Why the famous portrait of Mona Lisa is considered the best?

I can’t give an analytical answer, but it never really had much impact on me until I found myself standing right in front of it. Despite having seen reproductions countless times, the original is amazingly powerful.

I wouldn’t say it is considered the best, that’s a pretty broad statement, but it is certainly very famous. Certain pictures seeem to acquire a reputation that feeds on itself . It is true that the expressiveness of “Mona Lisa,” particularly her enigmatic half-smile, has inspired praise and attention through the years.

@Harp ; I never got to see her, but I saw David, and felt the same way.

@Judi David was hot!

Leonardo was either the most brilliant man in the world or an alien. David looks like some handsome prince trapped in the spell of an evil sorcerer. It’s hard to believe he’s not alive.

That portrait has been extensively written about from a formal aesthetic viewpoint by some of the most eloquent art historians in the world. If you are really interested in what the scholarly thinking is on what makes the painting “great” you may wish to begin with John Ruskin or Henry James.

because she has no eyebrows!!!

Leonardo did some very, very different (and weird) things with Mona when he painted her. Things that just were not done yet in fine art. Things like half-figure composition, atmospheric perspective, and her enigmatic expression. That caused fascination with the piece in the 1500s, and that’s just carried over into today.

It uses the “golden ratio”.

Because Mona Lisa is an anagram of the Egyptian gods of fertility?

@pdworkin What are you, a pedant?

a petal

I always thought it was the subtlety in her expression. It’s brilliant.

@Harp I was underwhelmed when I saw the painting. I was surprised by how small it was, and dingy. I have to admit, I was disappointed.

Depends on how you look at it.

i dunno i have always thought it was a pretty average effort really…de Vinci was an amazing inventor and genius but i’d say his paintings arnt always genius

when I saw the painting, what really hit me was her smile. It was kind of creepy.
^_^ Thats just what I think…

It may seem an average attempt now, but at the time it was painted it was exceptional. I saw it and was also struck by how small it was. It is also beautiful. The seeming simplicity of it is part of it’s charm. It is still beautiful.

@stevenb well i doubt i have the knowledge to argue with a leg to stand on but actually he really did have some close piers and even in his list of works some of wich are jaw droopingly awesome i dont see why that piece should stand out

Personally when I first saw it, all I could think was “is that all?”. It’s not particularly pretty, it’s smaller than you’d expect, and it’s generally not a painting you’d hang on your wall. But it’s very famous, and instantly recognisable, and I think it simply recycles its own fame.

What nobody mentioned so far was that it was DaVinci himself who claimed that this was his greatest masterpiece, and spent the last years of his life supposedly walking around with it at all times, and thus generated the original myth around the painting. There have been many theories about the woman depicted, as well as the background, the possible symbolism and so on. Whatever the truth, it’s just spiralled out of proportion over the centuries.

@Jack79 I had the same reaction. I was looking forward to seeing it reeeeeally up close, to admire every brush stroke. However, it’s tiny, it’s covered in glass, then covered in bullet proof glass, with guards, a rope barrier give her about a ten foot buffer zone, and hoards of people. The light was such that there was a glare right on it.

I saw the painting when i was younger, and so the gaurds had let the children come closer to take a better look at it :)