Munch's "The Scream" might be better-placed there.
37
Giving Mona Lisa her own space is an obvious and necessary step, but a pavillion on the grounds is doomed to be a stop-gap measure. Better to give her her own museum on the outskirts of Paris, in an area that needs an economic boost. Better still, somewhere along the border of France and Italy. Heck, go all in with the painting's current status and make it a theme park.
22
I saw the Mona Lisa back in December 1979 as a 14-year-old. I could practically touch it, we could get that close. I was disappointed in it then. Seeing it up close does not make it look any better than seeing a professional photograph of it. Except, perhaps, the weird concept of her eyes seeming to follow you no matter where you were in the room.
I heartily agree with Mr. Farago. The Mona Lisa needs its own building. If the majority of tourists are only coming to see the Mona Lisa and not the Louvre itself, which is magnificent even if there were no art in it, then give them their own space to be disappointed.
The Louvre is full of better and more wonderful artwork than the Mona Lisa. However, if tourists are only trying to cross things off of a bucket list of "iconic artwork seen in person," they are bound to not care about the artwork itself but to have a selfie in front of such iconic artwork to prove that they really did see it.
To be honest, I am glad that although I was 14, I was able to see the Mona Lisa, the Bayeux Tapestry, and Stonehenge without tons of ropes and security and rabid tourists. We had the room that holds the Bayeux Tapestry to ourselves. Stonehenge was open and inviting. There was a small crowd around the Mona Lisa but there were also small crowds around other paintings as well. Perhaps it is time to discontinue bucket list concepts and selfies and allow people to not feel like they need to be like everyone else in the world.
34
I couldn't agree more with this article. I'm a museum educator and a big part of our practice is long-looking and extended engagements with works: more comes out of the work with more time looking. This has been well-documented in many places including the Times. I had this joy with many works in France, including at The Louvre, but it's just not possible with the Mona Lisa. It really becomes a transactional experience, walking through and jostling to get a spot just to look from 200 feet away for a minute or two. Many of the treasures of art history are available for viewing in opposite environments: in the jewelbox Mauritshuis Museum in the Netherlands, I was alone in the room with the Girl with the Pearl Earring -- and that moment was transformative. The Louvre either needs to give timed tickets to a very small number-- maybe 20 at a time-- for this gallery, or take her out of view. It's a museum filled with treasures and this one doesn't get its due as its currently displayed.
19
I just returned from the Louvre three weeks ago. La joconde is, indeed, a thoroughly disappointing experience.
However, several commenters seem to despise the cameras in these places. Pardon me, but as a professional artist, there is nothing better than the calm and being able to take artful photos of public works of art or architectural details such as one finds in the Louvre.
It’s so arrogant: I enjoy museums in this way, so therefore, ban all photography because I don’t see any value in it, others should enjoy museums the “right” way (all artists are now laughing hysterically), and if you don’t understand, stay away from the museums.
Right. Because that sounds like a wonderful idea.
Oh, and what no one is admitting? The Chinese. They can’t seem to vacation in groups of 5 or less, oh no: they vacation in groups of 40. They are incredibly rude, culturally insensitive to their host country, and a large part of the numbers problem everyone seems to be bemoaning. After 5 hours of getting literally shoved out of the way by rude Chinese tourists, the last straw was when I was at the entrance of Denon asking for directions and yet another Chinese tourist with map in hand literally pushed me out of the way so hard my partner had to catch me so I didn’t fall to the ground. I chewed that guy out so loudly he looked terrified. Everyone else around me — Brazilians, Indians, Germans, African Americans, Koreans — started applauding.
44
I visited the Louvre in 1980 and was, to put it simply, stunned. Just fabulous. This was, of course, before the age of the "selfie". I got to stand in front of the Mona Lisa for as long as I wanted. There were others in the room, of course, but I had no problem getting a good view of the painting. I have taken many photos with my Nikon in museums but the proliferation of cell phone "photographers" has become a nuisance. At this point, I'm all for banning photography in museums.
13
I like the selfie booth idea. Maybe they could put it outside of the museum.
People learn to appreciate fame constantly - it's all around us, all of the time. But people have to work to appreciate art.
5
Mona may be an exquisite painting but it is an artifact like a moon rock and also famous like a celebrity glimpsed on the sidewalk.
Who can blame people for wanting to memorialize their encounter. But it has nothing to do with art. To appreciate it as a work of art one would have to battle through not just the crowds but the cultural baggage. As Farago rightly suggests belongs in its own venue.
Having said that, art museums are not houses of worship. There is no right way to view art except, of course, to be considerate of the other folks trying to do the same thing.
18
They're simply not trying hard enough. You can fit everybody in. Put it on a sort of carousel and have it move past the viewers as they go the other way on a fast sliding walk.
5
In 1952 I walked into Independence Hall and was alone with the Liberty Bell even touched it. Today one has to go through with a Park Ranger and have to stay way back behind a fence.
5
Years ago (2007?) My sister and I went to the Louvre. We of course had to see the Mona Lisa, since we were there getting wowed by all the awesome art (yes I used awesome to describe art). We got to the gallery and saw the crazy crowd..and squinted our eyes and oh there she is....Okay that was a huge let down. We didn't even go into the gallery...since the crowd was crazy big, even back in 2007, and went on to check out has much as we could, before our feet started pleading to stop and go back to hotel and rest. The Louvre was so huge we never got to finish, and I wish we could've.
7
I am an American who is love with Paris. However, my visit to the Louvre in September prompted a complaint letter to the museum, a first for me. I did not want to even see the Mona Lisa but the crowds made it impossible to get around in the museum. I am in Paris again and I will NOT be making my trip to the Louvre. Please give Mona Lisa a new home and let us have this fantastic museum back.
22
Our last visit to the Louvre was in 2015, and we vowed never to return. It was a mob scene, and after visiting the museum in earlier decades going back to the 70s, we were stunned to see people pulling roll-aboard luggage through the museum and carrying soda cans. We count ourselves fortunate to have been to the Louvre when you could basically walk right up to the Mona Lisa and have a good look without being in the middle of a mob. But in 2015, it was all about people taking selfies and holding up their phones to get a shot of the painting from 20-30 feet away. Enough is right!
17
Elliott Verdier's photo is also a masterwork, in my humble opinion. The big story and a million smaller stories, all in a single frame. Thank you.
3
The museum opens at 9. Be there then, and you'll have Mona Lisa largely for yourself. The buses with the Chinese arrive around ten.
We taught the Asians competition is the source of happiness. And competition must be about winning. When you go to China, people smilingly point to their Coca Cola bottles and exclaim "Number One!".
Mona Lisa is number one. It doesn't matter for most visitors if they only get a glimpse of the smallish, dark painting behind the glass. It's number one. They've been there, they've seen it.
I like the idea of a separate room or building. The renaissance department could be furnished with a nice copy, in colours more like they were when it was new. Without the glass.
Some of the most revered icons in Russia are not only copies, but copies of copies.
19
Could not agree more. Sistine Chapel is equally disappointing.
9
Taking selfies or any types of photos in museum exhibit spaces should be banned. The crowd at MOMA around Van Gogh’s Starry Night jockeying for prime selfie position the other day was repulsive. They were not even looking at the painting. Instead anyone trying to actually see the painting ends up looking at these beauties posing for their cell phones in front of a famous work of art.
Ban cell phones in exhibit spaces. Museums can set up multiple backdrops with images of famous works for the avid selfie addict. What do they care if it’s not the real thing—they are not looking at it any way.
29
YES!
6
This article is silly.
3
This is pretty on point, though I think now is the time for a deeper dive into how the ideologies of capital have distorted what, exactly, we mean by the word "art." I honestly don't know if there is an irony here or not, but this phenomenon began with the Italian renaissance--a process identified, described and lamented by John Ruskin in the 19th century--when the name of the artist became the single most important feature of a "work of art." I put that phrase in quotes advisedly because we have come to equate the concept of "art" with the various finished products that are often the result of artistic processes. But that's just it: "art" describes an activity, not an object, but by reifying the artist we began the process of reifying the object, turning it into "art," at least in our minds. What possible value can there be in viewing this not especially ennobling painting in this decidedly undignified way? It certainly has nothing to do with aesthetics or with the sorts of transformative experiences that encountering works of art can engender. And, to my mind, that is the beginning and end of what an encounter with a work of art can provide: opening up a space in our own minds/hearts/lives where we see that art is a process in which we, too, can participate. If only Apollinaire had burned the damned thing, though I take heart from the fact that I can visit Leonardo's infinitely more interesting portrait of Ginevra de Benci unmolested nearly any day of the week.
5
I have never been to Paris, or the Louvre; but the article reminded me of my experiences at MOMA in New York with Van Gogh's Starry Night. There were hordes of people with their cell phone cameras jockeying for position in front of poor Vincent's painting. Luckily, I was on a cane at the time, and a small amount of consideration was shown me by the masses - and I do mean masses! I was allowed to maneuver to a couch, where several able-bodied tourists begrudgingly gave up their seats for me. But Yipes!
3
Been to the Louvre twice, both times made a point of NOT seeing the ML -- so much other great art to see. I did walk across the back end of the room once, decades ago before the selfie revolution, and the crowds even then were silly.
4
Many years ago as a traveling college student I went to the Louvre. I walked into the room with the Mona Lisa, there were spectacular paintings some floor to ceiling and the little Mona Lisa behind glass. At the time the painting hadn't been cleaned and the varnish was heavily yellowed.
Sure enough the visitors were all crowded around the Mona Lisa ignoring the other paintings. As I admired the paintings a stereotype midwestern American couple approached a guard. He was short and fat with a round face and hat and a camera around his neck. His wife was a fat women in a floral moo-moo that looked like a tent. The guard was a tall thin frenchman with a pencil mustache dressed in black.
As I listened the woman screeched out in a squeaky voice "Excuse me, excuse me are these paintings originals?
And people wonder why we fly over Trump country.
9
Mona Lisa is SO overrated but in this world or selfies and bucket lists it’s an opportunity for the museum to make more money and put it to a good cause. They could also put “her” in a hallway with a people mover much like the Queen’s jewels. Charge extra.
5
They can do two things to fix this. First, ban photography in the galleries. Then put up a perfect replica of the Mona Lisa in a lobby and let people take their selfies there.
The Mapparium in Boston, for instance, does both of these things, and it makes for a better experience for everybody. People are perfectly fine with a selfie in front of a good replica.
10
This was a brilliant piece of writing. I first saw the Mona Lisa in 1971. I had wandered into a gallery and there it was. So small I almost missed it. I went to the Louvre in the 1990's and there was a barrier rope and the crowd was about 2 or 3 deep. I really couldn't see why this painting had become a cultural icon and wonder to this day how it came about. And what's with these selfies. See everything through a lens and then look at the picture later? Just go buy a post card. It's idiotic. If I could own any painting in the world (not for sale) it would not be the Mona Lisa. I would like a t-shirt though.
6
lol, got that out of your system now? Leaving her where she's at helps get visitors to see more and in context
I recently visited the Prado in Madrid (end of October). What a pleasure! Large rooms, not crowded and very few selfies. There is even another version of the Mona Lisa in their collection.
A few years ago, I visited the Uffizi also at the end of October which I thought was off-season. It was so crowed and so many people taking selfies without even looking at the art that I don't ever want to go back. You can hardly see the art and now many of the famous pieces are behind plexiglass.
At St Peters in Rome, I saw the Pieta up close in the 1970's then someone shot it. It was behind plexiglass the next time I saw it. Now the whole room is closed off with plexiglass at the door so you can't even see the Pieta.
I think all museums should ban photography of any kind. Without selfies, people might actually look at the art and they may move along more quickly.
8
Thankfully I was able to see the Mona Lisa twice back in the 1980’s at the Louvre. Back then it was less crowded and you could get closer to the painting. But even then the crowds were getting bad. Personally I thought the Venus de Milo was more interesting.
2
Finally...someone is saying what I have been thinking ever since I saw the Moma Lisa 25 years ago. Also, let me be clear that I love paintings...and other visual art. He nailed it regarding my own thinking and behavior.
1. The crowds made the experience....well ridiculous and frustrating.
2. The painting isn’t that interesting....the worship of the painting is more interesting...but does not require a visit to the Louvre.
3. I’ve been back to Paris many times but I have NEVER been back to the Louvre.
Perhaps the Mona Lisa needs her own Pavilion, a one painting show with am ample gift shop...all things Mona Lisa. There could even be a makeup artist available to help shoppers achieve the look. The shop could include books about the fetishizing of art. Also, books about irony would be fun to display in this gift shop.
8
I remember when the Mona Lisa was in the hall outside the room where she is now. There was always a small crowd around it, but there was no railing to prevent you from approaching the painting. I feel lucky to have seen her this way, and feel like the setting the painting is in now creates the crowding: it's a showy display in a huge room that allows for hundreds to gather (and remain) in. The other shame is that it makes it difficult to enjoy the great works on display in that salon.
2
Mona Schmona. I just like the fact that this is the second Times review in a week (that Peter Luger one was a hoot) -- that actually exhibited a glimmer of humor! So refreshing!!
7
I was in the Louvre this summer. I spent all day looking at masterpieces, and not one minute in the line for the Mona Lisa.
When I left the building, I did not regret my decision for a millisecond.
Life’s too short to spend it in line.
12
Put the Mona Lisa in an enclosed hallway that visitors enter from one side and exit through the other. Guards allow a certain number in at a time, and direct visitors out after their alotted time (maybe 60 seconds?). They could also sell timed tickets for it, and if you wanted to look at it for longer than a minute, just buy multiple tickets. If people want to waste their money, let them. Its a small painting - there's no reason for people to be viewing it from 10, 20 feet back as I did when I visited the museum, its perfect for a hallway. It would also keep the enormous crowds away from the other art, which is more worth your time.
7
I've learned to eschew all big-deal tourist sites. Never, ever go. The crowds, stimulated and enabled by the tourism industry, have overwhelmed parks, trails, wineries, museums, restaurants, scenic highways, scenic rivers -- almost everything touted by travel writers and the sick culture of fame and celebrity.
Last summer I took a vacation close to my home in St. Paul MN. I traveled to an adjacent state (name withheld). Nobody was there. What a wonderful place!
5
@Nathan Most swamped tourist sites are swamped for good reason, though the crowds can diminish your enjoyment. The Mona Lisa is a rare example of a truly disappointing tourist trap.
2
The Louvre might consider the tactic used for viewing the bust of Nefertiti at the Neues Museum in Berlin. Photography is allowed in the museum but not in the room, a rotunda, where the bust is elegantly exhibited. Patrons approach, look and move on. Lift your camera and a guard will intervene.
7
I was in Paris this past May and visited the Louvre. It was not an enjoyable experience - not by a long shot. The crowds, the noise, the pushing and shoving of tourist groups cancelled out any pleasure I was expecting to experience.
When I got to the room with the Mona Lisa I could not get anywhere near the masterpiece due to the large amount of people pressed against the rope - all photographing the painting with their cellphones. It was ridiculous.
I was also surprised at how small the painting really is. I left and went to a much smaller museum on the Seine. It was a much better cultural experience.
4
I pretty much hated the Louvre - it's too big to absorb - and the ML exhibit was certainly the low point. Hype, hype, hype!
SO much more satisfying to spend time in the Musee D’Orsay or the amazing Rodin museum.
11
I saw Mona the fist time on June, 1967. There were maybe 10 people milling around. You could swoop in and get relatively close for a minute or two. Since then, I have skipped Mona and gone to my favorite da Vinci, the Virgin of the Rocks.
I don’t understand the lure of Mona. It’s a portrait, but certainly not the best of that era. The backgrounds on each side don’t match. Her hands are too big. I have never seen the hypnotism of the eyes that people claim to see.
I agree that she needs her own home. She is not a work of art but something in non-art lovers’ bucket lists.
7
I love the Louvre. I've cherished each of my five previous visits. I just got back from a month in Paris, and as usual, the Louvre was on my to-do list. After reading about the explosion of visitors and experiencing a new, disturbing sort of tourist behaviour, I crossed it off my list. The disturbing behaviour? The posers. Not in the hipster sense. I mean, literally, the posers. They clog bridges, stop traffic, block every vista...and they do it for a prolonged period of time. While they strike just the right pose, over and over and over again. Loathsome, selfish creatures, who spend far too much time in museums, blocking the view. While some of us would just like to, you know, look at the art. Maybe see the brushstrokes up close. It's so very humbling and inspiring to see these works of art in person. I had my first look at Mona when I was 17, some 40 years ago. I wasn't impressed. What did sweep my off my feet was The Coronation of Napoleon. Brought tears to my eyes, in fact, plus a very nervous security guard. When I explained why I was crying--that I'd never seen anything so beautiful--he sat by my side and filled me in on all the intrigue behind David's masterpiece. In my experience, Mona's purpose was to distract the crowds, so I could see everything else in peace. But I've since changed my mind. I love your idea! But let's not stop there. No cameras. No pictures. Just walk around and look at the art. And remember to stand back a bit. Others are trying to see as well.
