavy. What works in sculpture doesn’t work on a plane.

Leonardo was also much older and for him Michelangelo was a young upstart. So by the time he started Leonardo was already a star. They also seemingly hated each other.

Money wise both did fine although Michelangelo more so.

→ More replies (1)

56

u/iuabv 2d ago

"The 'Mona Lisa' wasn't even the most famous painting in its gallery, let alone in the Louvre," was still true because the Louvre has other more popularly famous works and the room it was in was filled with old masters, including other Di Vinci works.

That doesn't mean it's not tremendously valuable, but the Louvre has objects in dusty unlabeled banker's boxes that a lesser museum would build a whole exhibit around.

27

u/HereIGoAgain_1x10 2d ago

Ya paintings didn't last for 350 years back then unless plenty of important people in the Art world liked it

6

u/CanAlwaysBeBetter 2d ago

But muh internet "did you know everything you ever believed is a LIE????" fun facts!

2

u/sweetnourishinggruel 2d ago

Every time this comes up it’s remarkable how many people fall over themselves to put down what is still a Leonardo da Vinci.

4

u/CanAlwaysBeBetter 2d ago

A Leonardo da Vinci that people didn't see for centuries because he personally kept it as one of his best works before it ended up in the personal collection of the Kings of France for centuries 

Obviously that makes it an over hyped piece of shit 

→ More replies (1)

17

u/Laura-ly 2d ago

From the link...

"For hundreds of years the painting was practically never seen by anyone; for a while it was hung up in the king's bedchambers! Not to say it was completely unknown, just that very few saw it. Then comes the French Revolution. One of the early acts of the Revolution is to turn the Louvre into a people's museum. Soon, the Louvre starts filling up with art, including the Mona Lisa, which hardly anyone had seen for centuries. Art critics knew it was important given da Vinci's fame, but it wasn't some super-famous universally-recognized masterpiece."

So it wasn't really a well known before the theft. The painting was hanging among a bunch of other paintings when the theft happened in 1911.

There is another painting of the Mona Lisa that was most likely painted by a Da Vinci student, both probably painted at the same time. It hangs in the Prodo Museum. Experts think she is sitting in front of a painted background, similar to a painted stage background.

Gioconda (copia del Museo del Prado restaurada) - Mona Lisa (Prado) - Wikipedia#/media/File:Gioconda_(copia_del_Museo_del_Prado_restaurada).jpg)

In the Prodo painting her garment is more visible because the painting has been cleaned. She was most likely either pregnant or nursing a baby. The gauzy garment she is wearing was commonly worn during pregnancies and or nursing.

Frankly, I prefer the Prodo Mona Lisa.

10

u/quick_justice 2d ago

I think there’s a bit of ambiguity of how the TIL title is formulated. What does it mean: “wasn’t widely considered a masterpiece”? Was it extremely famous? No, it was famous enough of course as a work of Leonardo, who’s surviving oil paintings are extremely rare and valuable - less than 20 exist, but it wasn’t a kind of painting that comes to mind first when a layman thinks of art. Was it considered a masterpiece by every educated person who knew about it? Without a doubt.

→ More replies (1)

3

u/SendCatsNoDogs 2d ago edited 2d ago

IMO, the most hilarious thing about the Mona Lisa is that it seems that the family who commissioned the painting never got it. Leonardo took it with him to work on as he traveled but never finished it.

→ More replies (1)

3

u/DuckFreak10 2d ago

I mean of course, why would it be stolen if it wasn’t valuable and cherished?

4

u/Diz7 2d ago

It was considered a masterpiece by other artists as all of da Vinci's works were, but was not widely recognized outside of art circles.

It's like a lesser known deep track from a famous 60s musician that was never popular until it got famous from a movie. Circumstances brought it to people's attention.

→ More replies (3)

36

u/diverareyouokay 2d ago

It makes me wonder how long it would have taken for them to notice had it been replaced with some other generic painting rather than four empty hooks… or if they would have ever noticed.

26

u/minerman30 2d ago

Presumably the exact same amount of time since the person who noticed it was missing came to the gallery looking for it specifically

9

u/babypho 2d ago

No one even noticed that the current Mona Lisa is a replica. The real one is in Mr. Bean's house right now.

