Theft of the Mona Lisa (2000)
pbs.org
pbs.org
It's a lazy way of writing without concern for whether your readers are familiar with the context you're already familiar with.
All media come with some conventions that people are simply expected to know. In the late 90-ies, a blueish border around an image was an indication that it was a clickable link. Nobody ever bothered pointing out that this image can be clicked. Perhaps lazy, I don't know, but then the entire web was guilty.
The web designer didn't account for a world that wouldn't exist for another decade. Nobody expected people to run around with supercomputers in their pockets, equipped with screens with a pixel density more than an order of magnitude higher than was common place at the time, on a screen an order of magnitude smaller.
How many people today take common usage patterns of the 2030-ies into account when they're designing things? Any web pages optimized to be consumed by AI:s running on quantum computers embedded in people's underwear? If not, what's their excuse?
> They lay out the theft, public reaction, some art history, then not a single word on how it resloved, who actually took it and how it was found. The only hint was "an antique dealer got a letter".
It's lazy to not include enough information to make a coherent article. Links in this context are for further information, not for basic information needed to understand the article.
> They lay out the theft, public reaction, some art history, then not a single word on how it resloved, who actually took it and how it was found. The only hint was "an antique dealer got a letter".
It's lazy to not include enough information to make a coherent article. Links in this context are for further information, not for basic information needed to understand the article.
"How did you even know that? That honestly would not have occurred to me. What terrible UX."
That's why you're seeing discussion about UX right now. A different subject is in focus.
My favourite part of this story is how the picture, once recovered, toured Italy before being returned to the Louvre. I seem to recall (can't remember the name of the book) that significant sentiment had arisen in Italy suggesting that it shouldn't be returned and the tour was an attempt to address that concern.
[1] https://www.pbs.org/treasuresoftheworld/a_nav/mona_nav/mnav_...
I suppose it was always valuable, but what made it astronomically value was that someone stole it and then lots of people talked about it - kind of interesting to think about how things like that come to affect the value of an item.
The author was spending time at the beach with family and friends, kids playing on the beach. There were enough and more toys for all kids to play with.
One little girl however spent an inordinate amount of time showering love and attention over one specific doll. And after that all other kids wanted to play with THAT doll only, ignoring all other toys.
Guess that is a commentary on human nature at some level.
In this case, if the item is worth stealing, then surely it must be very valuable to someone, hence it should be valuable to everyone. This being a unique item, i.e. scarcity, pushes its value to astronomical heights. There's theoretically no limit to what someone is willing to pay or do to obtain such a piece. We see this all the time in the art world.
With multiple art pieces being stolen, it's also partially a matter of luck and publicity that Mona Lisa was so singled out to become a legend.
Just saw it at the Louvre myself in June. It was wild how there was that somewhat long line w/ people jockeying for position at the front to take selfies with it.
When I went to see it, there was no line, how ever, the person viewing it beside me said there was a 4 hour wait in the morning.
It is tiny - measuring only 31" x 20"
Just in case, like me, you were wondering why on earth you couldn't remember about this happening just 23 years ago.
(I just watched a program about the Mandela Effect, so maybe I was susceptible to this misunderstanding!)
I've been to many of the top museums of the world now, esp. after traveling through Europe this summer, and my conclusion is I don't understand what makes something a masterpiece. I get that folks like Leonardo and Rembrandt have an incredible sense for light/shadow and it shows, but most of the things that truly impressed me were from little known Enlightenment period artists.
Did you know what Van Gogh thought of The Starry Night, his top masterwork? Nothing. He referred to it in a letter to his brother as being in a pile of paintings of no consequence and didn't even bother spending the money to ship it for evaluation. The Van Gogh Museum in Amsterdam is a wonderful experience if you happen to be there... as an artist, he seemed to have great insight as to where he wanted to go and how he compared to his contemporaries. He would have surely felt the world had gone mad for elevating a failed experiment of his to such heights, but there it is.
I didn't, however. It is an incredible painting. Don't worry so much about the face. Look at the hands. Look at how alive they look. Da Vinci was able to make the skin feel plump and real. It shows subsurface scattering, the shadows are realistic and coherent. You can effortlessly imagine the texture of the fabric on her arms, how it sits slightly compressed on her right arm because of the angle, while more open and stretched out on her left arm. The light reflections are astonishing, and again, completely believable.
I'm an absolute nincompoop when it comes to art, but spending 5 minutes in front of this made me wish I had studied it more carefully.
I wandered around the Louvre and didn't even think about the Mona Lisa being part of the exhibition. So I came from rooms, filled with huge paintings of old masters, into this small room, that was packed with visitors. I was astound and asked myself: "What is going on in here?", turned around and...THERE SHE WAS <gasp>!
Well placed beneath a sheet of the thickest armored glass I've ever seen! And she was so tiny! But: she smiled at me. And it was real! As, if this woman would be alive and you see her in a cafe two desks next to you!
I don't think she is so famous, because of this theft. She is famous, because she gives the viewer the impression of a real, alive person looking at you.
Meanwhile, in another corner of the same building, the Nike of Samotracia stands alone, regal and terrifying in its splendor and 2000-year-old perfection. That is an experience worth having.
I mean, it's from the time of Columbus. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