15
I feel very fortunate to have been able to see this as well as a number of other masterpieces back in the early 1960's on elementary school field trips in New York. Those were the days when it was all about the art and scientific exhibits, not taking a picture of yourself in front of them. We read the inscriptions on each one and had a chance to take a long and speculative look at each piece and exhibit. Today it's all narcissistic and as so aptly named, the "selfie." Maybe time to rename it the "selfish."
2
One solution that is just not done enough is to tour the pieces. Especially when art is such an important facet of human culture. The Egyptian government has shared the treasures of King Tut, to the benefit of many I would argue. In a time when countries are so divisive, why not make an example how things should be by sharing (temporarily), examples of their art for literally all to see.
The fact that most visitors rush to see the Mona Lisa doesn't bother me, it means I get the rest of the Louvre to myself.
8
Every time I visit Paris I think the same thing. Let them crowd in to see the tiny painting that they will never really be able to get close enough to see. I’ll take the rest of the museum for myself!
7
What's most shocking to me is that so many have no idea what else is in the Louvre. We have failed a generation that cannot name at least 3 or 4 other of the most famous works there. Perhaps this is why she is so overwhelmed as our art literacy is apparently near zero.
2
Better still, return the painting to the vaults for several decades.
5
We visited the Louvre 28 years ago on our honeymoon. We could walk right into the museum and there was no wait to see the Mona Lisa. Things sure have changed for the worse. And yes, it was disappointing.
3
Many comments here suggest banning all photography in art museums.
I'm someone who takes photographs in art museums. The photos I take with my Nikon are of the works that make an impact on me, including their placards, in order to memorialize them for myself and research them later.
Occasionally, I'll also snap a photo from behind of people pondering a work of art. I'm fascinated by the idea of these individuals completing the conversation between the artist and the observer, and these photos always hold more meaning for me than the art alone.
The author's solution is best. Barring that, ban photography in the Mona Lisa room alone to control crowds if you must. Don't ban it altogether.
7
The Mona Lisa is iconic and lovely, but it always makes me sad when I’ve been to the Louvre and no one visits the Madonna of the Rocks - one of my favorite Leonardo paintings that no one seems to care about, and is so close by the over crowded Mona Lisa gallery.
I love the idea of creating dedicated space especially for her - giving a full exhibition that can discuss its rich history and the incredible underlying structure of the painting. I’d save up and make a trip to Paris just to see a full, dedicated exhibition space for Mona Lisa.
4
I don’t understand taking a selfie of a painting that is 10 feet away. Why not buy a postcard? I hate the idea of selfie-snappers as a mob. I hate selfies in general. The question arises, which came first, overpopulation or selfie-snappers.
12
Because for most visitors it’s not about having an experience with the painting. A visit to the Mona Lisa has become a status symbol like a visit to Hermès.
5
Great idea to have a separate pavilion. Decades ago, when I took a class of college art students through the Louvre, I had to spend a fair amount of time “explaining” the Mona Lisa: it’s historical context, it’s place in the overall work output of Leonardo (of which there is very little actual paining, but some great sketches and, of course, his mechanical contraptions which were way ahead of their time), and all the artistic and compositional faults in this painting. Agree it is a second-rate work (made famous, no doubt, by Nat KIng Cole's song of the same name. Thanks a lot, Nat.)
3
Fantastic article and thanks to the writer. Laughed out loud at the Jeff Koons jab.
3
The suggestion to ban photography through an entire museum is a serious disservice to students of art, design, art history and history. Photographs are an invaluable method to consider key details and methods of art and architecture. In some cases photographs from a museum can be turned into new art pieces (as I have done). Excellent suggestion to put Mona Lisa in her own pavilion. Specialized reproductions could be made for tourists to snap selfies.
5
My wife and I spent one day in the Louvre in September 1972. I recall the Mona Lisa being located in a much smaller room. It was crowded but not terribly uncomfortable. It was fairly dark. Quite a while ago, but I somehow remember cameras were allowed - no flash bulbs.
We spent the amount of time we wished to spend. Moved on. No one asked us to leave. No TSA tactics. None required. Times change.
2
My wife and I were there in the 80s but it was much the same. A small room with a small number of people. The current situation is an extraordinary symptom of what I find everywhere but especially in a place like Paris — throngs of people who know almost nothing about where they are (or what they’re looking at) except that it is an opportunity for a selfie that can be posted on Facebook to prove you were there. On a trip to Paris four years ago we thought we’d prepared ourselves for the Mona Lisa gymnasium. Had our son not seen it (the room is kinda like Vegas. Words can’t really describe the vulgarity of the place) we would have passed. My wife and I are art history majors so we were delighted to find the other galleries pretty much empty. The author is correct. The Louvre needs to have a special dedicated space for this painting. The British figured this out years ago with the Crown Jewels. No doubt that is a main reason many visitors go to the Tower.
I was fortunate enough to see the Mona Lisa when
Mrs. Kennedy persuaded the French government to allow the painting to come to Washington, D.C. The painting was very accessible and we could get quite close. I was young at the time, and I remember being surprised at how small it was (compared to the hoopla, I guess). Decades later, I saw her in the Louvre; again, she was very accessible and you could get quite close. While I'm glad for those experiences, I agree that she should be put elsewhere for a while. It is true that although 'the shock of recognition' impels us to seek things we have seen in pictures or heard about, the throngs are way out of proportion to the worth of seeing the painting. If you go to the Rodin museum in Paris, you really will see The Thinker with a pigeon on his head...so wonderful.
1
It isn't that the throngs are out of proportion to "the worth" of the Mona Lisa -- it's that the selfie-taking mobs are too self-absorbed to see her worth. There's a difference.
I have taken photographs of paintings and sculptures at the Met, the British Museum, and so on. But the minute you see people posing in front of a painting or sculpture, you know it's about them and not the art.
4
The author is right: move her to her own space.
7
I love this idea!!!
5
Better yet, put it in storage for about seventy-five years and kill its icon status. Bring it out to zero fanfare when another generation can see it as just another interesting renaissance painting.
8
We went on the late night/cheap night (Wednesdays?) and it wasn’t crowded at all :)
We walked right up to it...smaller than expected but very cool to see!
1
I've tried a few times to take a look at that painting. But the crowds are just too much. Life's too short to stand in line that long. I've seen the photographs, it's good enough.
1
Our time in Paris was brief; we opted to go to the Musee d'Orsay instead of the Louvre and thoroughly enjoyed the experience.
3
I will never forget the last time I saw the Mona Lisa, in about 2003. My mother and I were in the back of a crush of tourists and then almost as if a silent timer went off, the tour group cleared and we were alone with her, save the guard. Even then, you couldn't get close to it, about 10 feet maybe, but we were able to walk back and forth to prove to ourselves that she did seem to follow us with her eyes. Even though the experience was poor -- the distance from the painting, the dim lighting, the brevity of the moment, the Mona Lisa has an allure. Maybe it's celebrity, or the genius of da Vinci's hand. Whatever it was, it left an impression. I feel sorry that so many others have been disappointed.
2
Whenever people talk about the overcrowding to see "the mona lisa" I think of me and my sons aged 8 and 10 stumbling onto the Louvre on Bastille day. I was surprised to find out that not only was it free but we were the only ones in the Mona Lisa room !!! So we stood around for ever simply because we could do that and the guard was so bored he chatted with us and eventually removed the guard rope for the kids to go even closer. So try visiting museums on Bastille day where you can leisurely stroll from one artwork to another without anyone falling over you.
2
Having been in the crowds to catch a glimpse of the Mona Lisa for a quick moment before being bulldozed away I heartily agree .. marvelous idea.
Especially appreciate the thought of the moving sidewalk which would allow each person a fleeting moment close enough to appreciate her beauty.
1
I'm happy I saw the Mona Lisa 50 years ago without all of these horrendous problems. The author's idea of creating a fully touristy venue is a great idea. I'd go again if that happened.
2
No idea of satire, my fellow American. Sigh.
Be careful what you wish for! Right now old Mona is doing us art lovers a favor by keeping many of those selfie seekers preoccupied. The last thing we want is to redistribute them all into the Louvre galleries that are now blissfully quiet. Even with old Mona at her post, I have to rise early and rush into the museum with the first wave of visitors if I want an undisturbed view of Delacroix’s Liberty Leading the People. I say keep the narcissists happy!
1
Brilliant, Mr. Farago, simply brilliant.
Assessment of your article regarding the "Mona Lisa Disease":
Overview of the "disease" -- perfect
Accurate description of its symptoms -- flawless
Explanation of causes -- precisely correct
Diagnosis -- impeccable
Proposed treatment of the "disease" -- superb
Had you, Mr. Farago, decided to attend Yale Medical School rather than the Courtauld Institute of Art, doubtless you would have become a physician just as great as the splendid art critic you now are.
Kenneth E. MacWilliams
Portland, Maine
2
The times I have seen the Mona Lisa I am left wondering why the big excitement about it.
1
People should just photoshop the selfies with different iconic backgrounds and save everyone the time, cost and inconvenience of scrum.
2
It should be displayed in a dedicated building in a rundown suburb. It would clear central Paris of tourists and create jobs for gilets jaunes.
5
Saw it. Snapped a picture of it. Then I moved on.
1
Most tourists doing Paris hit the “highlights”. Then upon returning in their home area won’t ever visit a museum or architectural significant buildings.
Odd, to say the least.
1
The Louvre was not a lot of fun. Security getting into the museum was shoving and pushing, and bags go separate. (Bye-bye purses, bags, and cameras as they were shunted off ahead of us). In the chaos someone took off with one of our cameras. We spent significant time trying to put in a report for the missing camera.
In re: to the Mona Lisa, at that time you could get as close as you wanted, but it was a sea of waving cellphones in a huge room.
Never again. Paris has a lot more interesting and enjoyable places to visit.
2
Hordes of tourists are literally canceling the world’s treasures. Perhaps it’s time for all of us to stay put, and instead enjoy our immediate surroundings, say for a decade. The planet and the locals would be grateful.
198
@Radnyc with the ancillary benefit of reducing CO2 emissions
11
I first say the Mona Lisa in 1963 at The Met in NY. There were no photographs allowed not that I would have brought my camera anyway. It was not crowded.
Jason Farago’s complaint is downright silly. If he doesn’t like crowds then he ought not to visit the many museums and sites that are now filled with selfie takers. He should stay home And no, the Mona Lisa should not be compared the Kardashians. That’s ridiculous. Blame the Louvre and the selfie takers not the people that want to see Leonardo’s masterpiece.
1
Several years ago I was at the Louvre with my husband and young adult children. Signs all over the museum point towards the Mona Lisa. In the hallway just outside, the one with three ignored Da Vinci’s and just past the also ignored Cimabue's and Botticelli’s, my son turned the sign to point another way. We were so convulsed in laughter we made a bit of a scene. I could just envision the hordes of people pushing down another hallway and like the marching band in Animal House piling up at a dead end. We did make him put the sign back.
5
I found the Louvre a let down. When I visited I wanted to see the Vermeer and that wing was closed. I then looked for the Winged Victory and there was only a picture because it was under restoration. Then I decided to check out the Mona Lisa. I was more interested in the crowd. Took a picture of it. I decided to see it since I was there and patiently worked my way to the front of the crowd and just when I got a glimpse a person behind me reached around and stuck an iPad infant of my face to snap a picture. I got a better look in the gift shop of the painting since it was plastered on everything. I don't understand the the hype either.
2
Went to the louvre 4 years ago for my 30th birthday and this madness was already happening. My husband and I didn’t feel the waiting and packed line was worth the pain so we skipped it and enjoyed the other 99.9 percent of this breathtaking place
I visited the Louvre in September. I spent hours walking the floors and only saw a fraction of the art. Getting in the Mona Lisa line was the day's last activity. Had I known what I was in for, a seemingly endless cue of hallways and escalators and people angling for a bettter position in line, I would have skipped it.
1
People don’t stop and look and absorb any more. It’s all about get in, get the photo or selfie, get out and move on to the next thing. Go to the popular halls at AMNH (dinosaurs, Ocean Life, African Mammals, North American Mammals) now, and you get a stream of people moving from one diarama to the next, taking a photo, and barely glancing at the diarama itself, never mind the information caption. Most don’t take the minute or two to take in and marvel at the exquisite reproductions of native habitats, most based on scenes from almost a century ago. And I seriously doubt that most of these photos are ever even glanced at in future.
5
Saw it years ago, pre crowd days. Found it dull, uninteresting, lifeless. And the “eyes following you” feature was cute and gimmicky.
2
Thank you for an insightful and sensible piece. And although I know you are quite serious with your suggestions, thanks also for the laughs from several of your obsevations.
As others noted, I'm glad I saw "her" years ago. There's so much art in the world and more is created every moment. That's where our attention and energy should be going.
1
I've been to the Basilica of Guadalupe in Mexico City. The entrance and its approach resembles the low-grade shopping malls of Japan that I remember visiting, all built in the 1970s. I found the experience jarring since I grew up a Catholic Latin American, where objects of such veneration and pilgrimage where wrapped up in more baroque mystique than a low-end Japanese mall.
I spotted the walkways as I rounded the corner of this mall-masquerading-as-a-church, and saw the walkways. I honestly thought they were there like at the airport, for convenience and to speed things along. It was only when I gaped up at the hole in the ceiling that I realized that THIS was the holiest of the holies high above me, in all her glory. There was no indication anywhere that that is what was above the walkways.
Anti-climactic is truly the word I had for this whole experience.
The Mona Lisa deserves a bit better.
The hype surrounding the Mona Lisa is relatively modern. Dan Brown novels and clever marketing by the museum?
I remember seeing it in 1981 in the Louvre. It was one painting on the wall adjacent to many others in a room of Italian art that contained many other masterpieces. No crowds.
When I was there a few years ago, the new site reminded me of people gawking at a cute cuddly zoo animal or gasping to photograph a Hollywood celebrity. I took a photo of the crowd jostling to photograph the painting and smiled to myself.
There are thousands of paintings or other works of art as noteworthy as this one. You can walk right up to the equally compelling portrait of Ginevra Benci in the National Gallery of Art with no hordes of selfie seekers.
So it’s down to a combination of clever marketing and narcissism that fuels this spectacle. The Louvre isn’t about to ban photography of a painting that draws 30,000 people per day. I agree, move it to a separate pavilion for everyone’s sake.
1
And yet one can often spend alone time with a much lovelier Leonardo girl at the National Gallery in DC with a bonus on the reverse: "Beauty Adorns Virtue."
Whatever virtues "La Gioconda" had as a work of art are seriously unbeautified by the current experience of viewing her.
1
I was mesmerized by the Mona Lisa. Mr. Farago, just stay home.
2
This is a silly headline that doesn’t reflect the actual content of the article; rather, it’s pure clickbait that does a disservice to the sound and practical arguments being laid out, ones that would benefit *all* visitors to the Louvre.
So many people read only the title and get the impression that the article is nothing more than a curmudgeonly rant about “canceling” the Mona Lisa. If you don’t believe me, check some of the reactions on Twitter or in other media.
NYTimes, please consider changing the headline of this piece so that people actually read it and reflect on the meaningful and valuable things it has to say about art, celebrity, narcissism, commercialism, and the shifting nature of how we interact with museums.
2
The problem is not about selfies or photography.
It’s about selling celebrity and the significant increase in tourism. Anyone who has travelled over the past few decades has experienced insane hoards of tourists packing a few prominent venues where, motivated by tour guides carrying little umbrellas, they worship at a couple of shrines, like Mona, or Venus, or David. In Florence, they actually had a long lineup outside the vast Duomo. I sensed it was to create “buzz”, but maybe there were several 5000 passenger mega-ships docked in Livorno that day. There were no group tours invading the fabulous Museum of the Opera di Duomo, just across the piazza, no lineups at The Bargello or Strozzi!
At the Belvedere, there is a constant concentration of groupies drooling over Klimt’s “Kiss”, not even noticing the many other fantastic Klimt offerings in other rooms or, indeed, in many other empty museums in Vienna.
There’s a shortlist of these icons. The tours race the masses through a few key rooms in the museums and whisk them out quickly, leaving the rest of the venues empty and enjoyable for the rest of us.
Go later, when it’s time to return to the busses for the lot of them. San Gimignano empty after 5. After a day of barely being able to move through Venice, we had the Piazza San Marco entirely to ourselves one magical drizzly evening after dinner.
And please don’t ban the pleasure of capturing a few photographs for the rest of us to enjoy when we return home.
101
@T. Gordon
Right on.
5
How about just less vapid tourism generally? It’s consumerist, ruining local cultures and spewing carbon.
1
The most objective review of a Louvre experience I have ever read.