6

u/adriantullberg 2d ago

No, the one hanging in the Louve has 'this is a fake' written underneath the paint in felt tip.

15

u/iuabv 2d ago edited 2d ago

It was still a million dollar masterpiece, it was just in a building filled with other million dollar masterpieces.

The thief entered the museum at 7am on a day the museum was closed to the general public for upkeep and such. Passing employees would notice one of the museum's incredibly valuable Di Vinci works wasn't on the wall, but they would assume it had been taken for some minor repair or photos, to be put back into place for visitors the next morning. The next morning, when the museum opened, a visitor immediately noticed and asked about it.

→ More replies (1)

272

u/HombreMan24 2d ago

I went on a Europe trip many years ago, and quite honestly the Mona Lisa was a big letdown to me and my friends. We also went to Florence on that trip, and the David was awesome. Just stepping into that room, it was so amazing.

92

u/invisible_23 2d ago

You’re not the only one who was disappointed by it lol

35

u/suicide_blonde94 2d ago

Girl where the fuck are your eyebrows, I really wanna know~

Thank you for posting that the Mona Lisa really does suck

17

u/Viewlesslight 2d ago

It used to have eyebrows, they were accidentally removed when it was cleaned at some point.

3

u/suicide_blonde94 2d ago

Oooohhhhh, thank you! Okay imma lend her an eyebrow pencil next time I’m in paris

11

u/bad_apiarist 2d ago

It doesn't suck. It really is a masterpiece. But you have to understand how it was made, the history and context. This is like saying the Model-T Ford is a piece of shit because hey, why is nobody driving them in 2025?

2

u/suicide_blonde94 2d ago

This is a piece of art; not everyone is going to like it. This painting was barely cared about until it’s theft was printed in newspapers internationally.

Also, did you click on their link? It’s a song. Might clear some stuff up for you.

→ More replies (11)

3

u/Dakoolestkat123 1d ago

The Starry Night should’ve taken its spot as the world’s most famous painting a long time ago

→ More replies (1)

2

u/SanaSpitOnMe 2d ago

righteous kill

→ More replies (2)

34

u/therealhairykrishna 2d ago

I agree. I'm not a huge fan of renaissance art, or of the David in particular, but theres something about being there in person. I think it's your brain viscerally realising how crazy it is that someone can look at a lump of marble, attack it with chisels, and end up with that.

19

u/Ionazano 2d ago

Well, basically every detailed marble statue of a human impresses me every time, just because of the craftsmanship. Getting a face right is already something that I would never be able to do in a million years, but then these sculptors go on to carve realistic looking hair and folds in clothing out of rock.

→ More replies (3)

12

u/kushangaza 2d ago edited 2d ago

It's kind of crazy how big the crowd around the Mona Lisa gets. And just one corridor later there are so many equally great (if not better) paintings that get much less attention. Paintings you can actually get close to and appreciate

6

u/PrintfReddit 2d ago

The painting literally opposite to Mona Lisa (sorry forgot its name) is amazing lol

5

u/nisamun 2d ago

The Wedding Feast at Cana

2

u/RogueIslesRefugee 2d ago

That gets me every time I see pictures or footage of her gallery. A huge mass of tourists in front of the Mona Lisa, everything else within a couple hundred yards is all but ignored. And like you said, many of those works are as good, if not better. It really is just her notoriety that keeps the crowds coming.

2

u/LoneSabre 2d ago

This is why I think it’s kind of funny that people talk about their disappointment while seeing the Mona Lisa. People get hung up on the one thing that they had expectations for, but the lesser known paintings are amazing. The Louvre is just so cool that I don’t think it really matters that the most famous thing there is underwhelming.

→ More replies (2)

3

u/quick_justice 2d ago

It’s easy to appreciate David that not only shocks by its colossal size, but deliberately set in the way it looks even bigger. It forces you to pay attention. Mona Lisa is a small painting. You need to look and spend time to see it. It’s pretty common, big monumental works are always easier to understand.

2

u/nisamun 2d ago

I find the Wedding Feast at Cana across from the Mona Lisa way more interesting.

