Sam

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.Elsewhere however I read that the fake Mona
rumor was spread by con "artists" who claimed to their clients that
they sold them the real Jaconda and the one inthe louvre is a
fake.What do you think from what you saw?I am going to the louvre next
week.Is there details of the painting which can be seen which support
either of these theories?

thanks,
Sam

Montesquiou

"Sam" <[email protected]> a écrit dans le message de
news:[email protected]...
    > 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.Elsewhere however I read that the fake Mona
    > rumor was spread by con "artists" who claimed to their clients that
    > they sold them the real Jaconda and the one inthe louvre is a
    > fake.What do you think from what you saw?I am going to the louvre next
    > week.Is there details of the painting which can be seen which support
    > either of these theories?
    > thanks,
    > Sam

I think that the problem stay with the credibility of Internet.

It is time to create an independent label for internet news.
Anyone can create a blog and invent what he want : Negacionism,
sensationalism, rumor, false news (mainly politician), etc...

Of course it is the real Joconda, very well protected by a glass box. At the
point that if you visit the Louvre it will be one of your greatest
deception.
To much people, to much protection for a little paint you hardly can saw.

Nightjar

"Sam" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
    > 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.Elsewhere however I read that the fake Mona
    > rumor was spread by con "artists" who claimed to their clients that
    > they sold them the real Jaconda and the one inthe louvre is a
    > fake.What do you think from what you saw?I am going to the louvre next
    > week.Is there details of the painting which can be seen which support
    > either of these theories?

Of course it is a fake. The real one is in my secret basement, along with
several copies that Leonardo painted himself.

However, you will never tell, as it is disappointingly small and dark. I
have heard that the glass box they fitted since I last visited the Louvre
has only made that worse.

Colin Bignell

Bogus Address

    > 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.

Flash is an irrelevance these days. The illumination provided by
a flashgun, if you can get close enough for it actually to light
your subject effectively, is equivalent to 1/60 of a second of
full sunlight (with the same spectrum). It would take a heck of
a more flashes than any museum will experience to damage a picture.

It was different back when flashes were bulbs filled with aluminium
wire in oxygen; these sometimes exploded, spraying glass splinters
and hot debris for several feet. It was even worse with flash powder -
magnesium mixed with a strong oxidizer - this could occasionally blow
the photographer's head off. Both of those were really a hazard to
valuable artworks, and I'd guess that's where the common bans on
flash photography originated.

But photographing paintings is very difficult, and somebody on a
quick gallery visit with a handheld camera is never going to match
the quality of a postcard in the museum shop, which will probably
cost less too. So flash photos of the Mona Lisa are utterly
pointless.

In fact I'd be surprised if there weren't scans of this picture on
the web already at better quality than a gallery-goer could ever
achieve. Favourites, anyone?

========> Email to "j-c" at this site; email to "bogus" will bounce <========
Jack Campin: 11 Third Street, Newtongrange, Midlothian EH22 4PU; 0131 6604760
<http://www.purr.demon.co.uk/purrhome.html> food intolerance data & recipes,
Mac logic fonts, Scots traditional music files and CD-ROMs of Scottish music.

Mxsmanic

Sam writes:

    > 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.

Not necessary. Flash photography doesn't really harm the painting that
much, and it's already in bad shape, anyway.

    > ... some ppl even boasted they went inside the barrier
    > and took a photo with it.

Yeah, some people do that. It's not a felony.

    > What do you think from what you saw?

The one in the window is singularly unimpressive. If it were a fake,
I'd expect them to do a better job of making it look nice--so it must be
real.

    > Is there details of the painting which can be seen which support
    > either of these theories?

No. I think you can safely assume that the one on display is the real
thing. It's not _that_ valuable. It's famous, but it's not a
tremendously good work of art.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

Pjw

Another factor might be that there seems to have been some mystery
about whether it was this painting or a roughly contemporary copy that
was listed among paintings rescued from Bad Aussee in Austria at the
end of WW2, where the Nazis had stored large numbers of looted
artworks. The Louvre authorities insisted it must have been a copy or
the Bad Aussee records were wrong.

Also, of course, the painting vanished for a while in 1911..