1
That the X-rayed Mona Lisa underneath was DaVinci’s boyfriend escapes most of her/his viewers. To add to the otherwise bland portrait, which for a century or two is oversold by the art historians, a reconstruction of the male original next to the smiling female may add to the excitement and make the expensive ticket worthwhile. Besides, it doubles the chances for indulgent tourists to take selfies.
I have visited the Lourvre each time I visited Paris since I was a youngster. It opened my eyes to appreciating different works and sculptures by many amazing artists. I certainly visited the "Mona Lisa" because of it popularity. But quietly I wondered why the appeal? It was the eyes following me about as I looked at her, I thought. In recent years I had to empty my parents home of their effects and came across wall pictures in my childhood room, a souvenir framed print Mona Lisa still held court. I didn't hesitate to take it down and donate it to the Salvation Army for someone else to enjoy her.
Having been there and having read the comments, I like the no photography idea, either in that gallery or in the museum. However, I think they need to go further. Since when has anyone been anything but admonished for breaking a no photography rule? Enact a law that makes it a crime, punishable by a 500 Euro fine plus forfeiture of the criminal devise, the phone or camera, Have security cameras for gathering evidence. Place violators under arrest. That would stop the selfish jerks from even visiting and restore some civility and decorum.
2
Why don't they stick it alone in a small separate building in the courtyard with a snaking red velvet rope maze and a €20 walk through fee. Kind of like the Liberty Bell, only with a toll.
Should be handled like the Crown Jewels in London.
2
YES !
a former resident of Paris, a lifelong lover of art
1
When I was a child, my family spent a lot of time living in Paris and whenever we had relatives and friends coming, there was always the obligatory trip to The Louvre which included The Mona Lisa. There was always this excitement of going to see her but when they stood in front, the disappointment set in. "She's so small!" was always the first comment as everyone expected a much larger and brighter painting based on the touched up photos they'd seen in books. Yes, it is a fascinating painting that's been building up hype for decades, but when you look at the collection as a whole, it's sort of dims compared to the many other masterpieces that are there. The other one that gets a lot of attention, and disappointed crowds is Venus de Milo (no one ever looks at her backside).
I totally deplore bucket list travel as it turns the experience into a race to check off some artificial goal driven boxes as opposed to just going with the flow and enjoying the experience as it unfolds and reveals unexpected surprises for you.
1
If you look carefully you can see Mona chuckling about the whole thing.
2
Almost everyone's experience of this painting is by photograph in a book or online. This degree of removal is necessary and common.
So, when people finally get close to it what do they do? Snap a picture of it. Makes zero sense to me.
2
I like the suggestion; the author does not just complain but offered a great idea for a major improvement
1
This will restrict the painting only to the elites. Catering to the elites seems to be the only solution to today’s problems.
2
We just saw it yesterday. Jason is dead-on; somewhat disappointing, too far away, and too many people taking selfies. Much better things to see in the museum....
I visited the Louvre and zipped in and out of the room where Mona Lisa was displayed in 2006. There were crowds throughout the museum more challenging than the 10 deep staked out in front of the 'lady's' portrait and guess what selfies had not been invented yet because they were not a problem for me. What was a problem getting directions to the Bastille for every young person I attempted to get info wore headphones or was plugged into some device. I finally flagged one guy in his fifties who was device free and found my way. We are too much into technology and less into personal interaction but I just turned 80 so it is a foreign world to moi.
1
Here's a thought. France needs Euros to pay for the repair of Notre Dame. Put the mediocre Mona Lisa in a room by itself with a separate fee. The cathedral will have all the money it needs in a year.
1
The Mona Lisa is the Lovre's sucker bait, and a very effective one at that. And the suckers are not coming to appreciate a cliche masterpiece - as most are hardly connoisseurs (and, besides, the painting looks exactly like the millions of printed reproductions one has seen ad nauseam). Rather, lining up to see it for ten seconds is a parevnu's pilgrimage that enables the hoi polloi to go home and gush about having been to the Louvre.
Maybe the Louvre should just ban Americans?
2
I couldn’t agree more. The far greater painting in that room on the opposite wall, The Wedding at Cana, is always mystifyingly neglected compared to the literal sea of tourists-with-cell-phones harassing the Giocanda. It’s a nightmare, and one of the clearest examples of the fall of cultural intelligence in favor of complete social (and social media-desperate) lobotomy. “The Kim Kardashian of 16th century art” is undoubtedly the most brilliantly apt moniker I’ve ever read ascribed to this painting. Whatever inspiration it may have granted humanity across five centuries of observation has clearly given way entirely to meaningless novelty at this point. Move it to its own discrete pavilion and let the finer masterworks of the museum be appreciated fully and respectfully as they deserve to be, without the oppressive cattle stampede of idiot children with selfie sticks, who spend more time looking at their screens and curating their attendant social media posts than they do looking at the actual painting. Feel free to stick a McDonald’s next to it while you’re at it. I’m sure they’ll do gangbusters with this lot.
2
Shhhhh. Let the hordes mosh around the Mona Lisa while I can get my private time with some incredible Caravaggios just a few hundred feet away.
If there are hordes willing to grovel and mosh for art I think that is great. But hordes, by definition, never leave happy. If it is an over rated and mediocre painting maybe we can consider it sacrificial. A decoy so real art lovers can spend a clear and quiet moment with all the other masterpieces there.
2
Visiting Versailles is worse.
2
Kim Kardashian has helped quite a few people get out of jail and is, apparently, studying to take the bar in 2022. Why should the writer take a cheap shot at her out of left field? I haven’t seen any of Kardashian’s shows and don’t even have cable, but I respect anyone who advocates for the disenfranchised.
Comparing the Mona Lisa to Kim Kardashian is a sacrilege. She was a lady, not a California celebrity.
124
@Martha Martha you are so kind. I would not call her a celebrity. She is an example of why the US will never be similar to France or Switzerland. We have alot of flotsam. 5% of Americans realize their potential. The rest are here to shop at Wal-Mart.
20
@Martha
You knew her?
11
@Guy
You know the other one?
8
Despite this ridiculously overlong article, the problem is neither Leonardo nor La Gioconda--it is the uneducated and unruly tourists rushing to crowd in around the painting. If it were a recent canvas of Kim Kardashian, the response would probably be the same. And one should be sympathetic?
I had a similar negative experience contending with large crowds around the Rosetta Stone at the British Museum in London in the summer of 2014. Everyone was keen on taking a photo or selfie with it. Finally I gave up even trying to get close to the front. (Though I did get a good shot of the backside!)
After the fact, I realized that I had had a much more meaningful experience seeing a replica of the Rosetta Stone as part of a King Tut exhibition in Kansas City, Missouri about six weeks earlier that same summer.
If you want to see younger and more beautiful lady (and with a pet!) painted by da Vinci, come to see Lady with an Ermine in Kraków! ;)
3
The Louvre should send her on tour to other museums in France that could use the extra income. In her place they can put a screen showing webcam images of the crowds jostling to see her.
Thank you for this advice, but how about taking a look and caring at what's in your museums next to your home, in your city, instead of giving lessons to foreigners on what they should or shouldn't do in theirs!
Mona Lisa is in her home. The Louvre.
1
It is incredible how the supposed art experts hate the common people. What is the objective of art but to inspire millions with images, sounds and textures, that bring a different view of our reality !? Let the common people have fun, and visit the Louvre, dine at Dragons Elysées, sleep at the Crillon, what is the problem? If you dont like the crowds, go to Caracas, there is nobody on museums there, it will be a great tour !!
I just went to the Louvre to see the Veneers. Zoomed right by the Mona Lisa.
This is a sacrilege perhaps but I have Mona Lisa in HD to admire and examine 24/7. I could get a selfie with that image. The masses of visitors at the Louvre — increasingly Asians in their touristic pilgrimage to that dream theme park for them which is Europe, withe the pinacle of Paris, the most visited city in the world with London I think — do selfies there so that people back home see they were there. Pathetic but so so human.
1
It’s the world’s most overrated and overhyped work of art. Rather dull, in fact.
1
agree 100%. in an age of sharing things not actually experiencing them, most people are only there to take a picture of the ML or take a selfie of themselves in front of the ML. this second phenomenon is entirely distasteful in a normal museum. sure people pull selfie sticks out in front of chris burden's installation OUTside LACMA, but INside the louvre's massive packed gallery. ces't mal!!
I went to Stonehenge last summer and wanted to clear out all the people taking selfies. This is what we have become - visit 2 seconds and take a picture. This is not living it is being a slave to a tech device. I want to stand and commit something to memory with all my senses, sans phone.
3
Move Mona Lisa in her own space in the Tuileries gardens?
A wonderful suggestion but better yet. Rebuild the entire Tuileries palace which was burned down during the Commune Revolution of the spring of 1871. Burned down with many other Parisian monuments in a monstrous vindictive act of vandalism and spiteful political revenge. The Louvre itself was distant second to the Tuileries. Give her an entire floor.
I saw her in 98 ... totally agree with the author.
The Mona Lisa is probably a more popular story or mystery than a painting.
If the tourists find this painting so disappointing, why do they queue to see it in the first place? Surely, they know what the thing looks like from the endless reproductions?
And they surely deserve the sweat and the queues.
It’s rather like saying we should ban cheese because it’s dull but people mob the shelves as soon as it’s in stock, and if we banned it, then maybe they’ll pay more attention to healthier foods.
What nonsense.
Tourists choose what they want to visit, and if they are disappointed, that is a direct result of their own poor choices and their disappointment is richly deserved.
There is nothing inherently bad about the Mona Lisa. It is simply a slightly dull painting.
If it pulls in the punters, it’s done its job. Long may it hang. Those are not art lovers or connoisseurs anyway who rush past everything else just to get a selfie.
I agree with several others who have posted: the problem is caused by selfies, not art-goers per se. Ban photography in the Louvre, and the issue will vanish. Removing the Mona Lisa would be an absurd capitulation. Just don't let people take pictures of it.
1
Or come to Chicago and go to the Art Institute, where the only time I've had to wait in line was for special limited time exhibits.
The answer, as many have suggested, is to ban all photography in the museum. The penalty for violation should be confiscation of the device rather than just a warning. Most of the public will be grateful; the others are just rude, so who cares what they think.
I have avoided the Louvre during trips to Paris since the innovation of cellphone cameras. It was bad enough before. Signs next to the Mona Lisa said “No Flash Photography” in at least 15 languages; yet flashes went off all over the room, too many for museum staff to control. Who knew so many art patrons were illiterate? Now too many are simply uncouth narcissists.
1
I first saw her exactly 21 years ago. It was a Wednesday night, the museum's late night, so my friend and I entered at 9:25pm and made a beeline for her.
We were the only people in the entire room. Just us and her.
Now, seeing her again with hundreds of strangers pressed against me is untenable--I refuse. I tried it once, and it was miserable.
But if you can go on a late night, just before they close...
Louvre officials say they never considered La Giaconda for the new Leonardo exhibit because, after all, she draws tens-of-thousands of visitors a day, whereas the exhibit, a measly five-thousand.
Why not reduce Mona Lisa crowds to 5,000? Five-thousand orderly, dignified people with time-stamped tickets? Is the museum worried that Louvre attendance will drop if tourists cannot see a specific work of art, even one as celebrated as Leonardo's Lisa?
Of course the crowds will still come. Apart from the Mona Lisa, Winged Victory or Venus de Milo, the 'Holy Trinity' of the art world, there is still 'the Louvre!' itself. every bit as much a biggie on tourists' bucket lists as visiting Paris itself.
Crowds at the Louvre would remain undiminished sans Mona Lisa just as tourism to Paris overall remains undiminished even though the 'mona lisa' of the City of Light, Cathedrale Notre Dame de Paris, is closed, it's exterior bedecked entirely in scaffolding, as it undergoes repairs from last April's fire.
2
I was in Paris last summer and visited the Louvre while I was there as its such a treat to be in the presence of it all. I made my way to the Italian maters wing, in an effort to get a glimpse of this most famous painting after my first visit many decades ago. Long before cell phones and the “must have selfie” in front of masterpieces existed, what an absolute zoo of fools were congregated in front of this tiny painting elbowing their way and pushing around to achieve the right shot. I waved at Miss Mona Lisa from afar, proceeded to the next room were three most magnificent Da Vinci’s hung on the wall, without a mob scene staring and shoving, now that was the real treat!
1
I grew up in Paris and used to see the Mona Lisa in the 80s unmolested; maybe on a crowded day, you’d have to push through some Japanese tourists with big cameras. I never saw what the big deal is. I was always more taken by the Musee D’Orsay. This summer I took my boyfriend who had never been. The experience, just as this critic describes, made me cry. I actually ducked out of the room after, went to a quiet corner of disregarded Flemish paintings, and cried. The selfie in front of great art phenomenon makes me sad for humanity. Very few are there for the art.
252
@CFD I am so glad you mentioned the Musee D’Orsay.
My wife and I visited the Louvre a few years ago, and the crowds dictated that we pass by the Mona Lisa as if walking past a department store window.
We visited the Musee D’Orsay a few days later.
We were able to stand before the works on display at the D’Orsay, unencumbered, and be able to contemplate what the artist is presenting to the viewer. A wonderful experience.
24
@CFD Musee D'Orsay has both a fraction of the crowds and actual French art from the art movements France is most known for. I don't understand why anyone who travels to France wants to spend a day looking at Ancient Greek or Renaissance Italian work (or the backs of other tourists heads).
20
As an individual who has been taking photographs for over 60 years and refuses to users a phone camera the democratisation of photography in the hands of hordes of cell phone and iPad apparatchiks has debased photography as a skill to the point of absurdity.
Now it is almost impossible to go to any point of attraction without stumbling over self absorbed cell phone photographers and their obsession with putting themselves in every photograph and firing it off on Instagram or Facebook.
122
@Whistleblower
Photographic technology has always trended toward making the process easier. The problem here isn't the cameras, it is the people who use them and their almost pathetic attempt to associate themselves with famous places or works of art as a way of proving their existence and uniqueness. This is as old as humanity--see the Greek and Latin graffiti in Egypt, for example. I would be perfectly happy if technology regressed a few decades in this instance but I'm not holding my breath.
17
I agree that there is a Mona Lisa Problem. Short of spreading rumors that it's a fake (not that anyone in this day and age would care), moving it to its own space sounds like a good idea, until it doesn't, because that just adds to the Icon Effect.
Lots of readers have suggested timed visits and definitely no phones or cameras, both pretty basic and easy to implement. (Impose heavy fines just in case.) Or, better, just rent VR headsets of the ML to the hundreds of people queuing for security check. Maybe they'd get their fill that way.
If one has to see this painting, it's a lot easier to look at, or buy, a good giclee print and avoid the crowds. I don't expect that would satisfy the average tourist who has to say that they saw the thing in person. In any event the rest of the museum is a wonderful experience with works that are a lot more beautiful, thought provoking, inspiring, or fulfilling. Of course this is not about appreciating art, but having a designated experience.
1
The comments suggesting that photography be banned from the Louvre underline the current problem of how technology has changed our lives for the worse.
Selfies top the list for annoying other onlookers who simply want to experience the moment.
Facebook and other social media are remarkable for exploiting countless users and also causing so much trouble politically and personally.
We decided to live in Provence instead of Paris seventeen years ago largely because of the congestion at the museums which were our favorite pastime in the city. Despite having easy access to Paris on TGV we rarely go.
1
The moving walkway concept has been used to great effect here in London, at the Tower of London for the Crown Jewels exhibit. It allows everyone a great opportunity to have a clear view of all aspects of it, it moves slowly enough that you can spend time looking at everything and it has cut the queues.
I have seen the Mona Lisa once and, like the Little Mermaid in Copenhagen, once is plenty. Hugely disappointing.
1
One word : bravo for speaking truth. I only hope Mr Martinez takes his time to ponder it over his morning café au lait :)
my first encounter with the lady was in 1958...... at that times she was on the wall without any glass, any barrier. great experience!!
right now she is only a selfie issue, and a challenge : to see paris in two days , come back home and say "i was there and i know everything " as many other places in the world we are overwhelmed by mass tourism , it's a terrific shame.
this article is delicious, a good painting actually of the mona lisa problem and an excellent idea; i hope french museum directors could be thinking of
No, please, don't take don't take down the Mona Lisa. It's what lets me savor the other masterpieces at the Louvre for as long as I want all by myself while tourists run around me trying to get to the room with the Mona Lisa that they can snap a photo from 50 feet away.
5
Sometime during the 19th century the Mona Lisa was stolen from the Louvre. Numerous fraudsters had copies made, contacted officials, and offered to return the painting for a price. The French police arrested many of the people and confiscated their paintings but art experts at the time were confused about which of the recovered Mona Lisa painting was the actual real one. They narrowed down the choice to three and debated for almost a year. The one now hanging in the Louvre is the one they finally selected. Who knows if they made the right choice.
