Hacker News Reader

Comment by treetalker | Hacker News Reader

As you say, some works seem to lose something in any reproduction. La Giaconda (Mona Lisa) is a great example: any reproduction you may have seen in books or online hasn't captured the rainbow of background color in the original, or the sensation of viewing a living person sitting for a portrait when viewed at a few paces in the Louvre.

View on HN

That's fascinating response! Mona Lisa is, to me, _the_ example of an artwork that is actually better viewed online instead of in person.

The painting is way smaller than you expect, it's always crowded with folks who want to take selfies, it's behind so many layers of glass/plastic that distort the colors — it's really, really hard to actually have any chance to appreciate it person.

The original one is behind an extremely thick layer of glass that completely distorts the colours.

It is now, but it used not to be...

The Mona Lisa has been behind a thick bulletproof layer of glass since 1956.

I'm kind of surprised actually that they haven't found a better way to exhibit it in close to 70 years. But the protective layer is a big part of why it's underwhelming in person.

You are correct. I was convinced I had seen her unprotected in my childhood. Memories can be deceptive...

There is a "copy" of the Mona Lisa at the Prado in Madrid that has been restored, and there is never a crowd around it. It might have been made by Leonardo himself or one of his students, but it was probably made at the same time.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com