Wait, as opposed to famous.. for not being famous?
It's not a mysteriously unknown technique, or of particular historical importance, or the only painting by da Vinci. It become famous mostly because of the theft incident and once you're famous the famousness tends to feed itself because people do things like X-ray it which adds to the mystique. It was owned by some famous people including Napoleon and it's spent a lot of time in art museums being shown to the public, but there's no secret message on the back or alien decoder ring or demascus steel/roman concrete "how'd he do it?!" mystery.
I loved the painting before I ever knew it was stolen.
I think it’s fair to say there is something about this painting that isn’t in many other works or most other works, and it’s a human and psychological quality more than some special painting technique.
But is that because the painting was already famous and well known because of the theft (despite your not knowing about the theft)? That is, if you were a few hundreds years old and showed in your journals how you loved the painting in the decades before it was stolen, that would be significant. But saying you loved the painting before you know it had ever been stolen, but falling in love with it in the decades after it became famous because of the theft doesn't mean as much, does it?
The argument seems to be that I fell in love with the Mona Lisa as a result of it being famous, versus some other quality it has which I find appealing.
But for example, Van Gogh’s Sunflowers is also incredibly famous but I don’t find that painting appealing at all. For me, it’s boring. Ditto for many other famous paintings. What I’m saying is that I’m not sure so sure that’s it’s logical to say: “oh this thing is just popular/well loved because it’s famous, there’s no other reason”
Anyway like what you like and ignore the nerds :)
Throw enough stuff at the wall, eventually something sticks.
Do it often enough, and something becomes iconic.
And even if it was only slightly different from its peers at the time, that one thing is what will be remembered.
For me there is a mystery and secret in the Mona Lisa which doesn’t exist in other paintings that might show great “skill” and in the end, art is about emotional impact, not what some critic thinks is “skillful”
It is made by one of the famous and influential person in history. It is aesthetically pleasing, a bit mysterious yet accessible. The technique is interesting. And with the 1911 theft, it comes with an exciting story.
Taken individually, none of these qualities are that remarkable, but it is the combination, and a bit of chance.
And no, it’s not because it was stolen. Most people don’t even know it was stolen. I loved the painting and it moved me from the moment I saw it as a child.
The most popular book in the world is the Bible and I never found it very interesting
Therefore, you fall in line with the dominant human viewpoint, the popular opinion.
I don't know what my point is, apart from a friendly irony that in eschewing (the) popularity (of the Bible), you're actually doing the popular thing.
I just don’t think popularity means much outside of a lot of people knowing about it in some vaguely positive light. Sometimes things are popular because they are incredible (the Beatles), sometimes they are popular just because of randomness or situational context (most pre-20th century American literature)