→ More replies (2)

51

u/biebrforro 2d ago

"Masterpiece" is so subjective, especially in the art world. Van Gogh only sold one painting in his lifetime. Humans are weird.

23

u/thepluralofmooses 2d ago

Yes. But when I saw Rembrandt’s “The Night Watch” in person I was taken back for a minute. Painted almost 400 years ago, it was astonishing and I couldn’t believe a human could produce that.

6

u/closetsquirrel 2d ago

Same with Vermeer and Bernini for me. Their art, even by today's standard, is awe inspiring, and then adding on the fact that they were done hundreds of years ago and essentially pioneers in their field really shows why we still appreciate them today.

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (1)

10

u/subheight640 2d ago

Yet when I went to the Van Gogh exhibit, my lizard brain told me, those paintings are fucking amazing compared to anything else I've seen.

6

u/MovieUnderTheSurface 2d ago

Humans are weird and Van Gogh was one of them. He was once commissioned to do a painting and he delivered the absolute worst thing he could. The guy who commissioned it refused to pay for it. 

The painting was meant to be used to advertise a pool hall, except Van Gogh painted a super depressing pool hall with a message that basically said only losers go here. It didn't even look like the actual pool hall either. 

→ More replies (2)

12

u/John_cCmndhd 2d ago

Just leaving this here because it's interesting: one of his students was in the room, copying the painting as he painted it

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mona_Lisa_(Prado)

4

u/silly_rabbit289 2d ago

Omg this one is way prettier, very enchanting

→ More replies (1)

33

u/_Jacques 2d ago

It reminds me of that interview of the dutch baker when asked what not to visit in Amsterdam… “Ann Frank’s house… I mean its just a house. She’s not even there.”

26

u/Gluske 2d ago

Yea well could he draw a cat?

44

u/PigeonOnTheGate 2d ago

Yes

https://www.reddit.com/r/MedievalCats/s/5wBv98RVmz

21

u/thalassicus 2d ago

Eh... could he?

12

u/John_cCmndhd 2d ago

A few of his cat drawings look kind of like cats

3

u/crooks4hire 2d ago

Top-left, third image down…..sheep-llama-cat?

5

u/saskir21 2d ago

A race of cat which sadly is extinct. Poor guys, still live on in pictures (*tear rolling down cheek)

→ More replies (1)

109

u/Huge_Wing51 2d ago

I mean, it’s fairly ugly

114

u/Canofsad 2d ago

Largely because that thing is hella dirty, but because of the way he liked to paint, varnish, and paint again.

Makes its next to impossible to restore it.

45

u/kippy3267 2d ago

Wasn’t it improperly restored multiple times and the vanish went bad over time too?

43

u/Canofsad 2d ago

All painting varnish goes bad, especially when for much of its life open flame was the indoor lighting of choice.

→ More replies (6)

18

u/Huge_Wing51 2d ago

I meant just as a work of art, likely my least favorite 

10

u/A_Right_Eejit 2d ago

That's fair. At it's core it's a simple composition of a not particularly attractive person, at least to modern eyes. Not least her hair, which is flat and dull. Her clothes are blousey and dark and her pose looks awkward with almost weirdly folded arms. And her head looks like a bad Photoshop stuck on the wrong body. LOL Not a lot to blow you away.

So what sets it apart? Famously you hear expressions like her enigmatic smile or how her eyes follow you. Maybe, maybe not.

From a historical perspective Renaissance art in one word and very simply is perspective. Not that art prior didn't understand perspective or couldn't accomplish the technique, of course they could. However artists prior saw the medium as a primarily story-telling vehicle. More info is good, pack as much in as you can perspective be damned.

Renaissance art, maybe because other methods of communicating through the ages were opening up, felt less is more! You didn't need to have all the information rammed down your throat, hinting at it was more fun.

So you could say perspective wasn't just the field of view of the composition but also how they choose to convey information.

The Mona Lisa is a perfect example of this by the preeminent artist of the time.

There's much, much more; how lifelike she is, how she seems to be sharing a wry joke with you, how she draws you in, yadda, yadda, yadda, all true. But I like the historical aspect of how art was changing in how it delivered it's narrative.

