Mona Lisa Curse documentary

[timpaatkins]

Enjoy! And finally someone whos learnt how to use the "play next" function.

EbQ0GqX0Its&feature=PlayList&p=26441D150825CB40&index=0&playnext=1

[Psychotime]

Dah! What's with the sound? I keep hearing a faint feedback that annoys my ears

EDIT: Ok, when the skull pops up it stops.

[DefiledVisions]

"Warhol is a greater artist than Leonardo da Vinci"

This is sickening. It frightens me.. it is rape. What happened to beauty?
Thanks for the documentary, a fresh reminder of why I joined this community and what I have allways felt regarding art... something must be done.


*edit*
Many might not watch this in its entirity, so I suggest you watch part 11. It is a good one, just listen to the guy..
KVF9ahlbTHI

[Kraus]

This is sickening. It frightens me.. it is rape. What happened to beauty?



Ask that to da Vinci who wasted his skill on making one ugly woman...even if he based it on his own face, it still feels like that's how women looked back then...scary.

[Psychotime]

Ask that to da Vinci who wasted his skill on making one ugly woman...even if he based it on his own face, it still feels like that's how women looked back then...scary.

Wasted his skill? Just because it's what he's known for does NOT mean that it was his most important work, neither does it mean he felt that way about it.

(Off topic.) I like his grotesques more than anything else I've seen from him. But his fetus study really made me think "How on Earth could he have made a study of that?" until I was reminded that they dug up corpses to study human anatomy.

[DefiledVisions]

Ask that to da Vinci who wasted his skill on making one ugly woman...even if he based it on his own face, it still feels like that's how women looked back then...scary.

Well I give you that. I've seen it at the Louvre, probably one of the less impressing pieces of art hanging there. It is small and surrounded by 500 people 24/7.. all of them just there for the sake of being able to say "I was there".
Waste of skill? I'd have to dissagree.

[Kraus]

Ok not a waste of skill or even time. My point is i think she's fugly.
And as far as his work, the geezer was a freaking dynamo no doubt, and probably liked his ugly wenches too. Everything he did was beautifull skill wise But i'm way more inclined to say Marilyn Monroe in CMYK is way hotter.

[jrr]

hey that was a pretty good doc, this thread, not so much.

[Jovian M]

Edit: Disregard, that was rude of me.

Really good documentary, so far (I'm at part 4 or something; had to go to work). Finishing it now.

[Psychotime]

Finally finished it. It was nice. Weirded me out that the ally died and they went ahead with sort of an epilogue about it.

I wonder how long it took to film it.

[nofu]

It is small and surrounded by 500 people 24/7..

And you have to jump up and down to even get a glimpse of it. Probably the most pointless 30 minutes I spent there at the museum.

[Hookswords]

Ok not a waste of skill or even time. My point is i think she's fugly.
And as far as his work, the geezer was a freaking dynamo no doubt, and probably liked his ugly wenches too. Everything he did was beautifull skill wise But i'm way more inclined to say Marilyn Monroe in CMYK is way hotter.

I didnt realize that the quality of your art is gauged by the hotness of the women in your pieces.

I havent watched the documentary yet but you cats are making it sound like it's worth watching. Does it cover his time assisting Ezio?

[TASmith]

Tim, thanks for posting the documentary! I enjoyed it, even if the "threat" discussed seems overblown to me. First, Kraus. Let me see if I can't engage your interest in the original Mona Lisa.

Now I'm no expert, and I have a horrible memory, but I have seen the Mona Lisa at the Louvre, and I've discussed the work in a couple art history courses, one in Florence, Italy. In my opinion, to truly appreciate it, you have to see what was painted before. I spent an entire semester staring at Duccio, Giotto, and Cimabue. Then we slowly crawled up the chronology to Orcagna, Fillipo Lippi, Brunalleschi, Gentileschi, Ghirlandaio, Della Francesca, Uccello, and on and on. That's why it was such a shock for me to finally see and compare the newer masters, Donatello, and Da Vinci.