PJW

On 6 Aug 2004 08:08:03 -0700, [email protected] (Sam) 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.Elsewhere however I read that the fake Mona
    >rumor was spread by con "artists" who claimed to their clients that
    >they sold them the real Jaconda and the one inthe louvre is a
    >fake.What do you think from what you saw?I am going to the louvre next
    >week.Is there details of the painting which can be seen which support
    >either of these theories?
    >thanks,
    >Sam

EvelynVogtGamble

Sam 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.Elsewhere however I read that the fake Mona
    > rumor was spread by con "artists" who claimed to their clients that
    > they sold them the real Jaconda

Any "mark" who'd buy a picture titled "Jaconda", under the impression ot
was the Mona Lisa, would deserve to be swindled! (The correct title,
being Italian, is "La Gioconda".)

alain K.

right! ,,,,,,,,,,, I did it ;o)))))

signed : Leonardo


"Sam" <[email protected]> a écrit dans le message de
news:[email protected]...
    > 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.Elsewhere however I read that the fake Mona
    > rumor was spread by con "artists" who claimed to their clients that
    > they sold them the real Jaconda and the one inthe louvre is a
    > fake.What do you think from what you saw?I am going to the louvre next
    > week.Is there details of the painting which can be seen which support
    > either of these theories?
    > thanks,
    > Sam

John Bermont

Mxsmanic wrote:

It's not _that_ valuable. It's famous, but it's not a
    > tremendously good work of art.
    >

What would you consider a good work of art?
--
------------------------------------------------------
* * * Mastering Independent Budget Travel * * *
http://www.enjoy-europe.com/
------------------------------------------------------

Bb

On Fri, 06 Aug 2004 19:26:16 +0200, Mxsmanic wrote:

    > The one in the window is singularly unimpressive. If it were a fake,
    > I'd expect them to do a better job of making it look nice--so it must be
    > real.

Its extremely hyped; we got there early people in the line were trying to
figure out the quickest way to get to the Mona Lisa, so we joined in the
mad rush. And when we got there, it was this just this smallish, dark
painting, encased in glass and blocked off. The more compelling picture
was when we passed later and it was surrounded by a huge mob!

I suppose much of its significance is historical, but I'm not an art
historian or even a fan of portraits. Being unimpressed by the Mona Lisa
is not an uncommon experience.

--
-BB-
To reply to me, drop the attitude (from my e-mail address, at least)

Jcoulter

BB <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

    > On Fri, 06 Aug 2004 19:26:16 +0200, Mxsmanic wrote:
    >
    >> The one in the window is singularly unimpressive. If it were a fake,
    >> I'd expect them to do a better job of making it look nice--so it must
    >> be real.
    >
    > Its extremely hyped; we got there early people in the line were trying
    > to figure out the quickest way to get to the Mona Lisa, so we joined
    > in the mad rush. And when we got there, it was this just this
    > smallish, dark painting, encased in glass and blocked off. The more
    > compelling picture was when we passed later and it was surrounded by a
    > huge mob!
    >
    > I suppose much of its significance is historical, but I'm not an art
    > historian or even a fan of portraits. Being unimpressed by the Mona
    > Lisa is not an uncommon experience.
    >

Strange when I last saw her I was impressed she was biggerthan my memory
(course I had a few years of realizing that she was small under my belt.)

Mxsmanic

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.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

Go Fig

In article <[email protected]>, Mxsmanic
<[email protected]> 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.

jay
Fri Aug 06, 2004
mailto:[email protected]

Luca Logi

PJW <[email protected]> wrote:

    > Also, of course, the painting vanished for a while in 1911.

It was stolen by an Italian named Vincenzo Perugia and brought to
Florence. He lived in what is now Hotel Gioconda in via Panzani (he was
reported that the hotel has a good quality/price ratio).

I should add that the Italian name of the painting is "La Gioconda" (a
smiling woman), and if you want to call it "Monna Lisa" ("Monna" being a
short Florentine form for "Madonna", i.e. a lady), be sure that you use
the double "n". "Mona" with a single "n" is a Venetian insult with a
possible sexual overtone.

--
Luca Logi - Firenze - Italy e-mail: [email protected]
Home page: http://www.angelfire.com/ar/archivarius
(musicologia pratica)

Doug McDonald

John Bermont wrote:

    >
    >
    > Mxsmanic wrote:
    >
    > It's not _that_ valuable. It's famous, but it's not a
    >
    >> tremendously good work of art.
    >
    > What would you consider a good work of art?


The Floorburger

Doug McDonald