Art

[God]

There was a piece on the news last night and in the paper today about
some "Cities" art series....why is this considered good art when it
looks like a grade 5 class put it together ?

I don't understand any of it...to me the mona lisa is worth $10
tops...except knowing that there are idiots who would pay millions for
it.

[Rick Walker]

"God" <yIa...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1173184171.3...@v33g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...

> There was a piece on the news last night and in the paper today about
> some "Cities" art series....why is this considered good art when it
> looks like a grade 5 class put it together ?

I saw that. Put me in mind of Peter Coade's "Weather Watchers". :)

> I don't understand any of it...to me the mona lisa is worth $10
> tops...except knowing that there are idiots who would pay millions for
> it.

Historical significance of the painter and the time period keep its
value up, combined with the fact that it's probably the most well-known
painting in the world.

Rick

[Al Smith]

>> I don't understand any of it...to me the mona lisa is worth $10
>> tops...except knowing that there are idiots who would pay millions for
>> it.
>
> Historical significance of the painter and the time period keep its value up, combined with the fact that it's probably the most well-known painting in the world.
>
> Rick

It's not a bad portrait, but the subject is unknown, not very
pretty, and the paint has cracked. I'd give you $49.99 for it --
but only because my walls are quite bare and could use some
dressing up. I'd mainly be paying for the frame.

[Rick Walker]

"Al Smith" <inv...@address.com> wrote in message
news:P1iHh.25417$cE3.13508@edtnps89...

I think you would be "paying for the fame" in this case Al. Still,
I never thought it was anything to smile about.

Rick

[Al Smith]

>>>> I don't understand any of it...to me the mona lisa is worth $10
>>>> tops...except knowing that there are idiots who would pay millions for
>>>> it.
>
>>> Historical significance of the painter and the time period keep its value up, combined with the fact that it's probably the most well-known painting in the world.
>>>
>>> Rick
>
>> It's not a bad portrait, but the subject is unknown, not very pretty, and the paint has cracked. I'd give you $49.99 for it -- but only because my walls are quite bare and could use some dressing up. I'd mainly be paying for the frame.
>
> I think you would be "paying for the fame" in this case Al. Still, I never thought it was anything to smile about.
>
> Rick

I was just thinking about it, because of this thread. Some
painting had to become the most famous painting in the entire
history of the world, I suppose, but to me, the "Mona Lisa" seems
like an unlikely choice. It's small, it's a portrait, and it was
done by Da Vinci, who was primarily an inventor rather than a painter.

True, Da Vinci used some innovative perspective techniques, but
still, it's a very modest little thing. It's main claims to fame
are the odd smile on the face of the unknown model, and the fact
that Da Vinci painted the horizon on the background at two
completely different levels behind her head. Well, OK. Way to go,
Da Vinci. But the most famous painting in all of human history?

http://www.ibiblio.org/wm/paint/auth/vinci/joconde/joconde.jpg

[efgh]

"Al Smith" <inv...@address.com> wrote in message

news:dijHh.25439$cE3.6161@edtnps89...

It's definitely the most recognized painting. Maybe some people equate that
to being famous.

[Al Smith]

>> > I was just thinking about it, because of this thread. Some painting had to
>> > become the most famous painting in the entire history of the world, I
>> > suppose, but to me, the "Mona Lisa" seems like an unlikely choice. It's
>> > small, it's a portrait, and it was done by Da Vinci, who was primarily an
>> > inventor rather than a painter.
>> >
>> > True, Da Vinci used some innovative perspective techniques, but still,
>> > it's a very modest little thing. It's main claims to fame are the odd
>> > smile on the face of the unknown model, and the fact that Da Vinci painted
>> > the horizon on the background at two completely different levels behind
>> > her head. Well, OK. Way to go, Da Vinci. But the most famous painting in
>> > all of human history?
>> >
>> > http://www.ibiblio.org/wm/paint/auth/vinci/joconde/joconde.jpg
>
> It's definitely the most recognized painting. Maybe some people equate that
> to being famous.
>
>

When you think about the one painting that embodies the entire art
of painting, it's the "Mona Lisa." Personally, I think the fame is
undeserved.