The work they made had an entirely different goal from what was painted before. The artists that came before them represented biblical stories portraying characters in much the same manner as the Byzantine artists who first created Christian mosaics some 1000 years earlier. These figures were portrayed almost as demigods - in the same manner as God himself was portrayed - peaceful and wise, staring at the viewer (eyes that follow and penetrate you) in judgment, so that the humble pilgrims will judge themselves. These figures don't do anything, they just float in space - a spiritual space, in which the colors, objects, and materials all held religious, symbolic significance. Saints and biblical characters were perfect people, whom the viewer should strain to be like. The emphasis was that, if you accept God, then the same peace and calm will come to you, almost like it's easy.

Donatello and Da Vinci had a different interest in the Bible. They wanted to recreate each scene as it happened, showing the imperfect, human side of the people represented. When you look at a statue by Donatello, he's not just standing rigid in timeless fashion, no. That statue is a character at a specific point in a story. Everything from his facial expression to his stance tells you this. And to be sure, there were artworks before Donatello that told stories from the bible, but this was the first time a facial expression was used to show what the figure was thinking - the first time in over a thousand years, since the Roman Empire. All of a sudden, following the bible isn't easy, and the saints aren't perfect. They're struggling sinners just like you and me. The message is, if they can do it, you can too.

Donatello was the first I know to do it in sculpture. Da Vinci was the first to do it in paint. Mona Lisa is smiling. Try and find a painting from before that time where a figure smiles. The best I can think of off hand is an old artifact shown in a National Geographic of a rare (Egyptian? Pompeiian?) painting that somehow survived, of a similar aristocrat. You can see how my memory's failing here, but you get the point. And it's not just any smile. Is she really smiling? What's she thinking? Cover the left half of her face, and then switch your hand and cover the right. See how her expression changes? That's not an accident, and if you notice in the background, each side has two different horizon lines, which I believe were meant to heighten this effect. In this portrait, just as with Da Vinci's many other works, the face is the outward sign of a complex, inner mind, one you can wonder about, but never know. Hence, La Gioconda (the joke).

Da Vinci was also the first painter to expertly portray light and shadow on a figure, softening lines where needed to create a sense of breathing - even her hands feel alive. You know that tutorial we have here from Elwell about edges? That comes from Da Vinci, and principally from the Mona Lisa. Compare it to all the paintings before it, which were sharp, surreal exercises in linear perspective, with odd, unnatural colors devoid of any sense of one unifying light tint or temperature. I'm speaking generally (sloppily) about many paintings here, but there's definitely a huge shift (evolution) in Da Vinci's approach to painting that marked a great movement toward naturalism.

About the documentary, it's sad, but I feel the message of the film is overstated. It's about the death of artwork as a meaningful thing. I suppose it's true, in so much as how certain works are treated by their owners. But it doesn't change how an artist has to make or think about one's work. I can paint whatever I want, for whatever purpose, and it still retains it's meaning, just as Mona Lisa still retains hers, even if not everyone gets it. Sure, someday (very far fetched) a painting of mine might become an auctioned commodity, possibly kept boxed in a warehouse and eventually stolen or whatever. It still doesn't change the importance for me of making the image itself, as a statement that I lived, and the things I cared about. Anyone who takes the time to look at it and examine it, will get the same idea, and so long as that happens, my work is doing its job.

And I don't like the film's assumption that, just because so many people come into a museum and view a work, that this process automatically cheapens it or takes away it's meaning. I'm all for museum promotion, and getting average people enthusiastic about art. I cringe at people like the Chapman Brothers when they say art isn't for everybody. I just feel that, while a museum reels in a huge audience, they have the obligation to educate them properly as well, and it seems to me most places like the MET do a good job of this.