2
During my first visit to The Louvre, I had a terrible head cold. While the crowds pushed by me to snap photos of ML, I sat down on a bench trying not to faint and wondered what all the fuss was about. The Louvre is a wonderful museum but the throngs around ML make one feel like you're in a tourist trap.
2
The author is shooting the messenger. Put Mona in the basement and voila, the line at the Eiffel Tower just got a lot longer. The hordes of selfie taking tourists he describes have overrun nearly every major iconic attraction in the world. I visited the Netherlands this summer and while I was in the Amsterdam city center I rarely heard Dutch being spoken.
1
I've only once had to wait in line at the Art Institute of Chicago, with works by all the masters. It was for the Roy Lichtenstein exhibit in 2012.
The last time i visited the Tower of London I stopped in the special building that houses the royal jewels. When visitors get near the jewels, they step onto slow moving people mover ( like in airports) to slowly glide past the exhibit. Keeps things moving at a predictable pace
2
My advice regarding any item that appears on a touristic 'bucket list' -- go elsewhere. You can see great photographs of art works and cultural sites to educate yourself what they are all about. But meaningful personal interaction with artworks or other enchanted locations is impossible when thousands of people destroy the authentic experience the seek by their very own presence. There are so many amazing places beyond the established bucket brands!
4
I adore the bitterness of this piece. Even though the truth it describes is hideous, it is truth and the swift cut of the blade feels delicious. Thank you for writing it.
9
Each time my partner and I visit the Louvre we make a beeline for the Denon wing for a leisurely stroll along the long gallery housing the museum's magnificent Italian Renaissance collection. Walking the length of that gallery is one of the supreme aesthetic experiences on the planet. What's not nearly as sublime are the hordes of tourists galloping past, on their way to see Mona in her room just off the main gallery. So many of them routinely ignore most of the rest of the collection, often even the other Da Vincis. In the Mona room itself, for instance, is Veronese's huge, extraordinary "Wedding Feast at Cana". You can gaze upon it and the other marvellous paintings in that room undisturbed by crowds, as the vast majority of the people in that enormous room will be clustered twenty deep in front of Mona. I've done my own homage to Mona a couple of times, patiently threading my way through the mob. If you go to the the fair, you might as well go on the rides. But I find it more stimulating to be viewing one of humankind's collective cultural touchstones than to experience the Mona Lisa purely on an artistic level, when there is such a wealth of other great artworks so near at hand.
Moving Mona to a dedicated location somewhere away from the main collection is an idea worth considering. At the very least it would enhance visits to the Denon for those of us who take great art-- *all* great art-- a bit more seriously than do the mobs of plebes focused only on Mona.
5
The problem is not the Mona Lisa. The problem is what we have allowed ourselves to become - these hollow, yearning, external-validation-seeking creatures with an insatiable need to photograph our lives and doings to have documentary evidence of some kind, so as to be able to prove something to ourselves and to others - "I am busy, I have done things, I am one of the important, doing-stuff people". Simply knowing something within ourselves is no longer enough.
28
@ObservingFromAbroad
Really? I think that most people have an appreciation of, a curiosity about, and a longing to connect with, great art.
1
@Anne
We have a different definition of "connection." If the motivation is connecting with great art, then you would think that every painting by a master, or simply every great painting (who decides what is "great"?) would have the same crowd swarming in front of it. It's the celebrity, in this case, not the quality. And, as my professional trompe l'oeil artist friend tells me (having participated in the deception herself), many "great works" are actually skilled reproductions, with the original safely stored away. So what does that say about our appreciation or recognition of what is "great" when we're in awe of a copy? Do we "connect" with something by taking a picture of ourselves standing next to it and posting it online? Is the connection in having our pixels next to its pixels and having others see that composition? Or is it in gazing at the original - or even a copy -, undistracted, and allowing emotion and reflection to flow?
1
@ObservingFromAbroad
I agree with you about the selfies. I think they are obnoxious and self serving (and so are people with an insatiable need to promote themselves).
And I also agree that connecting with art is truly special without distractions.
So maybe we have more in common than you think, mon ami/amie.
(But I also think it is unnecessary to be elitist about art. After all, that's why we have museums, so all can enjoy at whatever their level of expertise.)
1
Banning photographs to stop the "instagram crowd" from visiting museums is the most self-defeating thing a museum could do. Museums are moving to become a more democratized, accessible spaces of learning, not exclusive country clubs for the in-crowd as they have been for decades. The Mona Lisa experience is unfortunate as it does not offer any opportunities for discovery whether introspective or relational, but it is still brining in a crowd that might have not visited a museum otherwise. What else in the Louvre did they see? Can Louvre catch this demographic and keep them hooked onto other things? How can it use the public interest to serve a civic and cultural service? Not by antagonistically kicking any layman out, that's for sure. There has to be a more nuanced and attentive way to dealing with this.
5
This is a very intelligent suggestion. The sad thing is that while the Mona Lisa can be "seen" behind the protective vault-like glass, it can not be seen in an experienced way, its softness, subtlety, the quietness of its actual presence. I was fortunate enough to see it as a teenager in 1956 and spent time with it alone without it being glassed in, in a room with a few other paintings, and then again in 1961 with maybe six or seven people before it. I suppose the experience of the quietness, the reflectiveness of the painting is lost forever. But it would be shameful to deprive people of some exposure to it, and that is denied with the crowds in front of it.
The Mona Lisa has passed from painting to icon, a monument. While I think many people there are most interested in saying they were there, proof of the selfie, perhaps some will be inspired to move down the walls a bit and see other Leonardos more accessible. Perhaps, one will discover the richness of a painting for itself alone.
This is truly a thoughtful suggestion.
4
Reading this article I faded into a daze that only Nat King Cole could bring me out of. He sang the Song Mona Lisa in 1950 which which won an academy award for best song and his version held a certain similar quality to the years 1503-1506 when Leonardo Da Vinci paited it:
People took life slower — instead of today's half-second video bites targeting our subconsious minds to convice us to buy things we don't really need. That's cause for reflection!
Any artist from "artist city" today can reproduce this picture to an extremely high degree; that's not what makes the picture interesting. What makes it interesting is he painted it at a time when a person could get burned alive for any reason what-so-ever!
What's in a name,"Giocondo?" One can even enjoy and discover that too! "Staff of the Earth?, Yawning Snake, No place like home?" ... one can enjoy it all day. That's part of the fun!
If they take it down, they might as well just attach themselves to the Borg and get it over with. I think not a good idea.
Liva La France! Viva La Liberté! Viva La Tradition!
1
William, your comment took me back to 1976 when my boyfriend (now husband) and I traveled with backpacks by Eurailpass throughout Europe during a summer of intense drought. We were alone in the Coliseum, the Forum, Anne Frank's House, and just about everywhere we went. We came upon the tiny Mona Lisa by surprise: no glass, no people. What a joy to be able to inspect the brush strokes as closely as I wanted. No one was there due to the oppressive heat. Already a lover of history and art at 17, I appreciated every minute of that trip, and it set the stage for a lifetime of travel.
7
If the Louvre:
(1) made say 9 high-tech images of the Mona Lisa, including faithful-to-original surface texture;
(2) made faithful-in-detail copies of the frame of the original; and
(3) displayed all 10 Mona Lisa images in 10 identical settings (including security glass boxes) without identifying the 'real' Mona Lisa,
that would solve the crowding problem.
True believers could study each of the ten pictures displayed and identify, and venerate, the 'real' picture.
The taking of selfies would be greatly facilitated, and selfies with the 'copy' image would be indistinguishable from selfies with the 'real' image.
The images would be rearranged nightly, under maximum security, so as to avoid any regularity in the locations of the ten displays.
8
A bit of preplanning and an early start can get you in front of he crowd viewing the painting. Definitely worth the visit, although in deference to all the others who wish to see it, the visit might need to be curtailed a bit.
I agree that the Mona Lisa is a major disappointment. The last time I went to the Louvre, the room was overcrowded and I couldn't get anywhere near it especially since I do not really care for it either. I bet my children a fiver to get close and take a picture, which they did scrambling between the selfiecrowd. I actually turned around and looked at the majestic Wedding at Cana painting on the opposite wall, which took over a year to paint and even longer to restore. Quite an interesting painting, the biggest one in the Louvre!
1
The Mona Lisa was not "a major disappointment."
The experience of trying to see her surely was the disappointment.
This needed saying, just to protect people from any must-see work of art. Plus there are so many more enjoyable places and things to do in Paris, and afterwards you don’t need the whole next day to recuperate.
1
My wife and I visited the Louvre and saw the Mona Lisa earlier this week. We couldn’t agree more with this article - and the Mona Lisa was to us, indeed a disappointment. Too bad, so sad!
1
There's a win-win here. Give the Mona Lisa her own separate "museum", which would be a theme park ride. The ride would rapidly whisk 5 million tourists by and automatically snap a quick selfie that could be purchased at the door -- like roller coasters do in the U.S.
This would allow the Louvre continue to earn the $100 million a year it gets from Mona Lisa traffic and free up the actual Louvre for the rest of the world that actually wants to see the art. Yes of course it's tacky but the French are not above tacky -- and it's no tackier than the current situation with a giant room full of people shooting selfies.
3
It’s all part of the fun. Yes, the Mona Lisa is surprisingly small, but each person has their moment with the painting whether enlightening or not. This new queue method will prevent pick-pocketer’s as well.
Excellent article. I live in Paris, am a member of "Les amis du Louvre", and visit there at least once a month. I never went and see La Joconde. One advantage of keeping La Joconde there, is that it makes the other galleries practically empty and quite nice
Le Louvre is now like a market place, with noisy crowds hurrying along, screaming babies and old ladies pushing you around. People are definitely not there for the art.
So making a special pavilion for them is a great idea. And, since we are at it, we could put a fake on show instead of the real one. Nobody will notice (or care), and the real Joconde can be kept in a safer place
4
I saw this picture decades ago. There were not many people around and I have since forgotten what it looks like. Is it any good?
2
The Belvedere has an extra, quite lovely room with better lighting for photography and a larger copy of the Kiss for selfies, very near to the original Klimt. People can joke around while they take their silly selfies. It’s such a great idea. And shows great respect for the original work. This could also be included in the Mona Lisa Pavillon, should it be built. People still take photos of the original, of course, but it lessens the burden on the crowd in the main hall.
I do understand the problem, but I can't but feel elated that people are lining up in droves to see a piece of art. That's hope for a better world, a much better world.
2
That’s a nice way to look at it. Is it not more likely due, however, to the desire to be near fame, whether it be something or someone?
5
If I wanted a selfie with the Mona Lisa, I'd just photoshop - far easier, better quality, and no difference to me.
But - that is my preference, other people appreciate art and live their lives in their own ways. A separate pavillion does seem a good way to permit that, but forbidding people to see and take selfies with the painting 'for their own good' because art shouldn't make people miserable - that's a silly bit of paternalism to me - suggesting that you know better than me what I will like and dislike.
How times have changed.
In 1972, I visited the Louvre and came upon the Mona Lisa in a small gallery with several other masterpieces I don't recall now. That room was otherwise deserted; I was able to step up on the little platform in front of the painting and get a truly up-close view (about 2 inches). No "non-reflective glass," no glass at all. There was a guard about 50 feet away across the hall, so I kept my hands behind my back, but not my nose. It's a wonderful piece of art; too bad it's no longer possible to see it up close.
2
I too saw the ML in 1972 and walked right up to it. I spent a good 5-10 minutes studying and staring at it. I was testing the old adage that: if you stare at the ML long enough, she will smile at you - she did! The experience is seared in my mind to this day.
Just went to the Louvre last week and had a great experience seeing the Mona Lisa and did not have a crowd problem at all. We went around 9:30 Thursday morning and got to the Mona Lisa before the giant tour groups took over the space (which are the actual problem at most of these museums). We then went on to have a wonderful time looking at everything else. Any good travel guide, thank you Rick Steves, will tell you how to avoid the mobs.
1
My how times change. I agree with the premise that the Mona Lisa has been so hyped that to actually see it, one should be prepared that it will not meet with the expectations fostered by popular media. When I saw this piece in the mid-80's, what left the impression of a lifetime was the Raphael that hung next to it.
Yes, when a museum houses art that is in great demand, the crowds can be overbearing. It is hoped, however, that anyone who puts forth such effort will leave said museum with sense of wonderment at what connects us as people across cultures and throughout our collective histories.
3
First world problems? It’s like putting the milk at the back of the grocery store....maybe people will pick up some other culture on the way to the “main attraction”. If people can’t appreciate the rest of the incredible collection of the Louvre that’s their problem. Ditto if they are disappointed by the Mona Lisa. Of all the worlds problems, this really isn’t one of them.
3
I first saw the Mona Lisa in 1962. No crowds, just me and my family standing up close and personal. No reflective glass. Plenty of time. And yes, as I walked around the room it was filled with other masterpieces. I last saw it in the 80s and the year 2000. And while the viewing room had gotten more crowded, it was still possible to enjoy the painting. But clearly the crush of people there just to say they saw it begs for a different experience, like the Last Supper in Milan. A separate room and timed tickets, and yes, a separate museum or entrance. Just as Mr. Farago suggests.
1
Why not have a daily/weekly lottery and those lucky enough to win, get to see the Mona Lisa in a room that can contain x number of people. It could be free, or people could pay a minimal amount that would go to a charity that supports art or artists.
I saw the Mona Lisa for the first time in 1970. At that time she was hanging in the main hall all mixed in with other paintings. Nothing special marked her, except that she had her own little railing that kept you from getting closer than a few feet. No one made a big deal of her and you could spend all day within a few feet if you liked.
We saw her again this last summer.... wow what a change, and totally not worth it.
Not sure why anyone would go thru the trouble of seeing her like that.
1
The Mona Lisa Mosh Pit is, in itself, a work of performance art. I derived great joy watching the crowd struggle and move, jockey, jostle and elbow its way around, struggling to pretend to observe the painting, take a selfie, or focus a high powered lens at the masterpiece. It says as much about ourselves then anything else.
8
Many commenters are suggesting banning photography as a way to decrease the overcrowding problem at the Mona Lisa exhibit and at other museums where art tourists' main objective seems to be producing evidence of their brag-worthy travels rather than actual contemplation or study of art. But why would museums want to discourage even the most vacuous of obsessed tourists? It makes them money, so they put up with it.
1
The key issue here is tourism pollution. I appreciate that people all over the world likes to visit the Louvres Museum. I indeed remember solitary visits to the museum in my teens, standing in front of the Mona Lisa - at that time on a wall with may other paintings - with hardly more three or four other people around me. The bunches now in front of the painting makes it off limits to me and, I assume, many others for both space and decency reasons: If I wish to get close to loud and excited primates, I rather go to a zoo.
How to reconcile a legitimate interest for art, culture, and foreign cities with keeping the cities and their tourism spots enjoyable for both locals and visitors probably is one of the key issue of the city management our time. Limiting the tourists crowds is probably the only solution. City councils will have to take drastic measures against tourism pollution. Paris might have to re-establish its custom borders (barrières d'octroi) the fall of which was a popular asset of the French revolution.
1
I had enough when I was banged in the cheekbone by a selfie stick held by totally oblivious tourist in front of me. I was about 15 people back from the painting when the incident occurred. No apology received and then I was pushed from the back.
A walk along the Seine was far more rewarding. And safe.
Never again. Ditto for the Vatican museum as well.
2
She became famous because it was said, wherever you stood in the gallery, she followed you with her eyes. Nowadays a visitor would need binoculars to test the theory.
8
I made my first visit to Paris in 1966--over 50 years ago--and the scene in front of the Mona Lisa looked exactly as depicted in your photograph.
1
Why not keep the Mona Lisa for viewing but set up a copy for photos? Use Krakow's system for Lady With and Ermine-- also by Leonardo. Out side of the room with the actual painting, is a copy that visitors can photograph, take their selfies etc. , without holding up visitors who want to contemplate the painting. The actual painting is in a separate nearby room, in which a limited number of visitors are admitted for a set time, say 10 minutes, to admire the work. Visitors are not confined to line, but are able to walk back and forth to see the work from various angles. A guard is present, who says "shhh" if there is loud chatter. This summer, I saw both Lady With An Ermine, which I was able to appreciate as a work of art, and Mona Lisa, which is accurately described in the article- a crowd, line with 15 seconds to glance at the painting, while most visitors take snapshots. Separating phototaking from viewing would go a long way to allowing appreciation of the art.
5
Yes, to plan on seeing the Mona Lisa nowadays amounts to putting yourself through a wringer of sorts, with soon having to breaststroke trough a mildly tensed crowd fighting for the ideal position you want to occupy, up close, just for a few seconds.
Meanwhile, the overcrowding element amply covered here doesn't take anything away from the intrinsic value and outstanding beauty of the Mona Lisa as a work of art.
The saddest part is that there are plenty of other amazing paintings cohabiting within the same space, arrayed in the same room, with Tintoret, Titian... all of which remain largely unseen, treated as if people would consider these as a complete waste of their time. And a just a room away, 3 other stunning Leonardos sits on a wall, side by side, themselves often graced with little attendance, which as a fact is also mindboggling. The majority of visitors simply riveted on seeing the Mona Lisa at all costs.
And, if you happen to scout the 19th-century French painting wing, for instance, those parts are pretty much deserted every day of the week, except by copists who at least can work undisturbed by the milling crowds.
This new phenomenon only further proves that to take in and appreciate a work of art, one shouldn't have to be dealing with an excessive number of visitors pressing him on all sides, thus becoming a deterrent.
1
I agree the Mona Lisa should have its own viewing gallery. As a United pilot who frequented the Louvre on my layovers, I was always struck by the selfie mania surrounding the Mona Lisa! So many things to see in that amazing museum! What a treasure for the planet, but the bucket list selfie mania around the Mona Lisa always made me walk as quickly as possible away from the crowds in that room. I think moving it’s a great idea!
4
Wonderfully elegant piece
I visited the Louvre once, in 2018, and it was the most amazing museum visit of my life. My own style is to avoid anything that draws a crowd. I saw the Mona Lisa from the back of the crowd and took a picture... of the tiny painting in the distance with the huge crowd in front, for sharing purposes. I don't brave crowds to see art, I will be happy to see the art that is easily accessible without crowding around.
4
I don't go to the Louvre anymore because 1. It's just insane to commute the barely 12 miles from my suburb to the center, due to the literally thousands of construction sites and closed or blocked roads, and 2., getting into the museum can take hours - even though I have a free pass that I can use at any time.
Across the world, museums have transformed into silly tourist attractions and have lost their mission of preservation and curation (yes, that word has a specific meaning).
The worst is perhaps Versailles. A very sad situation. Look at it from a distance and move on. The hassle and commercialization had ruined the experience.
6
All of NYC has become La Gioconda.
The Brooklyn bridge, ground zero, high line, southern end of Central Park, the main library, MoMA, the Met, Empire State Building, etc. Locals can’t go near any of this unless they figure out the tricks to avoid the ever-growing amusement park mobs.
2
And then there's Uber - these ubiquitous fake taxis that drop tourists off directly in front of main attractions, blocking traffic and creating chaos. They drive around in wolf packs waiting for the next ping in a never ending vicious circle. I've always been welcoming of tourists, even with the Chinese who seem to come here to selfie, spit, litter and beg us to go into the LV store and buy them bags over the quota.
Now I'm fed up.
1
The last time I saw the Mona Lisa in 2000 there were maybe 10 or 15 people in front of it. What happened? It’s not that interesting. They need to install a moving walkway that shunts people along at a regulated pace. Otherwise it’s a cattle call.
3
I saw it 3 years ago, and I'm wondering the same thing. Was I just incredibly lucky, or has something changed since then?
2
More intriguing works by the Master are much more accessible in the hallways outside the Mona Lisa. In close viewing she seems overrated. Not to mention the downright garish crowd around her that’s more interested in selfies than studying her.
2
Sheep go to the Louvre to see the Mona Lisa, the most ubiquitous image there ever was. A much more interesting experience can be had by wandering other corners of the museum...far away from where that little painting hangs.
2
I first saw the Mona Lisa in 1982, when I was 18. The gallery wasn’t all that crowded even though it was July. It was nevertheless a HUGE disappointment. At the time they had it under security glass that tilted downward, and my recollection is that the only way you could get a halfway decent glimpse without glare or seeing your own reflection was to tilt your head downward and to the side (or get down on your knees as though worshipping a holy icon). Even before the internet watered the currency by making famous works so easily seen that an average person should find it easier simply to stay home and surf the net for snapshots of many artworks, I came away from my one viewing of the Mona Lisa concluding that you’d be better off seeing it in a book—not usually the attitude I adopted even at that age. I rather like the suggestion to put it in its own pavilion and emulate the conveyor belt system used by visitors wanting to view the relic of the Virgin of Guadalupe—another experience that I don’t intend to relive.
1
I had similar experience in 2018 in the Sistine Chapel, It was overweight with visitors.
Jammed, could not move among people who had zero interest in what they were seeing who moments before were taking one selfie after another again of items of art that they had no clue what they were looking at.
This contrasts with my earlier visit to the Sistine Chapelin 2007 where I able actually sit and gaze at the ceiling without being pushed along by obnoxious people.
Never again!
1
For most people, the Mona Lisa is not a work of art; it is an artifact. It is an object of veneration because of its mere existence, completely independent of its stature as a masterpiece. People just want to say they were next to it without regard to its history, presentation, or "artiness."
I remember the display of the Pieta during the 1964 Worlds Fair. You passed by on a moving walkway and were thrilled just to be in its same general location. Who knows how many millions experienced the Pieta that way. Yet that's all they wanted -- a chance to be in close proximity to what they were told was a great piece of art.
So just put them on stacked moving walkways and give them the close-up peek they want. If timed properly, you can easily get 15 million plus per year to glide by. They will be happy.
3
I agree with the call to end the en masse experience. I was in Rome a few weeks ago touring the wonders of the Vatican Museum. It was delightful until we got into the cattle round-up that is the Sistine Chapel: a humid room packed, people bumping into each other, guards pushing everyone through. Our group has been there before so we made our way out asap. Who can enjoy the experience or take it in, in a football scrum? Similar experience at MOMA trying to see Starry Night. Seeing the Crown Jewels, where you're on a moving path, allows everyone the same experience. Not perfect bu nice....
If you get the chance to visit Paris:
1) Learn the basics of French--I did Rosetta Stone which brought back high school and college French. This way you can speak with residents and cafe and shop owners. It’s a way of being polite.
2) Do NOT visit the Palace at Versailles--Really it’s just an old building with a seemingly infinite number of layers of old paint. The crowds are horrible as you are pushed from room to room!
2) BUT do visit the little two street town of Versailles next to the RER C train depot. It is marvelous--lovely book shops, boutiques and cafes. I walked through the town, talked with the shopkeepers, bought books--forgetting (seriously) that they were in French which I could read but probably not my friends.
2) Do NOT go to the Louvre! Buy a postcard showing the modern structure.
3) BUT, do walk through the Jardin des Tuileries. (beautiful gardens outside the Louvre) and visit Musée de l’Orangerie where you walk underground and see “Water Lilies” by Claude Monet. There you can sit and look at these magnificent lilies on murals in natural light in the re-built Musée! I sat there for an hour and no one else even came in.
4) You can buy passes to 60 small museums. The pass is good for 4 days. I ambled through the Rodin statues and garden. I was there to see art...not other tourists.
5) Ride le Metro and speak with the locals. Best part of the trip!
And visit as many patisseries and chocolat factories as possible!
J’aime Paris et Paris m’aime!
12
The Orangerie with Monet’s waterlilies was very Full too this spring. The Quai Branly is absolutely stunning, and nearly empty. And there are little gems like the Musée de la Vie Romantique.
I can’t agree more. The. crowd is suffocating and the wait is not worth. There are a lot to see around in Paris than standing in line for hours to take a distant peek at ML.
1
Very disappointing, but there are other of his works available. The camera situation is insane in all museums. I sense many of these people do not love art, but want proof of their tourism.
9
The Louvre has too many great art objects that can be appreciated even in a full week. Its just overwhelming. This, in a city with multiple museums with a lot of great art. The Mona Lisa is OK but I still cannot understand the attraction. I would rather spend a day at the Picasso museum, my personal interest than sweat through a few minutes in front of the Mona Lisa, which I did several years ago.
1
I have a treasured photo of my daughter as a fourth grader gazing at a 2" sq. image of Mona Lisa on an audio tour screen. She is faced away from the real Mona and completely immersed in the tour. The electronic version suited her just fine.
When The Pietà was on display in the Vatican pavilion in the New York World’s Fair in the mid-60s, crowd control was rather well managed by three parallel moving sidewalks that allowed one to glide at a safe, yet appropriate, distance from the sculpture. I’ve wanted something similar whenever I’ve been at the Louvre and faced the Mona Lisa crowd. (But my first move when there most recently has always been to the Egyptian collection which is usually nearly free of tourists!) The Musée D’Orsay has periodically banned photography throughout parts or all of its exhibition space, and it is a much more pleasant experience when it is photo free.
2
Yes! This is a brilliant idea: separate building and moving walkway. Also, ban selfies with the actual painting. Have some “official” copies of the portrait where people can pose for their selfies.
5
If they took away people's cameras so they wouldn't take a pic of it, to show the folks back home, then half the folks there would't be.
I always got a kick out of people taking movies of painting too.
2
I, personally, am sick of hearing people complain about the crowds in front of the Mona Lisa. Yes, they are bad. But no, they are not THAT bad. You can still see the painting just fine if you take your time. The crowds are nothing compared to what the average New Yorker goes through during their daily commute.
I have heard dozens of people tell the same story about seeing the Mona Lisa, i.e. a bunch of complaints about the crowd and how mediocre the painting itself is.
The painting is a masterpiece. Not only for its artistic merits but also for the mystique surrounding it. It was tremendously unconventional for its time. Portraits of women always showed them sitting upright, covered in jewels, dripping in formality. Da Vinci was one of the first to capture a woman relaxed, in simple clothes, giving a genuine expression. She has a certain witchy power, like she knows more about the viewer than the viewer knows about themselves.
What does she know? What does that knowing gaze see in all the hordes in front of her? And what about the famous theory that the painting is actually a self-portrait of Da Vinci in drag, challenging gender norms in the 16th century? The painting and its story are fascinating in many ways.
If you don't like the painting, don't go and see it. Stop gleefully making superficial complaints that diminish the experience of people who actually appreciated seeing it.
349
@Daniel Metz I don't think anybody is disputing that this is a painting that should be seen. If nothing else, there are very few authenticated works of Leonardo, a seminal figure in renaissance painting.
What many of us are saying is that at the Louvre, there are thousands of masterpieces, but for reasons having little to do with artistry the Mona Lisa has attained an absurd level of celebrity that interferes with the core mission of the museum.
If a large proportion of visitors are just going for a selfie with a famous painting, perhaps a separate museum or pavilion catering to those individuals is necessary.
97
@Daniel Metz Did you see the photo of the crowd? It’s absurd. And I disagree, I don’t think it’s an interesting painting. It’s okay. There are much better Leonardos. Like maybe The Last Supper.
25
@cornell: The Mona Lisa is in a large room with a few large paintings.
When I was there offseason, there were about a dozen people in that rooms and no one other than my wife and I were looking at it.
BTW: There are many better paintings to see in the Louvre.
24
Unfortunately not only a Louvre or Mona Lisa problem. I remember my first time at the Uffizi in 2008 and having time and space to admire Botticelli's Venus the whole museum. I had reserved a second ticket for the last day of the trip and enjoyed the same mundane pleasure.
Both time and space have gradually diminished overtime. You now have to queue for a good half hour outside even if you have a set time ticket. I was dismayed in my last visit 4 years ago to find not only a glass shield protecting the masterpiece, but so many people packing the room that I virtually ran out of the building. Speaking of which, the sheer pleasure of walking nearby Florence's Duomo and environs is a major obstacle race these days.
This is the correct opinion.
I'd rather explore all the other museums in Paris than fight though the lineup which is there primarily to check off the Mona Lisa box on their Paris stamp card.
In fact, I'd pay double for a "no Mona Lisa" entry to the Louvre to avoid the lineup and crowds, but since one doesn't exist, I spend my month in Paris this summer visiting a long list of other fantastic museums and galleries.
235
@Paul D: Pay the regular admission and don't go to see it; it's not mandatory.
11
@Paul D yes, I agree. I’m going to the Louvre next June and have purchased an optional tour to the museum. Now I’m having second thoughts. I’d love to sneak by and get to the other galleries but am concerned that, being with a tour, I will be compelled to wasted time in lines to see the lovely lady again. I’d love a no Mona entry.
Somehow I always thought the Hermitage in Saint Petersburg had a larger collection. Some might assume because it is in Russia that means it is not in Europe. I beg to differ. It is West of the Caucasus Mountains and therefore in Europe. Much as I have enjoyed viewing the Mona Lisa beginning as a student in 1964, without crowds, I search out the Madonna of the Rocks, which I feel is a far more interesting painting.
2
Over the past 40 years, i have visited the Louvre four times. The first three visits were very satisfying and of course included a viewing of the Mona Lisa. I was able to stay as long as I wished and could even get close enough to inspect the painting as much as my untutored eye could absorb.
My last visit to the Mona Lisa in the spring of 2011 was a terrible experience The photograph of the horde of selfie-takers massed 20 feet deep in front of the painting replicates my experience. Flashes from cell phones and the noise of the milling crowd destroyed the serenity of the portrait and museum guards did not intervene, possibly because it would have been pointless. The crowd paused, shot a picture and then swarmed on; it is behavior one associates with tourists who simply need to show they were there but who do not desire any deeper connection to the event. There are postcards, posters and books in the Louvre's gift shop that provide much superior mementos. Let them go there and leave the actual picture to those who want a few quiet moments to imagine.
269
I completely agree with every word. I used to lead a student trip to Paris every summer and have such fond memories of how the Louvre was 20+ years ago. I just visited the Louvre again this past August and was blown away by how thoroughly the Mona crowds ruined the experience. A separate pavilion in the Tuileries is a great idea.
5
My wife and I went to Paris in February 1997 for my 50th birthday. There were almost no tourists, though the weather was very mild for the time of year. We went to the Louvre, of course, and were able to see Leonardo's paintings up close with no crowds. We were not disappointed. We spent six hours wandering the Louvre. we went to the Gare d' Orsay and spent hours looking at the spectacular collection of impressionist art, without the inconvenience of crowds. We visited the Centre Georges Pompidou and struggled through the awkward architecture to see some of the best modern art on display anywhere.
The Mona Lisa was not disappointing, but it is small, and you need the good eyes of youth to see the details. The story of crowding in the heat of summer is unfortunate, and I recommend a visit to Paris in the winter.
2
They could put a moving walkway like they have at the airports in that section of the museum. You have the time you have and that's it. You can try to get one picture if you're lucky and miss everything else or actually look at the painting.
At the minimum, cameras/phones need to be excluded from the room. Or create a selfie booth with a realistic copy so those people don't need to take up space.
373
@Sam Lowry And how do you know that the piece on display isn't a copy anyway?
8
@Sam Lowry At the Upper Belvedere Museum in Vienna this summer I spotted a large cardboard reprint of Klimt's "The Kiss," sitting freely on an easel. Several people were standing next to it to get photos. When I went into the room where it was displayed, there were still plenty of selfie-seekers, but this was a nice nod to the photo-inclined to get the image (for others) and experience the painting for themselves.
11
@Jimmy
If you get close enough you'll see that it's been done on velvet!
6
The Louvre and all first-class art museums must ban photography. This will solve the overcrowding problem right away--the Instagram crowd won't even bother coming, and the rest of us get to relish great art.
1264
@Thos Gryphon It really is as simple as this. How many times have I been looking at an artwork and someone steps between me and the art to take a quick selfie? Then they move on to the next piece. There’s got to be an etiquette to going to a museum. These people are the same people playing on their phones a thing the cinema.
87
@Thos Gryphon YES!! Can we do the same at concerts please? I'm sick of every experience being obscured by hands in the air holding recording devices.
79
@Thos Gryphon I am sure you are all right about banning photography, but I am old enough to remember the days of film photography when flashes were banned and selfies were not a real possibility. Old enough to remember those days I regret that I have almost no photos of those days in which I appear. :(
9
Before you ban all photography-
I’m a professional artist and admit that I do take (non flash) photos of specific works and descriptions where permitted. I do this to recall the inspiration that these works provide me; I could stand and sketch, but prefer a photograph which I can zoom in on and study long after flying home.
My preference though, would be the ability to access professionally photographed and zoomable pictures of the entirety of the museum’s displayed collection on their website or (better!) on an ap which would allow me keep a running check list of the works of interest to me, along with tombstone information or other writing about each object and/or artist.
If the ap could be used to replace those irritating information headsets for patrons who need to be spoon fed their art history, so much the better - ear buds would at least keep the staggered rounds of narration inside of those viewer’s ear canals, thus eliminating the constant auditory blast that is now the soundtrack to every major show.
1
Maybe a way could be found to rotate the Mona Lisa with other paintings at unannounced intervals. That way, from time to time, people could see it without all the hype--since, the public wouldn't know in advance when it would be displayed. Seeing it in this way would be serendipitous, allowing the lucky viewer to have a direct, unmediated experience of looking at the painting for what it is. There's nothing like running across something unexpectedly, to make one look at it with fresh eyes.
I could not agree more with the article. Get the Mona Lisa out of the eay!
The Louvre has become a Disneyland like attraction. My wife and I were in Paris a few weeks ago, and hated the museum. We could not stand the overwhelmingly large crowds and left within an hour.
The Louvre has an evening guided tour, pricy, but I understand that it is worth it. Unfortunately it sells quickly, we could not get into one for any price. I think that this is the only way to enjoy the museum’s greatness.
3
This is not an unusual phenomenon. People check off something on a list and move on without ever examining or thinking about it.
I was always astounded at some National Park visitors. We be wandering around a ranger station or visitors center checking out exhibits before spending time in the park and some family would rush in and head for the stamp. The National Parks System sells 'passports' with pages listing every park. You can buy stickers each year for different parks and there's a place where you can stamp your passport for that park - an inch and a half round stamp unique to that park. Each member of that family would stamp their book and head out spending no time at the Visitor's center and little time in the park. They got their passport stamped for that park - that alone was their goal. One family literally drove off heading out of Grand Teton up to Yellowstone (we overheard them) completely missing the Moose in the parking lot and much, much more. You see the same thing in NYC museums. 'Starry Night'? check.....
2
I’d put the ML in a separate pavilion with access only via an online ticketing system which includes rapid-fire questions about art history and art appreciation. The questions should be asked after the ticket price has been paid.
To make it fair the Louvre website should provide suitable essays on art-history and art appreciation themes which contain the answers to the questions. This would have the benefit of enhancing visitors’ understanding of what they’re about to visit.
And no cameras in the gallery.
It appears that people are visiting the Mona Lisa to take a picture of the painting. How odd that seems to me. I'd just take in the painting visually and leave it at that.
Surely Dan Brown must get some of the credit/blame for the increased crowds around the Mona Lisa and a place in a future pavilion title! Hopefully some plainly curated yet intriguing displays along a future people mover can spark public interest in the whole of the Louvre as effectively as Dan’s book piqued public curiosity about Leonardo and the Mona Lisa.
I agree, the mass of people and one's distance from the painting makes for a totally disappointing experience, but it shouldn't be a surprise by this point. I like your idea of a separate pavilion.
As someone who also cannot stand the selfie nonsense, I'm glad I was able to take pictures of the many artworks I've been lucky enough to see. Even with postcards and books, when I get to go to a dozen amazing museums in a week, looking back through my pictures is a needed memory jog! My photos didn't replace my soaking up the experience, but they sure help me remember it.
2
Great piece— and bravo!
I was lucky enough to “see” the Mona Lisa 18 years ago, on a weekday, during a museum-workers strike (ah, France), so the crowd was merely large instead of insane. Even then, there was little hope of getting right up close to Mona without being willing to press forward and jockey for position with the hundreds of other tourists in the gallery. So like a good Gen Xer I mostly just took ironic photos of people taking photos of Mona, and then took a leisurely stroll around the gallery and it’s adjacent hall. At one point I came upon a gorgeous Caravaggio and happily drank it in for minutes — I was its lone audience — as everyone else raced right past towards The Salle Des Etats, missing all the good stuff.
The more rubes that struggle and strain to see the fabled Mona Lisa the better in my view. Let them battle it out and leave the less obvious treasures in wonderful places like Paris to the rest of us. A separate pavillon is a great idea!
8
Taking down the Mona Lisa is ridiculous. It is the most famous work of human art of all time. It stands a highlight to European culture and humanity itself. It shouldn't be taken down at all. In my opinion, i think it should be put away in a blacked out room where only small groups are allowed in at a time. That way it wouldn't be a hazard like the author suggested in the article.
For an art critic, Mr. Farago seems lacking in the backstory of DaVinci's masterpieces (yes, among so many in his glorious life).
While planning to do this portrait, DaVinci studied the facial muscles of cadavers, seeking to understand what makes a mouth smile, frown, grin, laugh, cry ... It was this study that was one of the dynamics that extended the time it took to start and finish the painting.
Mona Lisa's mysterious smile is a result of that research, and the seemingly endless study sketches of the open facial muscles of those cadavers. Leonardo knew what he wanted to achieve and thus, disected those cadavers to understand the movement of those muscles of the face and lips.
Since we can't get very close to the exhibited painting, there are a lot of excellent, close-up photographs giving the viewer the opportunity to appreciate Leonardo's research. It can be seen in every square inch of her face.
1
While viewing the Mona Lisa, the comments I hear are: "Oh it is so small" , "It is so dark", "what is the big deal?" An understanding of the reason why this painting is so famous may be helpful: i. e., Da Vinci's use of the technique known as sfumato - or dark and light gradations of paint to create human form. In the case of the Mona Lisa, the main focus is her face, eyes and lips. It is also the first painting that has a landscape background giving a three dimensional perspective. This was revolutionary at the time and many artists adopted these techniques. Agree, the crowds are cumbersome, the selfies and photography need to stop....not sure of the solutions but it can be a burden to those who truly appreciate this treasure!
I think the author’s idea of a separate, but connected pavilion with a moving walkway is brilliant. They had a similar viewing option of a “light show” at the Broad a couple years ago. It worked well.
5
One possible benefit of hyper popular attractions is that they posses the benefits of baited flypaper in driving crowds to predictable places. This leaves the more obscure to be enjoyed at leisure.
4
When I was little my parents took me to see the Mona Lisa here in NYC. My father put me on his shoulders so that I could see the picture above the crowds. We stayed looking at this world renowed pieve for maybe less than ten minutes because the crowd had to keep moving.
When we left the museum y sister and I were treated to hot dogs by our parents sold outside the front door by a food vendor.. I remember that experience as if it happened yesterday and falling in love with museums ever since
.
I am sorry that the experts dont view this as a great work of art, but for me the entire experience is one that I will take to my grave. For that one Sunday I spent with my family it was a glorious experience to see a piece of art work that was so special to the world, right here in NYC
2
I’ve been to the louvre a few times, never seen the Mona Lisa. Still, if people want to see it given the current situation, that should be their choice.
If you’d like a bit more tranquility nearby, I’d suggest the musée des arts décoratifs. But the choice is yours. Enjoy!!
"She needs her own space. Build a pavilion for her, perhaps in the Tuileries, that is optimized for the crowds. Connect it to the main museum via the underground mall known as the Carrousel du Louvre, and sell a single ticket for both locations."
I love this proposal. Some ideas are just so obvious that when someone says them you wonder, why hasn't anyone already acted on this? The solution is practical, elegant, and makes perfect sense. Someone, please get this on the desk of the Director the Louvre first thing in the morning!
10
After waiting a long timeyears ago in a crowded line and gallery to see the Mona Lisa, my children and I left quickly. It was disappointing and I found other galleries at the Louvre filled with equally and more magnificent art and antiquities. The paintings of Arcimboldo in my opinion were much more exciting and I could study them without being pushed around. I agree with the author. Mona Lisa is overrated.
1
Out of all the art I’ve seen in person, if I had to pick one work from Renaissance Italy that must be seen in person it is Michelangelo’s David—the original sculpture, which lives at the Academia in Florence. Life changing.
7
The David sculpture has the same problem as the Mina Lisa, with mobs of selfie takers crowding around (at least the last time I was there). I think that if you could ban selfies, most of the crowds would vanish, since the only reason they are there is to obtain the selfie proof of the visit.
The best strategy for seeing the overly famous tourist attraction objects is late evening hours where they exist, since the selfie crowds and tour groups are otherwise occupied them. I was alone in with the David in its room for a long time using this technique.
By the way, the only Leonardo in the U.S. is the beautiful Ginevra de' Benci portrait at the National Gallery in Washington and I’ve never seen much of a crowd there. I hope I haven’t let the cat out of the bag.
The painting itself is actually a little jewel with several delightful secrets for those few in the know. For a welcome change, why not exchange it for the embalmed physicist and puckish genius, Albert Einstein lying in state in his own room surrounded by special mirrors so self-portraits with the thinker could be taken. The rush to see Mona Lisa would slow to a welcome crawl.
Over 60 years ago, as a child, my French mother took me to see the Mona Lisa (“La Joconde”) repeatedly. At the time, there was one guard and a velvet rope a few feet in front of the painting. There may have been a few other visitors in the general area. I was fascinated by the painting and back in my French grandmother’s apartment, I would draw the famous portrait again and again.
2
When I visit museums, I’m looking for objects that reflect my interests. When I was at the Louvre, I took pictures of mnay items that are not in catalogs or books sold in the gift shop. Banning cameras will have a negative impact on people like me who attempt to recreate objects from the past.
I agree that those taking selfies are annoying. When I was there a man had to do a selfie as he entered each gallery and in front of certain exhibits.This continuous stop in the traffic between galleries was so annoying, I turned back and let the herd get ahead.
I like the idea of a separate gallery with moving walkway.
I have been in museums which you could not take photos. If you want a copy of the painting, you buy a print. Not to mention the light from the flash can damage the painting.
7
Stop allowing selfies and any kind of photography there.
That is another aspect of museum going behavior that erodes the experience of one who just wants to see and appreciate art.
16
So glad I got to see it in the early 80’s. Not sure what the fuss was all about though?
My reaction exactly, when I was there. The crowd was more impressive than the painting.
Also on that visit I saw a painting that made me cry.
It wasn't Mona.
1
Send it on a tour around the world. Museums hosting it will make a good profit, everybody wins.
8
Claude Monet's Water Lilies at Musée de l'Orangerie in Paris are wonderful. Much more interesting and artful than Mona Lisa IMO. When we went there, there was one other viewer. They also have a nice Soutine, etc. I blush to admit that we did take "selfies" with the water lilies as background.
1
“Yet the Louvre is being held hostage by the Kim Kardashian of 16th-century Italian portraiture.”
This is a superb and hysterically funny description of Mona Lisa and the experience of viewing her. It wasn’t much better a few years ago, before the renovation, when I last visited. A rope kept us far from the painting, maybe not 12 feet, but far enough that the reflective glass and crush of people all around made it impossible to appreciate her presence.
The museum has a vast collection of extraordinary art that allows intimate viewing. The Denon wing where Mona Lisa resides is filled to brimming with Spanish and Italian masterpieces. Spend your time soaking in these works and leave the Kardashian spectacle to the fools. You will be richly rewarded.
13
Agree completely.
The most overrated piece of art. They should move it to an Art School in Tuscany where the background of the painting was depicted and be done with it.
Tourist attraction that it became, the crass display of Mona Lisa is the biggest injustice we can do to the genius of Leonardo.
4
In May, 1968 I visited the Louvre. That was the day the Communists came out to support the students against Charles De Gaulle. There was a general strike. When I visited the Louvre there was literally no one in front of her. There was no one beside her either. I was alone in front of her. Truth to tell I was more impressed by the picture beside her (Saint John the Baptist pointing with his finger towards Heaven).
10
I noticed that this year they haven’t put back the Ferris Wheel at Place de la Concorde. I approve of that decision, because it made the city look silly and cheap, like a tourist fairground. Previously they would take it down for the July 14th parade. But this year, it didn’t come back. But maybe that is only because they are doing road work in the area.
Happily the Mona Lisa is indoors.
1
Add the Sistine Chapel to the list.
3
"..only moderately interesting"? "...hardly Leonardo's most interesting..."?
I agree with much of what the author states, but why denigrate this iconic piece of art? Suggest all who are interested read Walter Isaacson's bio of Leonardo, which includes a fascinating chapter on the piece in question.
8
Are you trying to conjure up the ghost of Andy Rooney from 60 Minutes? If tourists want to wait an hour just to see it like they flock to Times Square and take up all the sidewalk space for the rest of us New Yorkers, who cares? Better hype than disinterest or empty rooms.
5
An observation from these comments: There seems to be a large number of wealthy people making numerous trips to Paris and complaining mightily about the little people who don't have an adequately sophisticated appreciation for art.
All those trips to Paris make for some rather high carbon footprints.
The next time you are wondering who those people complaining about liberal elites are talking about, read this article and these comments.
If you want to know why the Democrats are in trouble in 2020, read this article and these comments.
And I"m a Democrat!
9
@woodyrd , I recently spent one wek in London, my only trip for the year. I spent one morning at the British Museum and observed throngs of people, many of whom appeared to be interested in the magnificent Egyptian art solely as a backdrop for a quick cellphone photo or selfie. After snapping their photo they were off.
I read this article as a criticism of people visiting a museum or other cultural site because they read that it is a "must see", rather than because they have a genuine interest.
7
I too noticed people stating they’ve been to Paris 3-4 times etc. The snobbery is oozing out of a number of these comments. Especially after reading a fictional version of DaVinci creating the Mona Lisa in the novel Oil and Marble, I would like to see the Mona Lisa just once. An alternate viewing area sounds like a good solution to clusters of tourists.
2
This would ruin the Tuileries, a placid garden. Put it in a vitrine in the Metro, on the least crowded line, in between stations.
I prefer sculptures anyway. Anyone seen David? That things great and it’s huge! Big enough for everyone.
2
I take it you have seen it, probably in a private showing, so no one else really needs to see it. Maybe it could be viewed in a scheduled manner rather than the mad rush you describe?
Way back at the dawn of time -- 1964, I think -- for the New York World's Fair, a moving sidewalk was proposed for the Vatican Pavilion's exhibition of the Pieta. But times change. The Virgin of Guadalupe is exhibited in Mexico City with her 'people mover' to great success.
And why not? These are objects of veneration or of visual memories, if you will. There seems to be no going backward with that.
But, for heavens sake, at least separate these objects from others. Allow people the veneration or ticking off a list. If the Louvre will not take some sort of responsible action, they continue to contaminate the art viewing experience for many people interested in other works.
At this stage it is both prissy and archaic to maintain that the Mona Lisa must be seen 'in context.'
And what possible, acceptable place have phones and cameras -- not to mention narcissism sticks -- in a great museum?
3
The Louvre can easily fix its 'Mona Lisa problem' by banning photography. But they can't bear to part with the ticket revenues coming from the 80% of visitors who are there only to get a selfie with La Gioconda.
So yes, to have its own pavilion and charge an entrance fee is the next best solution though I suspect the hold up is that the Louvre wouldn't want to appear so crass and grasping (with 'appear' being the operative word).
5
ditto. Worse than being corralled into visiting "The Geek" exhibit at a carnival. So much more to see at the Lourve than this mistake.
1
Ban photography. Problem minimized. Open a Mona Lisa pavilion - problem solved.
5
AH, THE SELFIE. The draw is not the art of DeVince but of the ego being seen with a relic of history the mass knows best. How disappointing that is, it finds.
7
Is the author kidding? Too many spectators? Admit only a certain number per day and/or restrict their time with Leonardo's masterpiece. As for this art critic's tastes, suffice it to say that his surname should carry an extra "r."
1
When my wife and I visited the Louvre in 2014 my wife labeled the crowds in the painting’s area aptly by stating, “Mona and her fan club”. I see that has not changed but gotten so much worse. And for those that have never seen it in person, it is quite diminutive in size. I can say that I was surprised but still happy I was able to see it before all the hordes have descended on it........whew........ :-)
1
Ok, sorry. I say let the people line up and crowdstand in front of the Mona Lisa if they want to. That's more room for the rest of us at the excellent National Museum of Mexican Art in Chicago.
I always did think the Mona Lisa unattractive and unworthy of all the hype.
This was great, thank you!
2
To view Michelangelo's Pieta in the Vatican Pavilion during the 1964 New York World's Fair, you stepped on a moving sidewalk and were transported past the statue. Of course, you had to wait in a long line to get onto the sidewalk.
4
Yes! I couldn’t agree more! This summer for the first time in 25 years of visiting the Louvre every couple years I was turned away and asked to buy a ticket online. And when I did and showed up it was the most unpleasant mall-like experience. I was jostled and pushed and ushered through the entire museum like cattle. The Mona Lisa room was a ridiculous insult to art and artists everywhere and throughout time. The selfies! The posing! The crowds! The world that created Trump, created the current Mona Lisa circus. So sad!
Seriously, very sad.
2
Tourism has become more and more destructive. My first view of the Mona Lisa was in 1959, my last about ten years ago. Each got successively worse. When I was a child, one could wander among the stones of Stonehenge. They are now kept at a distance. I went to Angkor Wat last year. I doubt I will want to go a few years from now. Santorini, Machu Pichu, the Tai Mahal. All becoming a less satisfying experience. Perhaps Virtual Reality is the way to go.
6
Time to take down the Mona Lisa----Amen. I bet no one even notices the terrific Rembrandt across the room.
2
Thank you Mr. Farago! Spot on! Brilliant!
It hardly matters that the ML is not Leonardo’s best. People want to post selfies, that’s all that matters. Why should the ML be ruined? Just ban photographs of her, but leave her with the other Leonardo’s
All that's needed is for someone to plant a seed & someone else, naturally or unnaturally, provides the water. If the TuileriesPalace was reconstructed, a room designate could become a permanent home for Mona & amend a serious mistake of the Communards.
1
I shake my head to think of the price for such a work. It will never be sold of course. If that Saudi prince paid $450 million this might be worth one billion. What if a tech billionaire, or a drug lord, offered 5,10 or 20 billion? I wonder about McCartney's original Hofner bass sometimes in the same vein.
I don’t even understand people taking photos of famous paintings. Are you ever going to actually look at that photo?
2
Every museum has a gift shop with exquisite prints of major works, or entire gorgeous books of them.
Yet people stand in front of things like “Starry Night” and adjust their phones in anguish for 20 mins (I’ve witnessed it) to take a satisfactory photo. Total mystery to me.
Many museum visits are now unbearable because of this phenomenon.
4
The writer has a vacuum in the understanding
The mysteries of Art
Thinks big and glitz is what makes it
La Mona Lisa has stunned intrigued fascinated
generations
A small Infinite Jewel
Suggest you go back to le Louvre
wait out the unpleasant masses
and when you get close enough
Look
4
Remove paintings.
Cancel exhibitions.
Shout down speakers.
Pressure institutions.
Twitter-bomb corporations.
Tear down statues.
Madness!
3
The tourist crush at the Louvre may one day turn the enigmatic smile into a frown.
3
An excellent piece. Though I wonder: Why were the Spanish Steps listed as a disappointing attraction along with Checkpoint Charlie and the urinating boy in Brussels? Of all these things, the Spanish Steps are indeed magnificent. At the end of the day, no sight is as wonderful as a successful public space. I rarely go indoors anywhere at all when I travel.
2
Hear, hear. The swarms of tourists that clog the Louvre just to take a selfie with Mona have made a temple of art into a circus. Lock her up!
I was part of that crushed mob when I visited the Louvre recently and it was insane, ridiculous and dangerous.
1
First Peter Luger, then the Mona Lisa. What’s next? chocolate ice cream?
2
Is it easier to visit the Louvre during the Winter?
1
The moving stairway in a separate building is a brilliant idea. In fact, when Michelangelo's Pieta was in New York for the 1964 World's Fair visitors saw it at the Vatican Pavilion from a conveyor belt. No dawdling, no crushes in front of it.
2
I would never have thought that a painting could inspire a tirade such as the one in this article. The writer should find a different cause. Animal welfare? World peace? Anything but lay off the Mona Lisa.
1
Well, I am probably one of the shallowest of the "shallow curiosity seekers" that you are referring to, but I'd say you are just as shallow as me in terms of sense of humility and respect for others. I'm amazed at your ability to look down on people with contempt while indulging yourself in the self-gratifying thought that you are the chosen one one who could truly appreciate the painting.
5
Take a look at "Dreams" by Vittorio Matteo Corcos. Belle Epoque woman on a bench.
Have you read the very beautiful short story about what Mona Lisa would say about this?
Here’s a link to this wonderful little book
Quando Parla La Gioconda
https://www.amazon.com/Quando-parla-Gioconda-Racconti-darte/dp/8865989424
If La Giaconda is the Kim Kardashian of her age, perhaps the painting needs a social media platform or reality show to satisfy her fans. I can see it now: KIWLG.
Don’t go. See other things.
2
FABULOUS ARTICLE !!!
1
Agreed . Culturally ruined .
1
I've been saying this for years.....it's an ok painting...a product of DiVinci's imagination after his model died. The Raft of the Medusa is far better in many aspects if you are visiting the Louvre or any other master piece there. After seeing the Mona Lisa, I rarely think of it as I do about so many other paintings there or in the collections around the world; it's just not that interesting.
So to move it to accommodate the huge crowds seems fitting, but once you see it you'll know what I mean.
1
A brilliant suggestion!
Correction: Water-into-wine....
Not very serious article.
MOMA solved the overcrowding problem nicely and so will the Louvre.
Enough with sensationalist headlines!
2
The headline for this piece is misleading: Farago doesn't propose 'taking down' the Mona Lisa, he proposes moving it to its own special exhibition hall. It's a good idea.
1
First Peter Luger and now the Mona Lisa? Watch out people, the Times is calling us all out for unoriginality!
1
I've seen the Mona Lisa 3 times over the decades and can still remember when viewing it wasn't a zoo-like experience. The last time I viewed it was 15 years ago and the mob of art know nothings was seriously problematic.
There are dozens of signs warning viewers not to take flash photos written in every language imaginable yet the flashes continue unabated. These aren't art lovers. They are opportunistic morons who need to show everyone back home how cool they think they are.
While it is without a doubt a truly remarkable painting perhaps it would be smart to stop showing it for a while and allow real art lovers to take in the myriad of other stellar art in the Louvre.
I was astounded by the number of people using the painting as a background for their selfies. They were all looking away from the art work. I doubt many of them ever bothered to look at the picture, it was merely a prop to them. I get the idea that more and more people are not looking for an experience but only bragging rights.
4
Install a couple of replicas in different locations, with a ticketing system to make appointment and pay extra to see the original.
We need to change that way we experience art in order to see and understand ourselves more clearly. As at least one reader has suggested, why not prohibit cell phones entirely from museums of this caliber and beyond? Institutions must take a lead to end selfie obsessed behavior in order to ensure that we are still creating and not purely consuming culture for generations. The time is now. Our nation is in turmoil. Our climate is at greater risk than ever before. The connectedness of witnessing a piece of art is a spiritual experience and is not determined by a cell phone in hand but with one's eyes and ears and present being. A memory lasts forever in one's heart because of an embodied experience not because of a selfie.
1
I second the suggestions that photography and cell phones be banned from museums. Many people are so occupied with their cells, cameras, and tablets that they barely look at the works on display, pausing just long enough to take a pic. Why bother going? Stay home and read an illustrated book about the artist.
1
There is a portrait in Rome by one of the grandmasters that is nowhere near as well known as the Mona Lisa but is held by many art critics to be equal or better. It’s in a medium sized gallery that isn’t so renowned either, in its own alcove the size of a small bedroom with just one security camera. I’ve been to see it twice and have spent hours gazing at it in awe, most of the time alone.
I’m sorry, I’m not telling you the name of this masterpiece. The fame would ruin it.
3
I saw the Mona Lisa in the National Gallery many years ago. Even checked out the back, it's painted on wood. There were maybe a dozen of us there. The crowds in this article are about something else - probably being famous for being famous.
I pity you poor youngsters, victims of over tourism. In 1973, I stood alone before Mona Lisa, maybe four feet away. Later, I was one of a dozen people in the Hall of Mirrors at Versailles, which I visited again a few years ago to my over tourism dismay. One should wander in the other rooms of the Louvre. One of the galleries has more great art than all the museums of San Francisco!
1
I saw it 2 years ago in July, which is the height of tourist season or close to it. Maybe I lucked out because the crowd wasn't that bad–maybe 3-4 dozen people. No one lingered for long. And it was 12ft away then too. I had heard about the crowds beforehand and not being a fan of the painting, I decided I'd be ok with not seeing it. What struck me was how empty the gallery right outside which had the 4 other Leonardos on display was and remarked about that to my daughter. There was even less people observing a Michaelangelo sculpture elsewhere.
I'd like to see museums put a stop to the selfies. It just causes slowdowns and is just something for people to post to social media.
I wasn't a fan of the "Mona Lisa" but after seeing it in person, I am. So I hope the Louvre can improve the situation.
1
I went on a Sunday afternoon. Walked right up and felt...next to nothing. She didn't wink or anything.
2
After a Mediterranean cruise this summer, we came home feeling completely overwhelmed by the crowds, the selfies and the rudeness. The Sistine Chapel was jam packed with people talking loudly, trying to sneak photos which were strictly forbidden. The capper was the guards yelling at everyone. I left in tears.
3
The room is a disaster, there's no disputing that. But is Starry Night at MOMA less of a disaster with the phone holding throng shouting "There it is!"? I visited the Louvre just over a year ago and had never appreciated the painting until I saw it in person, despite the crowd. I weaved through every part of that room, looked at that painting from every angle and every position possible. The genius of it is that no matter where you are in the room it still feels as though she is looking directly at you. You can't appreciate the skill of the artistry of that gaze until you see it in person. So, yes to the idea of a dedicated space, if only to better accommodate more eyes, and less sniffy reviewers. Go to the Louvre, the Venus de Milo is downstairs, there's no crowd. Sadly.
3
I was able to see the Mona Lisa with my wife a couple of years back. I was able to take a picture of She Who Must Be Obeyed standing to the side of the painting, but about 20 feet away.
The only. thing I appreciated was the policy of taking handicapped visitors in wheelchairs were taken in front of the barricades so they could get close to the picture without the hustling visitors.
It also dawned on me that there was an excellent quality of the painting for sale in the lobby. It you want to really look at the painting in detail then this is the way to go. In fact the Louvre would be wise to let you buy the painting in Paris and have it shipped to your home. There could be a supply in the various Embassies around the world and they can be mailed on a designated day, arriving to your home a few days after you got home. If you get a guide as well you are set forhours of pleasure. When finished pass it to the Art Teacher at a local High School.
My last viewing of the Mona Lisa will be my final viewing. It is not a pleasant experience. I was in Krakow recently and was able to see Leonardo’s “Lady With an Ermine” it was a much better set up, in its own, dark room (which made selfies unworkable), lots of explanatory material nearby, and a separate cutout/reproduction for selfies. It was unbelievably empty - no more than 3 people in the space so I was really able to view and appreciate. That will never happen in Paris, but the suggestions in the article would help
3
What if they made 10 identical copies of the painting and spread them through the museum, so that the public would be spread out, not knowing which was the original? But then I realized it could make it worse if people thought they had to look at all 10 to be sure of seeing the original!
2
And when I go to see the only DaVinci in the Western Hemisphere, I usually have the room to myself
2
I was in Paris this summer with my parents, my partner, and my niece. This was her first time to Paris (she's ten--lucky girl) so of course my father wanted to make sure she saw all the things, the Louvre included. He arranged for skip the line tickets that had an audio tour. Having been to the Louvre several times before I took the audio tour as merely a suggestion and immediately went off book into the European paintings and islamic art to avoid the crowds. Unfortunately, as I was trying to find my way back to the center to meet everyone for lunch we inadvertently took a 'short cut' that turned out to be the gallery with the mona lisa. I glanced over the crowds quickly and just kept walking-- no reason to try to penetrate the selfie sticks. I'm all for putting the Mona Lisa in her own, separate space. Same for Starry Night and any other of the selfie-inducing pieces of art. Or just take away everyone's phone upon entry to any museum.
11
On a sunny January in the early 1990’s, I was a naive Hoosier making my first trip to the grand hall. There were few other visitors except for a small group clustered in front of one painting about half way down the hall. As I passed the group, thinking I could come back later, I looked up and SHE caught my eye — and held it as I walked by. Believe me, I went back.
4
I took an ordinary 12 night river boat trip fromParis to Normandy and return in May 2019. When we got to Paris I was astounded to learn that our 100 passengers were scheduled for an evening alone in this wonderful palace. Just us and a few guards. 12 of us saw the Mona alone for at least 15 minutes and all the photos we wanted.
I still think, after that time alone with the painting, that it is highly overrated.
4
I saw it back in the mid-90s, not too packed and blah blah "insert anecdotal story here". However, op misses the bigger picture, BAN PHOTOGRAPHY. I was at the Prado last month and as usual, the hordes were there snapping pics of themselves in front of artwork without paying attention and taking time to enjoy it with their own eyes. Also, I'm fine with banning huge tour groups and guided tours or more than five people per group.
30
While I have not been to the Louvre under the current circumstances, I have been caught up in the human river making its way past the three iconic pieces. And while my wife and I were happy to drift into various gallery eddies along the way, we have a appreciation of people seeking a certain experience, such as the young women from California that we met before the Mona Lisa, who might never pass that way again. While no fan of selfies, although admittedly taking one, before they were a thing, outside the dome of the Pantheon, shouldn't we celebrate that so many want to connect with and appreciate the great works?
1
We love visiting museums when we travel and we plan our time so we can appreciate what we are seeing. Yes that requires trade offs as you can't see everything. But missing out on a some items so we can sit in front of the Birth of Venus, the Statue of David or a Rothko for 2 hours and absorb the greatness and beauty is a trade off worth making. Those memories stay with me rather than a 15 second walk by and photo.
4
I have to say I remember being one of those “shallow curiosity seekers” referenced by one of your commenters. I really know little about art and was thrilled at the prospect of seeing the masterpiece firsthand. I would have loved to have sat in a dreamy reverie and observed the painting shift with the rhythms of natural light. However....you enter the crowded space, jostled and jostling...no time for reflection, no space to absorb the grand moment. I think she needs her honored niche, but perhaps the Louvre could limit her admirers for the day? And more of the “shallow curious” could reflect in silence.
5
When my wife and I visited Paris in 2014, the best advice we got was to visit the Louvre on a Friday night when it is open until 9 PM. We entered from the underground shopping mall around 6 PM and there was zero line. We saved the Mona Lisa for last, and at 8:45 PM, there were maybe 10 people in the gallery. We were able to walk right up to the barricade in front of the painting and actually enjoy our Mona Lisa experience. I encourage everyone to try this Friday night tactic, as it worked great for us.
8
I agree that the painting should be moved elsewhere so that those who want to see the works around her don't have to navigate the crush. However, I don't see any reason to bash members of that crush when stating my opinion. None of us sprang from the womb with an appreciation for great art. That has to be cultivated over time and for those of us born without means, it sometimes takes quite a long time. Many of today's young selfie-takers will become tomorrow's avid art lovers. I'd rather encourage their first, clumsy efforts to expand their horizons than sneer at them as some here prefer to do.
2
Every time I’ve gone to the Louvre, there was a huge crowd around the Mona Lisa and I thought to myself, “Of all the paintings in this wonderful place, this is the one I already know the best, so no big deal if I don’t get a good look at it. There are so many wonderful paintings here that I have no familiarity with. Let me get to know them.”
8
Agreed. At this point all I think about the Mona Lisa is that it is the most overrated piece of art in history.
4
I never understood why this, of all the incredible painting and portraiture out there, is so exalted.
4
The photo of that crowd is crazy. I've seen her three times, once in New York when I was 12 -- the lines at the Met were crazy, too -- twice at the Louvre. The last time was in October 1990, shortly after la Pyramide went up. For all anyone knew, it was just another painting on the wall. I had her -- um, it -- to myself for as long as I cared to stand there. Magical.
2
I "saw" the Mona Lisa on my first Grand Tour of Europe in 1984 as an aspiring art historian. I couldn't get within 20 feet, jostled by Japanese tourists pointing their video cameras at the painting. It was unbearable. And what was worse, the room in which it was sited had several other masterpieces, and you couldn't get near them either. The crowds aren't a new phenomenon. But it has become worse in the selfie era. I fully support the notion of putting the Mona Lisa in a separate pavilion, with its own entrance, so that the masses can take their selfies behind bullet-proof glass. In the current configuration, there is absolutely no way you can peacefully study this painting. So charge visitors a huge amount of money and call it a selfie tax.
10
This Is adam lee, Diana’s husband:
We went to the Louvre in October, we got a wonderful tour starting in the basement looking at the ancient foundation of the museum. We saw a lot of great art and then finished by waiting in line to see the Mona Lisa. We waited 3 minutes and then explained to our tour guide that we were going to leave to go out to dinner. she was flabbergasted. “You are not going to see the Mona Lisa?” She asked. No, I said, it does not seem like much fun. I don’t take selfies, I am not going to post this on facebook. I would rather be in a lovely French cafe than standing in line with a bunch of selfie obsessed tourists shoving the get closer to the Mona Lisa. I am glad we did not wait. I don’t know what the solution is, but the current situation is terrible. If you are lucky enough to go to the Louvre, skip the Mona Lisa and go enjoy Paris. I am sure that Leonardo would approve.
19
One of the great positives of the Mona Lisa in her over touristed salon is there is almost almost no visitors (or very few) in the Romanticism Era room (Salle Mollien) two behind her... the Raft of the Medusa, and Victory Leading the People are larger than life, nobody seems to wander into the room, and I have these incredible works of art all to myself for as long as I want.
8
While I did value the chance to see Mona Lisa in oh 1992 during a backpack around Europe. Even then it felt like it was in glass-encased sterile digs, though there were maybe a dozen people in her company.
I recommend listening to songs about Mona Lisa as a good palliative, in which case I have just the tonic.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yaFLbaQdWpg&list=PLQA-PT6ZcAnp8RllRe1ZSdM32JK9bkast&index=2&t=294s
Oh Mona Lisa you are fine,
when you glide across the room,
and your eyes connect and tend
to cast away impending gloom
etc.
My grandfather once wrote a caption to a family photo: "Here's a photo of Alice and Jon, blocking the view of the Parthenon." So selfies (trophies) aren't new, but they still are kind of egotistical. Look at art. Feel (not literally) the art. Then buy postcards, one for yourself, and one to send to a favorite aunt. That should mitigate the traffic jam - or mob scene - in front of an iconic painting. And when you go home, be sure to patronize and support your local museum, whether it's in Youngstown, Ohio or Greenville, SC.
