A Travel and vacations forum. TravelBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » TravelBanter forum » Travel Regions » Europe
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

louvdo you think Mona is genuine?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #81  
Old August 14th, 2004, 07:48 AM
David J Richardson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default louvdo you think Mona is genuine?

In article ,
Jesper Lauridsen wrote:

I was reading up on Mona Lisa on the net where I read several
suggesting that it is a fake as security make little attempt to
stop flash photos of it.some ppl even boasted they went inside the
barrier and took a photo with it.


Leonardo actually painted 7 MLs. One original, and 6 copies. The
copies are painted on canvas, where the words "this is a fake" (in
English) is written. The original was found in the Louvre until 1977
(or thereabouts), where it, and most of the copies, were destroyed.
The present ML is one of the copies.

I saw a BBC documentary on this.


Thank you Duggan.

--
David J Richardson --
http://davidj.richardson.name/ -- Dr Who articles/interviews/reviews
http://www.boomerang.org.au/ -- Boomerang Association of Australia
  #82  
Old August 14th, 2004, 07:48 AM
David J Richardson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article ,
Jesper Lauridsen wrote:

I was reading up on Mona Lisa on the net where I read several
suggesting that it is a fake as security make little attempt to
stop flash photos of it.some ppl even boasted they went inside the
barrier and took a photo with it.


Leonardo actually painted 7 MLs. One original, and 6 copies. The
copies are painted on canvas, where the words "this is a fake" (in
English) is written. The original was found in the Louvre until 1977
(or thereabouts), where it, and most of the copies, were destroyed.
The present ML is one of the copies.

I saw a BBC documentary on this.


Thank you Duggan.

--
David J Richardson --
http://davidj.richardson.name/ -- Dr Who articles/interviews/reviews
http://www.boomerang.org.au/ -- Boomerang Association of Australia
  #83  
Old August 16th, 2004, 06:23 PM
Ellie C
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

jcoulter wrote:
The Reids wrote in
:


Following up to jcoulter


No I don't except of course for the art in my home, But then I don't
have any orginal Monet's and anyone who has seen an original Van Gogh
knows how inadequate even the best reproductions are.


To me, they look much the same. What can be so different? Brush
strokes? So what?
(I ask genuinely, not as a wind up)



Basically yes brushstrokes. (I am not so much talking of professional
quality fakes as prints that which we humble denizens of middle america can
afford to decorate our homes with.

Monet or Renoir printa have a light airy touch that is part of their appeal
and reflect the moods of the originals, Van Gogh's brush stokes bespeak the
twisted soul behind them, Starry night in print is beautiful in real life
it is a nightmare, a hauting possessed thing of unreal beauty and awesome
force.


The colors in a reproduction are also never quite the same as the
original. THere's a particular Monet that I always think of in this
context, a winter scene with a blackbird on a snowy gate that has
astonishingly gorgeous colors in the original. But even the copies sold
at the d'Orsay are disappointingly dull. (Caveat: I may be wrong about
where this painting is, I saw it about 12 years ago. So, to anyone out
there just looking for something to jump on and start ranting about:
Save your typing.)
  #84  
Old August 16th, 2004, 06:23 PM
Ellie C
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

jcoulter wrote:
The Reids wrote in
:


Following up to jcoulter


No I don't except of course for the art in my home, But then I don't
have any orginal Monet's and anyone who has seen an original Van Gogh
knows how inadequate even the best reproductions are.


To me, they look much the same. What can be so different? Brush
strokes? So what?
(I ask genuinely, not as a wind up)



Basically yes brushstrokes. (I am not so much talking of professional
quality fakes as prints that which we humble denizens of middle america can
afford to decorate our homes with.

Monet or Renoir printa have a light airy touch that is part of their appeal
and reflect the moods of the originals, Van Gogh's brush stokes bespeak the
twisted soul behind them, Starry night in print is beautiful in real life
it is a nightmare, a hauting possessed thing of unreal beauty and awesome
force.


The colors in a reproduction are also never quite the same as the
original. THere's a particular Monet that I always think of in this
context, a winter scene with a blackbird on a snowy gate that has
astonishingly gorgeous colors in the original. But even the copies sold
at the d'Orsay are disappointingly dull. (Caveat: I may be wrong about
where this painting is, I saw it about 12 years ago. So, to anyone out
there just looking for something to jump on and start ranting about:
Save your typing.)
  #85  
Old August 16th, 2004, 08:50 PM
meurgues
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Mxsmanic wrote in message . ..
Jesper Lauridsen writes:

Those disappointed by the size of ML, can go to the hall of large French
paintings. It's a hall containing large paintings, made by French painters.


Does it contain any large paintings by French painters?


What do you mean ?
David, Delacroix, Gericault, Ingres, Girodet, Prud'hon, Gerard, Gros,
Chasseriau, etc... are french artists.
Didier Meurgues
  #86  
Old August 16th, 2004, 08:50 PM
meurgues
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Mxsmanic wrote in message . ..
Jesper Lauridsen writes:

Those disappointed by the size of ML, can go to the hall of large French
paintings. It's a hall containing large paintings, made by French painters.


Does it contain any large paintings by French painters?


What do you mean ?
David, Delacroix, Gericault, Ingres, Girodet, Prud'hon, Gerard, Gros,
Chasseriau, etc... are french artists.
Didier Meurgues
  #87  
Old August 16th, 2004, 08:50 PM
meurgues
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Mxsmanic wrote in message . ..
Jesper Lauridsen writes:

Those disappointed by the size of ML, can go to the hall of large French
paintings. It's a hall containing large paintings, made by French painters.


Does it contain any large paintings by French painters?