I think the attack on Bob Skull was weak, too. The guy made an investment and cashed out. More power to him. Sure, it's weaselly to demand such low prices from starving artists, but at the same time, he elevated the worth of every artist he bought from. It was hardly a scam. If I were Rauschenberg during that sale at Sotheby's I'd thank the guy and think to myself, gee, I better start painting! I'm finally worth something now. Then I'd try and find those wealthy buyers and sell direct, or at least start demanding high prices. Expecting Skull to just give up his collection for free is nuts, especially considering he was a New Yorker. And blaming him for the new high prices of fine art is to point your finger at only one of many, many people in the same room. Bob Skull didn't create Sotheby's or the wealthy people who collect art. He merely used them to make himself rich. I wish I could've.

In the end, art isn't all about New York. That's just one place where people buy and sell. I can be an artist my whole life and never touch the city. I don't need my work in the armory. I can't help feeling Mr. Hughes needed to just get out of there and see artists working elsewhere, where money wasn't the prime motive. Maybe he wouldn't feel so down.

I think the strongest argument of the film is that it's becoming harder and harder for museums to even buy art to show people. As more and more of our greatest history falls into private hands, the public gets to see less and less of it, and you have to worry about preservation. Do these wealthy owners intend to take good care of the work?

[gjpetch]

Great documentary, thanks.
Reminds me of another documentary called "the Great Contemporary Art Bubble" by Ben Lewis, which covers the same issue. Well worth checking out, I don't think the whole thing is on youtube, but the trailer is here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gth8_3msnIk

[dashinvaine]

The Emperor has no clothes on...

[manlybrian]

Sorry for bumping this (no I'm not) but I just watched it and thought it was a solid documentary. I'm reposting it since the first youtube vids are dead links now.

BKNkwLlgla8
v6F3_ijht70
OF3wQsbw5nw
FI_Dawr0rtU
21UgiRZGCOY
4Hvo5_ss8zo

[manlybrian]

As for my thoughts on it, I agree with pretty much everything TASmith said. It's a tragic state of affairs.

Sadly the layman (sometimes myself included) is swayed by people preying upon his ignorance. The general public will act according to their experiences. If a person has experienced a desire for recognition and money (and who doesn't at some point in life?) then it will be easy to target that as the driving force behind his/her opinions of art.
"If I discover this artist, or buy that famous painting to sell later, I will get recognition and money from my peers. That feels good."

Whereas if people were trained in art theory (composition, colour, etc.) and if the value of "art for the sake of beauty, communication, and feeling" were promoted amongst the public, then the layman would have a better understanding of which artworks are high quality and which might be void of an artist's passion. At least then the expensive paintings might be the good ones instead of just the popular ones.

[tehmeh]

I've seen this documentary a few times and I'm not really keen on watching it fully again, please correct me if wrong on the following.

That's all very true TASmith, the painting was something pretty special - a great Leonardo with entirely new methods of painting a portrait and according to Vasari the story behind it is very entertaining, keeping the sitter smiling with entertainers. But these are not the reasons it is now so popular.

The portrait was not always this iconic. Here's the killer point: It starts with "in 1962..." - He seems to skip over mentioning the well-published rumours of the painting being a secret replacement, the fantastically reported theft and the $5million rumoured to have beeen offered by the British government. These together in two decades launched the painting from sitting in the Louvre with every other painting into the public eye via being printed absolutely everywhere, sang about by Nat King Cole and Elvis Presley, a far bigger icon in a decade than it had been before, and this could only grow. It is literally the painting most people think of when thinking "art" now, and as Hughes mentions at one point when he's not praising it, that if you see it in person "it's a bit of a disappointment". He still doesn't explain why.

He then uses this esteemed society portrait from 500 years ago as a way of putting down Klimt's Bloch-Bauer as "not very well painted, a society portrait". Surely Hughes has seen Klimt's earliest mural works, and understands his skill? Surely Rauschenberg's brilliant way of using the painting doesn't go this far over his head?

Aside from that, it could be a very good documentary on the modern art market for all I know, but founding arguments against it based off either uninformed or misleading takes on a painting with really the same degree of "assumed" beauty as some objective paragon of beauty is BS :shrug: