Mona Lisa

The Da Vinci: The Genius exhibit is currently showing at the Museum of Science, and yesterday, my Mom and I visited.

Da Vinci was more than just the illustrious painter of the Last Supper and the Mona Lisa. He was an architect, an inventor, and yes, at one point, even a fashion designer when he was called upon. At the Museum, models of the military weapons he designed [like the catapult] were displayed and his sketches sat alongside.

The exhibit was very broad in the sense that it touched upon many of Da Vinci’s accomplishments, yet also highlighted his life and his career. The most eye catching–and controversial–part of the exhibit for me was probably seeing the analysis of Mona Lisa and her features.

I have known the Mona Lisa since I was young and I believe it is considered the most famous painting of all time. It was so famous that in first grade, I even tried to copy the painting on 11x9 paper, which to my disappointment, did not resemble the version I saw on the internet. However, I must confess, I have found myself questioning the glory of the Mona Lisa, as people have described it. I’m not an art critique and I probably don’t understand enough about the significance of the art itself, but after seeing the exhibit yesterday, my question is, what’s the big deal?

Da Vinci was not the first artist to exist, he was not the first artist to create a painting of a woman, he was not the richest man of his time and Mona Lisa, in my opinion, is not significantly different–or better–than the portraits I have seen wandering through art museum galleries.

At the Museum of Science, the Mona Lisa analysis took up ⅓ of the exhibit. It highlighted some very interesting details that I would not have noticed myself, like her lack of eyelashes/eyebrows, the position of her left hand and how it differed from Da Vinci’s first draft of the painting. The exhibit also compared of Da Vinci’s initial drafts of the Mona Lisa to his final.

Yet there was a panel on the wall titled 25 Things You Probably Didn’t Know About Mona Lisa. I don’t remember all of them, yet there is one that has most definitely stuck the most with me. I’m paraphrasing, but it was something along these lines: the observation of the dark smudge of paint on the contour of Lisa’s chin and corner of the left eye contradict people’s hypothesis that Mona Lisa had high cholesterol. That last part really stunned me. People initially–and many still–believe that Mona Lisa had high cholesterol based off a painting? For me, that’s crossing the line between reality and extremity.  

My question is whether society has socially constructed Mona Lisa to be the most famous painting. I would answer yes. Many art analysts and critiques have made observations about the painting [which I totally accept], yet many are using these observations and alluding to extreme possibilities for why Da Vinci may have done this. For all I know, the smudge on the corner of the left eye, or the lack of shading on the right side of Lisa’s nose may not point to

How could a smudge on the left eye suggest this?

high cholesterol, but perhaps an application of too much water/paint on that particular area of canvas. I feel as if anything could be suggested about Mona Lisa through the painting. I could even say–though I’m not art critique or analyst–that Lisa doesn’t show her teeth in the painting because she never had braces as a kid and therefore, has crooked teeth.

Plus, we still don’t know who the painting of Mona Lisa is really depicting. Some people say it’s the wife of a wealthy merchant, others say it’s Da Vinci himself in feminine form. In that case, how could we correctly hypothesize that she had high cholesterol? There are many layers to a painting and I find it controversial that many are forming hypothesizes from looking at the surface.

Departing question: Do you believe that society has socially constructed Mona Lisa to her current fame, or is there something that differentiates this portrait from others?