h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Entry: The Mona Lisa - an Enigmatic Work of Art - A87893220
Author: Galaxy Babe - U128652

Thanks Bob

I have added the nugget about the Mona Lisa being in Kivas Fajo's private collection of stolen memorabilia (Star Trek - TNG)

I had forgotten that. I just remembered the baseball card.

So had I. You mean the one that smelled of bubblegum? I remembered the glove-puppet lapling

Also very cool. Saul Rubinek was amazing in that.

So he was. Did you know he wasn't the original casting? That was a heck of a story. David Rappaport was the original Kivas Fajo but he had to be replaced as he was suffering from depression. At that time, Saul Rubinek was filming elsewhere but he asked his old schoolfriend - director Tim Bond - if he could tour the studio - he was a Star Trek fan. While looking round, he was persuaded to take the part of Kivas Fajo.

There's a sad post-note. David Rappaport committed suicide 2 months later.

I'd read that story, yes. I swear it was in the ONLY 'Star Trek' magazine I've ever read, honest...

But I'll bet nobody else on this thread knew that. So now they know something.

It shocks me sometimes, the amount of Trek trivia I know, I'm still disappointed I didn't get to show it off on The Chase

It was a different planet

I didn't know that. (I am also mostly unaware of actors' names)

Anyway... I am unsure about wether much arts historical background or painting stuff should be added to this Entry. I had a look into one of my books but it didn't bring anything interesting. One thing I seem to remember from school is that the perspective of the background is slightly off (which you can actually see when you pay attention). The horizon should be lower than it is.

Did you mention that the picture was originally larger? They cut off a pillar on each side. I seem to remember it was because the frame they wanted to use was too small, but I'm not sure. I also can't remember when that was, I should go find it out.

There must be millions of versions where peple switch the head of the Mona Lisa for somebody elses. I also know there are Disney versions, for instance with Daisy Duck.

Updated, thank you

GB

Anything else required here, please?

GB

I wonder if any of you can see this?
http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=1535333333171374&set=a.144863078885080.21813.100000841665204

Someone (not me) mocked it up for a funny profile pic. I was quite taken with it - how the Mona Lisa may look today... it's not my image though so I can't use it for the entry

That is very interesting. She wouldn't merit a second glance these days. And the "smile" is almost a sneer.

Tantalising in many ways. You could expand on "The perspective of the background is slightly off, the horizon should be lower than it is."

Who says this? Why should it be lower? It is clearly an imaginary landscape, placing the serene model in a highly dramatic setting, just as a song could have a simple melody but an agitated accompaniment.

Da Vinci made many innovations in the art of painting, and a lot of his notebooks are devoted to the effects you can get. He revolutionised the use of perspective, both of line (the way things converge towards a vanishing point on the horizon) and of colour (the aerial perspective, how colours fade with distance). His painting of the Annunciation does weird things to the perspective: the angel's limbs and general presence are placed in an impossible attitude. Given his genius (nobody could draw with such intense observation) and the depth of study he had put into the subject I can only conclude that this was done on purpose, to make a point about supernatural beings not being bound by normal rules of perception. He would have been fully aware of the imbalance between his point of view of the Mona Lisa's face (more or less full on) and the point of view (higher) that places the far hills and horizon below the viewer. These were variables he played with.

The thing that was revolutionary about Mona Lisa is the shading of the face, the technique called sfumato. He put the paint on in many thin layers, building up a gentle image that your eyes can't quite focus on: hence the enigmatic nature of the smile. I disagree with the opinion that a visit to the original is necessarily disappointing: there are fine reproductions, but you really want to see it up close and personal to experience the way the look constantly changes as your eyes wander around the face trying to get some kind of a purchase on it.

By the way, here's my rimickle on the theme:

Leonardo da Vinci
Found hard puzzles cinchy
Excelleing at science and art;
Though Lisa could not win his heart,
At least she tried, di'nt she?

A1086770

Ah, looking at the thread I see it is Tavaron da Quirm that wants the horizon lower. You could say more about this, Tavaron; the simple suggestion is not enough!

My point about the Annunciation, where he messes with perspective, is not so much that he is *commenting* on perception going ape in supernatural cases, but more that Leonardo purposely manipulates the viewer's perception, so that without necessarily being able to say why, we feel creepy, discomboblated, vaguely uncomfortable in the presence of this angel.

"There must be millions of versions where people switch the head of the Mona Lisa for somebody else's"... Many certainly, but *millions*?

I've just chanced on a clip from The Da Vinci Code, where the Tom Hanks character says the horizon in the picture is lower on the left than on the right, relating it to the symbolism of left/female, right/male.

I wouldn't rate that opinion greatly.

I have a friend on Facebook who continually changes her profile picture with that of the Mona Lisa in different poses. I suspect there are millions of parodies out there in the ether.

I will add to the horizon point if required, but I do believe that the picture is different for everyone who looks at it. Picking it apart seems sacrilegious, almost.

The Twilight Zone strikes again - I changed channels tonight and caught the end of "The One Show" and there was a man in a strange hat singing "Mona Lisa" accompanied by Jools Holland on the piano.

GB

There are millions of facebook users all right, but really, what proportion of them will adapt one particular post? This is work (a little, but some).

Please excuse my mild exasperation, but saying "I do believe that the picture is different for everyone who looks at it. Picking it apart seems sacrilegious, almost" not only makes nonsense of discussing the horizon at all but kind of negates the whole project of writing an Entry on it. Either you do a bit of analysis or you don't.