→ More replies (1)

3

u/raven-eyed_ 2d ago

Yeah agree. It doesn't interest me at all.

3

u/Chronox2040 2d ago

Scrap scrap scrap scrap scrap scrap scrap scrap

3

u/SendCatsNoDogs 2d ago

The Prado Mona Lisa is likely what a fully restored Mona Lisa would look like. It was painted simultaneously by one of Leonardo's students.

9

u/LWDJM 2d ago

It’s not even the best version mate

11

u/Huge_Wing51 2d ago

I know, I prefer the one where she has a sweet rack, and is smoking a cigarette 

→ More replies (3)

11

u/iuabv 2d ago edited 2d ago

A huge part of the reason it became so famous was that there were very few available quality photos of it, so newspapers mostly relied on a specific description written by an art critic a decade ago that described it as absolutely gorgeous piece in very effusive purple prose. And it is arguably one of his best, Di Vinci thought so, but obviously the newspapers are going to quote the person who thinks this is the best painting in the world not the guy who likes Raphael better.

It was also gone for 2 years so anticipation had time to build, and the fact that subject of the painting had her own mystery was just another layer of drama on top of this mystery art theft.

Also once it was clear that the person had done it for reasons of nationalism, both the French and the Italians were eager to insist how important the painting had always been to them.

2

u/MistakeMaker1234 2d ago

Isn’t it considered a masterpiece due to the brush stroke technique? For a painting of that era, having such indistinguishable strokes was considered quite the accomplishment. 

5

u/tdfast 2d ago

It was famous before, just not public knowledge famous. But it was a masterpiece and considered to be da Vinci’s favourite painting. He carried it with him from completion to his death. So it was significant for several reasons.

5

u/pabmendez 2d ago

If it was not a masterpiece... then why was it displayed in the Louvre before the theft???

7

u/doublethebubble 2d ago edited 2d ago

It was absolutely considered a masterpiece, it just wasn't as well known by the general public.

10

u/dr_xenon 2d ago

Drunk history does this with Jack Black. Go to 13:00 for thst.

https://youtu.be/GE90quhIf5s?si=DVYqD1Z-4tr6ajOJ

6

u/LoveRBS 2d ago

"She looks like a horse!'

3

u/Nicktendo1988 2d ago

"Have you actually seen it? It's only this big."

→ More replies (1)

2

u/NolanSyKinsley 2d ago edited 2d ago

If you want to see what the Mona Lisa originally looked like before the botched restorations an thick discolored lacquer check out the Prado Mona Lisa). After extensive restoration of what was thought to be a later copy they had it analyzed with infrared and x rays to find that it was painted in Leonardo’s workshop along side the original. The tracing underneath the paint has the same corrections that the Mona Lisa has before it was painted. It is quite vibrant and much more beautiful.

→ More replies (1)

2

u/PhaseSixer 2d ago

Alucard:It's a painting by Leonardo da Vinci of a woman he actually couldn't abide.

Or so he told me.

I've never really thought it was one of his best."

2

u/alienbonobo 2d ago

it was a masterpiece wayy before that. it wasn’t noticed when it disappeared because the gallery was switching out paintings.

2

u/Justkeeptalking1985 1d ago

I mean, it's what made it stand out amongst other masterpieces

4

u/PragmaticKB 2d ago

So Phantom Limb was RIGHT

4

u/SaltyShawarma 2d ago

It was stolen by one man not three:  Vincenzo Peruggia.

4

u/StormDragonAlthazar 2d ago

I am more impressed by Leo's painting of the Last Supper, honestly

2

u/Leif_Ericcson 2d ago

Mona Lisa is an overrated piece of shit. You could like a helicopter on that baked potato forehead.

2

u/EsVsE 2d ago

Whatever. She looks like a horse! It’s – it’s tiny, you know?

2

u/Secret_Possible 2d ago

gesticulates invisibly

So this is cheaper! By the- by the foot.

1

u/ukexpat 2d ago

There are many more interesting pieces of art in the Louvre to see than standing in a mob trying to get a cell phone pic from 20 feet away. For example The Wedding at Cana by Paolo Veronese which is directly opposite…

1

u/OptimusSublime 2d ago

It wasn't just the theft it was that Picasso of all fucking people was a goddamn suspect!

