Dan Stephenson

In article <[email protected]>, jcoulter
<[email protected]> wrote:

    > Emilia <emilia@(spam-so-)easy.com> wrote in
    > news:[email protected]:
    >
    >
    >
    > >
    > > Exactly. To say "visit the Orsay" is not exactly beautiful in English.
    > >
    > > Anyway, the point of my post was to assure the OP that the Mona Lisa
    > > in the Louvre is in fact a fake. Can we never stick to the topic?
    > >
    >
    > Ok we can skip the intelligent discussion of linguistic nuance and jump
    > right into the conspiracy of the week topic. Silly me!
    >
    > You offer what as validation for your claim of fakery? Untill I see
    > credible proof to the contrary, I am going to continue to believe that the
    > Louvre as one of the world's premier art exhibitions is not conning us.

You cannot get close enough to tell, and with the glare and
translucency of the glass it's behind, it might as well be a copy.
What a boring portrait.

--
Dan Stephenson
Photos and movies from US Parks and all over Europe:
http://homepage.mac.com/stepheda

Jesper Lauridsen

On 2004-08-07, Emilia <[email protected]> wrote:
    > It's a total fake! The real one is probably in a basement hide away some
    > where. Skip the Louvre and go to the D'Orsay.

Louvre contains more than one painting. And the building itself is quite
interesting.

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.

Mxsmanic

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?

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

Calif Bill

"The Reids" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
    > Following up to BB
    > >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.
    > I think tourists should ask themselves this question:-
    > "do I look at art at home, do I buy and read art history books?"
    > If "no", for christ sake get out of the gallery and enjoy
    > yourself. I spend the time saved sitting in bars people watching.
    > Beats any old master i've seen as an insight into the foreign
    > country you spent so much trouble getting to.
    > But architecture I *do* enjoy although I certainly don't traipse
    > round numerous ABCs in good drinking/eating time.
    > --
    > Mike Reid
    > If god wanted us to be vegetarians he wouldn't have made animals out of
meat.
    > Wasdale-Lake district-Thames path-London "http://www.fellwalk.co.uk" <--
you can email us@ this site
    > Eat-walk-Spain "http://www.fell-walker.co.uk" <-- dontuse@ all, it's a
spamtrap

I am not an art person, but do have to see the building and maybe trophy
hunt for parties. But I really enjoyed the Orsay. Great architecture,
being a classic train station, and they had a Buggati exhibition when I was
there. And being a lover of race cars, was a very nice find. I recommend
the Louvre as it does make for the quintessential Paris Museum.

nitram

On Thu, 12 Aug 2004 03:22:21 +0200, Mxsmanic <[email protected]>
wrote:

    >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?

LOL pedant!

Jesper Lauridsen

On 2004-08-10, The Reids <[email protected]> wrote:
    > Yes, if you cant do it at home the test is invalid. But I wonder
    > how many Londoners have walked round churches in Spain and
    > visited galleries having never done so in London?

If we should restrict our holiday activities to what we do at home,
most tourist would spend the entire trip in their hotel room watching
television.

Jesper Lauridsen

On 2004-08-06, Sam <[email protected]> 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.

The Reids

Following up to Jesper Lauridsen

    >> Yes, if you cant do it at home the test is invalid. But I wonder
    >> how many Londoners have walked round churches in Spain and
    >> visited galleries having never done so in London?
    >If we should restrict our holiday activities to what we do at home,
    >most tourist would spend the entire trip in their hotel room watching
    >television.

If that's what they do at home, maybe that's what they would
really enjoy on holiday? I have heard people in popular holiday
destinations talking about how its nice to get back home,
"there's nothing like your own bed" being a popular comment.
--
Mike Reid
If god wanted us to be vegetarians he wouldn't have made animals out of meat.
Wasdale-Lake district-Thames path-London "http://www.fellwalk.co.uk" <-- you can email us@ this site
Eat-walk-Spain "http://www.fell-walker.co.uk" <-- dontuse@ all, it's a spamtrap

Jcoulter

The Reids <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:



    >
    > If that's what they do at home, maybe that's what they would
    > really enjoy on holiday? I have heard people in popular holiday
    > destinations talking about how its nice to get back home,
    > "there's nothing like your own bed" being a popular comment.

These are often the same folk who book cheap hotels, because "you only
sleep there" as if "only sleep" was an insignificant thing.

David J Richardson

In article <[email protected]>,
Jesper Lauridsen <[email protected]> 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 -- [email protected]
http://davidj.richardson.name/ -- Dr Who articles/interviews/reviews
http://www.boomerang.org.au/ -- Boomerang Association of Australia

Ellie C

jcoulter wrote:
    > The Reids <[email protected]> wrote in
    > news:[email protected]:
    >
    >
    >>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.)

Meurgues

Mxsmanic <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>. ..
    > 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

Meurgues

David J Richardson <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
    > In article <[email protected]>,
    > Jesper Lauridsen <[email protected]> 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

Meurgues

Go Fig <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<060820041756253462%[email protected]>...
    > 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.

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
    > mailto:[email protected]

David J Richardson

In article <[email protected] >,
[email protected] (meurgues) wrote:

    > > > 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 !
    >
    > 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.

LOL

<http://www.bbc.co.uk/cult/doctorwho/episodeguide/cityofdeath/>

--
David J Richardson -- [email protected]
http://davidj.richardson.name/ -- Dr Who articles/interviews/reviews
http://www.boomerang.org.au/ -- Boomerang Association of Australia