What do you mean ?
David, Delacroix, Gericault, Ingres, Girodet, Prud'hon, Gerard, Gros,
Chasseriau, etc... are french artists.
Didier Meurgues
  #88  
Old August 16th, 2004, 09:03 PM
meurgues
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

David J Richardson wrote in message ...
In article ,
Jesper Lauridsen wrote:

I was reading up on Mona Lisa on the net where I read several
suggesting that it is a fake as security make little attempt to
stop flash photos of it.some ppl even boasted they went inside the
barrier and took a photo with it.


Leonardo actually painted 7 MLs. One original, and 6 copies. The
copies are painted on canvas, where the words "this is a fake" (in
English) is written. The original was found in the Louvre until 1977
(or thereabouts), where it, and most of the copies, were destroyed.
The present ML is one of the copies.

I saw a BBC documentary on this.


Thank you Duggan.


That's ridicuous there has not been a fire in 1977 in the salle des
Etats of the Louvre were the original was kept, until it's 4 years
refurbisment which will be achieved next spring...!!! And why should
the Louvre keep copies with mentions... in english.... at the
attention of the french conservateurs !
http://www.louvre.fr
Actualité
La nouvelle salle de la Joconde

The same about the allegedly false Van Gogh of Orsay museum. I was
still troubled despite the seriousness of the chemical surveys made
until I recently saw Van Goghs in the MET with exactly the same touch
and fading reds than the 3 contested.

didier Meurgues
  #89  
Old August 16th, 2004, 09:03 PM
meurgues
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

David J Richardson wrote in message ...
In article ,
Jesper Lauridsen wrote:

I was reading up on Mona Lisa on the net where I read several
suggesting that it is a fake as security make little attempt to
stop flash photos of it.some ppl even boasted they went inside the
barrier and took a photo with it.


Leonardo actually painted 7 MLs. One original, and 6 copies. The
copies are painted on canvas, where the words "this is a fake" (in
English) is written. The original was found in the Louvre until 1977
(or thereabouts), where it, and most of the copies, were destroyed.
The present ML is one of the copies.

I saw a BBC documentary on this.


Thank you Duggan.


That's ridicuous there has not been a fire in 1977 in the salle des
Etats of the Louvre were the original was kept, until it's 4 years
refurbisment which will be achieved next spring...!!! And why should
the Louvre keep copies with mentions... in english.... at the
attention of the french conservateurs !
http://www.louvre.fr
Actualité
La nouvelle salle de la Joconde

The same about the allegedly false Van Gogh of Orsay museum. I was
still troubled despite the seriousness of the chemical surveys made
until I recently saw Van Goghs in the MET with exactly the same touch
and fading reds than the 3 contested.

didier Meurgues
  #90  
Old August 16th, 2004, 09:56 PM
meurgues
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Go Fig wrote in message ...
In article , Mxsmanic
wrote:

John Bermont writes:

What would you consider a good work of art?


A lot of da Vinci's own other works easily surpass the Mona Lisa.


There are, at most, 11 completed works, probably fewer like 5 IIRC.


5 "and a half" are in the Louvre : Joconde (Mona Lisa), Vierge au
Rocher, Vierge & Jesus & Ste Anne, Belle Ferronniere, St Jean
Baptiste,
and Bacchus (+ workshop) + at least 2 copies Virgin & child, woman
portrait...
The Vierge au Rocher of the Louvre is the original one while the one
of the NG of London is a copy made with the help of the artist
workshop as the treatment of the head of St John the Beaptist prooves
it, like the Louvre's Bacchus (or for ex. 2 of the 3 Louvre's
Velasquez). The Louvre posters always precises when it is made with
the help of an artist workshop or with the help of another artist
(Concert champetre of Titian + Giorgione ; Jeanne d'Aragon of Raphael
+ (?) Giulio Romano), the NG doesnt, if I remember well, for the later
version of the Vierge aux Rochers. That prooves the honesty of the
Louvre's conservateurs compared to some other museums.
The Mon(n)a Lisa is temporarily presented in the (Salvatore) Rosa room
(napolitan school) behind a darker glass than before, during the works
in the salle des Etats, in refurbishment since four years, and which
will re-open next spring.
In the Louvre some could consider the Vierge aux Rocher or the Belle
Jardinière as better works (remember that nobody dared to restore the
Vinci works since they entrered in the Louvre notably the Virgin & Ste
Anne and the dark Vierge aux Rochers at the different of the radical
treatments of many primitives or Renaissance paintings (Ucello,
Titian, Botticelli works, etc...) in anglo saxons museums in
particular).
I personaly don't. I was fearing to be disapointed when I first saw
the painting, but when I discovered its green bluring effects in the
back and the peacefullness and "justesse" of the lady portrait, some
years ago, behind the transparent glass of its original setting in the
salle des Etats I was absolutly not. And believe me this pleasure to
not be dispointed even gave me a kind of aesthetical "shock".

I returned to the Louvre last friday and the impression was totally
different because of the dark glass. Of course this is the original
behind the glass like all the paintings presented in the Louvre as far
as the conservateur are aware of it. It's ridiculous to pretend the
contrary. If an anonymous but old copy is presented like, for a rare
exception (if not unique), the portrait of the cardinal of Amboise by
Andrea Solario (because of the historical importance of the lost
original, in France) or if it is made by another artist (Ste Catherine
copy by Giulio Romano of Raphael original, etc...) it is explicitly
precised on the poster !

didier Meurgues



jay
Fri Aug 06, 2004

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
FS: Embassy . USAT Genuine Leather Luggage yogi216 Travel Marketplace 0 May 3rd, 2004 07:23 PM
Costa Rica travel - Mona G. Webster Latin America 1 March 20th, 2004 04:24 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:08 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 TravelBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.