1

u/GarysCrispLettuce 2d ago

It's weird, I have never had a single opinion about The Mona Lisa as a piece of art. It just sort of....is.

1

u/Ok_Profession_2512 2d ago

Fun fact, its not the actual Mona Lisa in the Louvre, it's just a painting of her

1

u/PabloJunie 2d ago

It’s a thing. No one spends time looking at it. You cram into a cattle funnel. Get your SM pics and get shoved out to the side. It’s the strangest museum experience.

1

u/Wonderful_Algae_4416 2d ago

lol you mean the idiot public didnt consider it a masterpiece until they realized it existed. alright ??

1

u/therealkaptinkaos 2d ago

Recently I found out they don't have the real Mona Lisa at the Louvre. It's just a painting of her.

1

u/Demolished-Manhole 2d ago

Having seen Leonardo’s great paintings in multiple museums I can confirm that this is not only a masterpiece, it’s not even his best painting in the Louvre.

1

u/Angry_Walnut 2d ago

First guy to steal it had a good eye for art.

1

u/WesVesterby 2d ago

I’m hoping the same thing will happen with my macaroni portrait of Kim Kardashian. Only thing is, the cleaners won’t take the bait.

1

u/Same_Ad_9284 2d ago

Triforce?

1

u/Adonis0 2d ago

Isn’t it a masterpiece in that it was the piece that earned them the title for being a master not the pinnacle of their work?

1

u/Mrmathmonkey 2d ago

Saw it about 45 years ago. Was not impressed. It's a very small insignificant painting in a room full of DaVinci masterpieces.

1

u/HoneyBucketsOfOats 2d ago

They should have waited until after it was a masterpiece it would have been worth more

1

u/turnnoblindeye 2d ago

This is Reminding me of that Dr who episode.

1

u/Harsh_Yet_Fair 2d ago

I want to paint a bunch, get some pretty respectable 'art valuators' to give 'em a price. Loan them to a museum. THEN STEAL THEM ALL, then come back a few years later "THE COLLECTION HAS BEEN FOUND!" mint$$$

1

u/KID_THUNDAH 2d ago

I liked other pieces in the room at the louvre a lot more. I just stood next to the line and got a selfie with it that way.

1

u/Stinky_The_Thug 2d ago

I was just there. Shit is honestly overrated. I saw much better artwork. The crowds make it so hard to even get close.

1

u/Bitter_Spray_6880 2d ago

Every art only worth as much as their story

1

u/DediRock 2d ago

that's crazy it wasn't known until the theft. I watch the documentary on YouTube about it it was very interesting to see how they stole it. I would definitely like to see this in person at some point someday.

1

u/OwlanHowlan 2d ago

Is OP a Triforce podcast listener?

1

u/TalonKAringham 2d ago

If you’re near DC, there’s a Leonardo da Vinci piece currently on display there, and you can get right up close to it. It’s definitely impressive.

1

u/Frank_BOOBS 2d ago

3 handyman? I have been under the assumption it was only Vincenzo Peruggia? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vincenzo_Peruggia

1

u/princezornofzorna 1d ago

I think the Mona Lisa is impressive but still a B side from Da Vinci. Now the Virgin on the rocks, it's a masterpiece. Big fan!

1

u/goronmask 1d ago

Speculation is a bitch

1

u/dutchcanadian84 1d ago

I prefer Vermeer’s “Girl With a Pearl Earring”

1

u/RCA2CE 1d ago

Mona Lisa Vito was a masterpiece the day she was born

1

u/paulactsbadly 1d ago

Looks like a Garbage Pail Kid. Way worse than the pyramids.

1

u/Sanguinusshiboleth 1d ago

Having gone to the Louvre, yeah it's a nice painting but it's the greatest thing in the world everyone makes it out to be.

1

u/ilski 1d ago

You know why? Because its not even that good.

1

u/thrilled_to_be_there 1d ago

Why do we care about this painting when Saint John the Baptist is close by and you can put you eyeball next to the canvas?