Hacker News Reader

Comment by bvm | Hacker News Reader

The genius of the Mona Lisa is not the craft. It's not a photorealistic interpretation of the sitter. Everything about it is to be viewed through the lens of da Vinci. It's a window into the world at that time; even though it's completely different period it's almost achingly _human_. The value of the Mona Lisa is not in its materials or craft, it's in its influence over hundreds of years and the millions it has inspired.

edit: this is obviously my Western interpretation, informed by culture/upbringing/milieux etc. So it's interesting to hear a divergent view. Obviously I don't think my POV is objectively true but I do think it holds value.

View on HN

One thing I keep wondering about is how this squares with the fact that the Mona Lisa we all know is, most likely, not what da Vinci actually painted. There was this recent article:

https://www.npr.org/2012/02/02/146288063/painting-sheds-new-...

about a copy of Mona Lisa that was apparently done side-by-side with the original, and looks entirely different. The article implies it looks the way the original would be, if not for the layers of centuries old varnish covering it. Viewed side by side, the two paintings deliver completely different experience.

I've read a bunch of similar articles about other famous work of arts (temple frescos, Greek statues) - it seems that the old art we see today usually looks nothing like it looked at the time it was made.

> Viewed side by side, the two paintings deliver completely different experience.

They look nearly identical to me. It's just that the color balance is a bit different. You can apply a simple, smooth, monotonic, contrast change to the colors and change one into the other (except for the red shirt).

Different people respond to different aspects of art. To me, original Mona Lisa has always looked boring and somewhat depressing. The copy here is the opposite - it feels energetic, lively, content. Even if it's just the color balance that's the difference, I find it to be a huge one.

Between your perspective and mine, there's of course countless others - few paintings have had as much said and written about them as Mona Lisa. But, it turns out, most of those words were written not about what da Vinci painted, but what his work decayed into. It makes me view all those words in a completely different light.

There's a fairly sensationalist TV show in the UK where art owners submit pieces they believe to have been misattributed works of note to a panel of experts who adjudicate (https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01mxxz6 - Fake or Fortune).

By far my favourite bit is the restoration where they painstakingly remove the varnish that's been left to fester over the years. Obviously not easily done on the Mona Lisa but the difference is absolutely remarkable. That's actually another point that makes me disagree with the "value is in the craft" argument. Art is not static, it changes over time.

If you're interested, this episode has a great restoration, starting somewhere in the middle and revealed at the end: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mv6m8aHAtTM

If you like restoration videos I'd recommend https://www.youtube.com/c/BaumgartnerRestoration

Great attention to detail and mastery, from what I can tell as someone who knows nothing of the subject!

I think this is a kind of Sympathetic Magic, and more specifically Law of Contagion. Original Mona Lisa is valuable in large part because it was in contact with da Vinci. A perfect replica would not have this quality. That's why mundane items that used to belong to famous people are often cherished.

It's interesting to read suggestion that Western culture might place more value in this "magical quality".

I agree with this interpretation. The craft can be copied and learn, but da Vinci (as any human being) was unique and unrepeatable. Perhaps the root of all this issue is how East and West treat individualism vs collectivism.

I'm no expert in anything relevant, but this comment and the parent strike me as great examples of Western Individualism and Eastern Collectivism; the idea that da Vinci as an individual creates some view of the world through his being, not just his output, that should be revered. It seems a given that if one had the talent to reproduce the Mona Lisa by hand then the output should be just as remarkable as the original, but as a Westerner I kind of understand that it wouldn't be appreciated in the same way if at all.

But it's not even really about Mona Lisa, the painting. Had the Mona Lisa been the only work of Leonardo da Vinci that the world knew about, it would be considered a work of at best minor significance. Mona Lisa is significant because it was painted by Leonardo da Vinci and da Vinci is significant due to the sum total of his artistic work.

Unless you also have the genius to recreate the sum total of da Vinci's impact on the world, you will never be able to recreate the Mona Lisa, because the Mona Lisa, as Art, only exists in the context of that impact.

As a Westerner, I revere the person who makes an amazing mathematical or scientific contribution. I respect those who understand it and who can use it. I revere the person who extends it. Mimicry, no matter how complete, is not the same as genesis.

Craft in painting is very different from how supposedly well a painter reproduces reality. Whatever I said also applies to non-figurative painting as well, say Mondrian or Kandinsky. In fact, it applies to any form of art that has nothing to do with reproducing reality.

The underlying philosophy beneath "art is the craft" is that, if you follow the craft, you are seeing the world through the lens of da Vinci.

I do agree with much of your final statement, by the way. What the Monna Lisa has done for art an humanity through all those centuries is irreplaceable. That would not go away if the painting were to burn today, so it's not a point in favor of considering the artifact as more important than the craft.

In fact, the best way to preserve its potential future influence would be to store the technique to reproduce it perfectly, rather than the object itself or a photograph of it. Because people undergoing the process of recreating the painting as da Vinci did it would get knowledge and inspiration in the process.

> Craft in painting is very different from how supposedly well a painter reproduces reality.

I completely agree! Apologies if my original comment suggested otherwise. If a reproduction is the exact same as the original, then it's still two completely different types of craft. One is a genius, the other a copier.

I think that this is also part of the craft/craftmanship, it's not just the tools but the knowledge and inspiration to use them, to express something. It's that entire package that's more valuable than the end resulting physical object.

Do we get part of that vision/window of the world from a high resolution digital reproduction of the painting? Could we get most of it from a (very good) replica too? Would most people know the difference if we swapped the original for a replica in Le Louvre? Or let's say the painting gets damaged and restored by artists. Did we lose that vision?

A big part of the beauty I see in the Mona Lisa is that she doesn't so shamelessly and stereotypically pander to the Male Gaze the way Rozy and her ilk are meant to do.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Male_gaze

Mona Lisa's enigmatic female gaze shows dignity and respect towards women in a way that Rozy doesn't.

Because Mona Lisa wasn't designed first and foremost to pedal consumer products to creepy horny heterosexual men like Rozy, "the newly rising blue-chip in the advertisement industry", which I see as quite ugly beneath the superficial surface.

And that kind of ugly runs deep.

http://covenantarthistory.blogspot.com/2017/12/dignity-and-g...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com