15
In all the many times I've been to Paris and to the Louvre, I've never been tempted to battle the crowds in order to approach 'La Giaconda'. Amazingly, spending time with the work of the Flemish Masters or of Carravagio is plenty to occupy my interest before heading off to Marche des Enfants Rouges for great Moroccan food. Really, this is one painting that's better viewed in online or in an art book.
4
When I first went to see the Mona Lisa in 1992, was awfully disappointed. Nothing spectacular about the painting, and flash photography was prohibited. The staff was quite rude, almost as bad as the staff hustling people through the sistine chapel in Vatican City.
My experience was totally different than described in the article. I found myself unexpectedly heaving with emotion in front of the Gioconda. But here is what I think contributed to my state of mind. I use wheelchair, and I approached the Louvre that day last April with some anxiety about accessibility, the huge crowds and whether I would even be able to see around the standers when I got to the Mona Lisa. But from the moment I arrived in the plaza, I was directed past the long ticket lines to the Pei pyramid, where kind staff ushered me quickly into what looked like a happy hour cocktail lounge cubicle, but was really an open elevator. On the lower level I was pointed to the main entrance, where, without any ticket at all, I was waved right in. I made my way directly to the Mona Lisa room, where I was noticed immediately by staff and, to my joyful surprise, beckoned to wheel myself right in front of the rope holding back hundreds of other people to a spot directly in front of La Gioconda herself. Seeing her was something I had been wanting to do for most of my adult life, but I think my gratitude at being treated so exquisitely by the museum staff was part of the reason I found myself sobbing uncontrollably when her legendary smile came into (unobstructed) view.
76
@atoy This is the most depressing comment I've read so far. I'm empathetic to your disability, but to gloat over your being moved to the front of the line is hurtful. What's to deter others to fake a disability in order to get a front-row seat?
1
Van Gogh museum in Amsterdam does not allow photography. There is a copy of Sunflowers where the masses can take selfies with it. Very pleasant experience to view an iconic piece this way. Starry Night at MOMA should do the same....
7
The last time I visited the Louvre (2009) I determined I watched masses of people rush past me to get to the Mona Lisa and then the Sistine Chapel and then leave. In the Instagram and Snapchat age I can only imagine the additional throngs of people who just want a selfie with the Mona Lisa before moving onto the Eiffel Tower.
Looking at the pictures I see no reason not to move it out of the Louvre and put a copy on display outside so that people don’t have to walk through to see it. The experience inside the Louvre will be far more enjoyable for those who want to enjoy the rest of it.
3
In 1996 I experienced the Louvre for the first time, and of course the Mona Lisa was on the list of must-see works. Upon arriving at the room where she was hung, there was a crowd about four or five deep surrounding her, all straining their necks to get a good look. This was on a Friday or Saturday. Over the course of a few minutes, the crowd in front of me dissipated, allowing me a front row seat for a minute and allowing for close examination. Remember, this was a few years before everyone was walking around with a camera in their pocket, so one wanted to take time to savor the experience and etch it to memory.
During those days a trip to any of NYC’s major museums was a pleasant and inexpensive way to spend an afternoon, alone or with a date. One could stroll through the museums, stopping to take in works that caught his eye.
The times, they have a’changed, my friends. Now, on a visit to the Met, for example, the assault of a lobby overcrowded with children, baby carriages, school groups and such, makes one take pause, questioning whether to venture any further, especially at the “suggested” price of $25.
New York museums have adopted a system whereby tickets are sold separately for special exhibits. To deal with the overwhelming crowds that populate major museums in Europe and the US, a similar system for viewing the popular works must be implemented. It would be a shame to make the live experience of a Mona Lisa, et al, unavailable to future generations.
1
I agree with the notion of giving the Mona Lisa her own space, and it's too bad that tourists flock to the painting without having the slightest idea why.
But I'm surprised that the reason the painting is so incredible wasn't mentioned here at all. It's not the lady's smile, or that she's sort of pretty, it has nothing to do with her. It's the background. This was the first portrait ever to be painted in front of an open window, and da Vinci worked on that background in painstaking detail, going over and over it to get it precisely right. The background, which most people apparently never notice, is why this was such a groundbreaking and amazing portrait.
4
I was there this Summer and I agree with the author that line of the gallery makes the Spirit Airlines boarding process look like a model of efficiency 🤣
4
I'm a little confused at how the Mona Lisa was rated the most disappointing attraction. It's a painting everyone knows about, what is there to be disappointed by? I guess it's more the bad experience than the painting itself.
I think the Mona Lisa, like anything incredibly popular, is unfortunately thought of as overrated now, even though it is a great painting in my opinion. It's just the hype is exaggerated. The painting should stay up to be appreciated, but with rules against photography and smaller crowds allowed.
2
At the 1964 World's Fair, I had the privilege of viewing Michelangelo's 'Pieta' along with tens of thousands of others. We stood on a slowly moving walkway that allowed you a couple minutes to see Michelangelo's masterpiece. The Louvre is displaying Da Vinci's Mona Lisa the wrong way. I witnessed this same silly mob scene in 2004, and got the idea people respond to La Gioconda's fame, not the qualities in her portrait itself. Yet when you get in close enough to see the painting, and you and she lock eyes, something ineffable and quite amazing happens. That's how the Mona Lisa should be viewed, a few persons at a time, for a couple minutes, not just to take a quick selfie. It's worth standing in line for.
5
I remember vividly seeing that. Too bad I couldn’t appreciate it since I was a young teen.
3
I had a full day at the Louvre in 2008. Spent my time enjoying the amazing Islamic and African art there. Rooms were almost empty!
I have never figured out the fun in trying to see any artwork, not just the Mona Lisa, surrounded by 15 camera wielding ``memory collectors''. May be someday I will figure out the point of taking a picture of a picture, when the picture of the picture can be found on the internet!
4
"The Louvre houses the greatest collection of art anywhere in Europe."
Um, the Louvre doesn't even house the greatest collection of art in Paris.
1
What most people don’t realize is that you are not looking at the actual painting, it’s a 3D Print of the actual painting. But so was the mummy of King Tut in Times Square, many knew and still paid and waited in line.
While I did value the chance to see Mona Lisa in oh 1992 during a backpack around Europe, even then it felt like it was in glass-encased sterile digs.
I recommend listening to songs about Mona Lisa as a good palliative, in which case I have just the tonic.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yaFLbaQdWpg&list=PLQA-PT6ZcAnp8RllRe1ZSdM32JK9bkast&index=2&t=294s
I think moving the Mona Lisa to her own pavilion is a great idea. She has become more of a holy relic than a piece of art. And that's fine. I am excited when any piece of art excites and inspires people--so let's make it easier for people to enjoy her...and enjoy the rest of the Louvre without her. As for all the selfie haters, I am going to disagree. Art museums are a hard sell for many people. If selfies help them to commemorate or to interact with the objects, I am all for it.
I went to the Louvre in October 2018 and gladly skipped this area and spent time among the 19th century paintings. I saw the Mona Lisa in 1990 and that can last me the remainder of my life. Everything it seems overblown and excessive today and no doubt social media is root cause of the obsessive viewing. Most people who go to these institutions really don't seem to know why they are going. I went to Versailles in 1990 and ended up giving a history lecture to my fellow tour bus passengers all from the U.S. They were going to see it but most really did not know why it was a historical site or who had lived there.
1
When I was on the train back from Versailles to Paris this past May I heard a gentleman saying to his party “ o.k. now let’s go see Mona”. I smiled to myself thinking what the painting has been reduced to.
2
I thoroughly enjoyed seeing the Mona Lisa. Forget the painting. The spectacle should be considered the real attraction. The surreal and insane performances of the viewers, guards, etc. reflect far more on the human condition than the painting ever will. Don’t take it away!
3
Oh, so you've gotten to see it, perhaps with your status as critic in a controlled, albeit late at night or early morning, in an up close and controlled time.
For those in the world willing to put up with the crowds, you now want to deny them the ability to see this in person?
To what end, since the entire column didn't make a particularly good case to remove it from public view?
While we are at it, I hear the Sistine Chapel, the Vatican's collections, Florence and a few other places are getting crowded and sweaty. You want to shut them down too?
4
Why not consider it differently?
I love it when people flock to one place (Venice, Mona Lisa at the Louvres, cruises...). It is like a fly trap. At least they are not where I want to go. In addition they subsidize the Louvres for me.
4
Venice is a complete disaster. I have read they have cut back on the cruise ships to reduce the crowds.
The author and the majority of the comments strike me as highly pretentious. Why do you care if people want to wait in line and take selfies? I was there this summer, and it was a total zoo in that room, but why should anyone be able to dictate to anyone else how they should see and enjoy what is there? The rest of the museum was huge, not super crowded and beautiful. Let people be there and enjoy it like they want to.
9
First time I went to the Louvre, in 1996, there were far fewer visitors than today. Even so, the area around the Mona Lisa was a scrum. I was deeply jet lagged that day, and did some snoozing in a nearby gallery before entering the fray. I was unimpressed. I could understand why people made a big deal about the Winged Victory of Samothrace, the Caravaggios, the spoils Napoleon brought back from Egypt. But the Mona Lisa? I didn’t get it. Still don’t.
2
Ha! I was very disappointed when I saw the Mona Lisa back in 1997 or so (it was much smaller and darker than I thought it would be and had recently been enclosed in an protective cover that seemed somewhat yellowed). What really stuck with me about The Louvre was The Wings of Samothrace! The long hall leading to it was just packed with people. As we made our way to the other end she soared above the crowd. Stunningly beautiful!
France may be different. In America, removing the Mona Lisa from the Louvre would be seen as cutting in to the museum's bottom line too much, Why draw thousands when you can draw millions? A pavilion of its own with a separate admission might help make it up, numbers wold need to be crunched.
Yes, I believe French are different.
2
I remember going to the Louvre in the January circa 2005 with a friend and art history student. She had a bucket list of works to admire and tell me about, but even at 10:ish on a weekday morning in January there was a crowd of 80 or straining against the velvet ropes to glimpse and photograph the Mona Lisa from ten feet away. We hardly slowed as we hurried past.
I've been there a couple of times (before the deluge) and took my son to see it. The room was crowded as in these photos so I hung back. We spent the rest of the day in the rest of the museum. My son was most interested in the Hammurabi stele and other antiquities. But we saw a lot of other paintings and statues too. About six months later my then 13 year old was with me at a dinner party and one of the college age women there, an artist, held back from showing him a rather detailed female nude she had drawn. "It doesn't matter," my son said haughtily. "I've seen all there is to see. I've been to the Louvre."
4
All the Louvre needs to do is tell everyone it isn’t that great a painting. They’ll stop coming.
2
I remember visiting the Louvre in 1970, seeing the Mona Lisa, and being much more impressed with several other paintings in the same room. Wish I could remember what they were! One image I retain is of a man's head in profile, a fascinating face.
How do you know "most of them" leave unhappy? An art critic should be thrilled that the Mona Lisa has the ability to pull millions of people into an art museum that wouldn't otherwise come. And every single one of them, perhaps only briefly, looks at something else maybe the Lacemaker or the Astronomer, but certainly Venus de Milo. There are things to criticize about the Louvre, including the many paintings that seems to primarily fit the bill of being large, French and about 200 years old, but the Mona Lisa is not one of them.
3
Why are people permitted to take pics of any painting? When I visited the Louvre, pre-cellphone days some 30 yrs ago, I was able to stand right in front of all the paintings for several minutes. I was surprised at how small this painting is but will always remember her beguiling stare.
3
I've seen it twice. Not impressed and actually find it drab and uninspired and uninspiring, even knowing quite a lot about art history.
As just one of many, many paintings that are worth traveling for are those in the Doge's Palace in Venice. Or almost anything at that other Paris hot-spot, the Musée d'Orsay.
1
Seeing the Mona Lisa was one of the most underwhelming experiences of my life.
2
Tourism has taken the joy out of seeing the sights. The Mona Lisa is just a very concise singular example of what throngs of people with cell phones and selfie-sticks do to a sight that was once beautiful or interesting. On a recent trip to Italy I bi-passed the usual places and things, those that have been made no longer interesting by what I call the "Rick Steves effect." Instead I went to two locations (which I won't name here) each for about a week that were simply lovely Italian towns. Nice people, great food, beautiful sights and... almost no tourists. Most of Italy and western Europe, for that matter, is part of a huge outdoor museum, and it's all so much more interesting without thousands of other American, European and Asian tourists all taking pictures of the same thing.. Psst, if you Google it you can get those same pictures without going anywhere and of course you won't have to pay the airfare. Buy Photoshop and you can insert yourself into those same pictures. No one will know the difference.
2
I’ll add that Facebook, Instagram, and travel blogs have ruined tourism. It’s all about vanity pics and bragging instead of enjoyment at seeing new sites.
4
Perhaps fifteen years ago, in December, I visited at night, which I believe was rarely possible then. I had Mona Lisa all to myself in breathtaking silence for at least ten minutes before another visitor arrived. I was alone longer with Venus, Winged Victory and many of the rest of the works I most love. Dragging myself away from each when no one was distracting me with conversation or even footsteps was a herculean task. The entire museum was nearly empty of people. The best evening of my life? No, but I would not much mind if that were the case.
1
I started reading this article in a super-critical mode but find myself agreeing with Farago's suggestions. There is no hazard but optimizing accessibility is surely a good idea.
If I remember correctly, next to the ML room are amazing frescoes from Botticelli that surreptitiously impress themselves on ML hounds as they exit the room. It is Botticcelli , more than even Leonardo, who epitomizes the grace, beauty and eternal mystery that arise from the archetypal feminine.
3
Well, like every tourist, I had my Mona Lisa selfie moment.
No harm done.
But I’ve always been fascinated by the Trojan War, so I mapped out every Trojan painting I planned to see in the Louvre.
I said hi to Mona, then spent the day with my Trojans!
3
I will always remember the kindness of the museum guards. My husband was blind, navigated with a white came, but wore eye glasses because he could actually see shadows with one eye. We never spoke with the guards but as my husband moved forward in the line, the guards stopped everyone and brought my husband closer to the painting. They allowed him a few moments to look and the line resumed. He loved telling everyone that he "saw" the Mona Lisa".
10
Gosh! I thought it was crowded, in 1970, when there were about five people there. That's a nice experience. No way I would suffer the described torture.
2
Is there a handy list of the top ten " bucket list" sites -- because I don't want to visit any of them. The Alhambra in Spain was serene when I visited 40 years ago and now it's necessary to shuffle through the palace in a continuous line. Manchu Picchu -- more lines, more crowds. I've heard that Florence and Venice are as magical as a trip to DisneyWorld with an irritable 4 year old. But on the other hand, maybe it's best if the pack flocks to the top ten so some paths remain less trodden
4
@Susehahna
Visiting these places is less meaningful unless one studies their history and understands a bit about the culture, religion etc. An irritable American 4 year old surely prefers the Disney world, unless he/she is with parents who know something about the Renaissance, love Italian food and culture, and know how to navigate its downsides. Otherwise, it's pretty colors, crowds and aggravation.
1
My visit to the Mona Lisa was about the hordes taking selfies in front of the Mona Lisa. I agree that it would better serve all to be in it's own space.
5
Another fun solution would be to multiply high resolution copies of the painting with a true copy quality (easy to produce with contemporary techniques and especially because the actual painting is behind glass) and distribute these in the Louvre galleries and not specifying which one is the original...
4
I am so relieved that everyone should be so enlightened as to intuit the way I should engage with paintings. And which paintings I will find worth engaging.
The best part of my compensation for teaching in France was a card that allowed special entry into the Louvre through a separate entrance. I would pop in (no lines!) for an hour or less. It was such a pleasure. Even with this special privilege, I never bothered to see the Mona Lisa. There are so many incredible works of art that few people see.
9
@LL
I did go see the Mona Lisa once, years ago (it was, for some reason, me, and about 100 Japanese tourists - think it was a tour or something.) there is something unique about it, but as you say, the Louvre is filled with so many other treasures that battling what are apparently massive crowds today wouldn't seem worth it.
I remember, for instance, turning this corner and coming upon the Winged Victory of Samothrace. There was so much power coming off that thing that it literally stopped me in my tracks.
The Louvre is well worth visiting for a day. Or a week. Or the month it would take to fully appreciate it. But not for the Mona Lisa.
I remember this old cartoon, two elderly women from the midwest visiting the coast for the first time, standing on the beach, looking at the Pacific ocean. One saying to the other "funny, I thought it would be bigger." I somehow had the same feeling when I saw the Mona Lisa.
4
I saw the Mona Lisa in 66 before it had been vandalised and had protective glass. I stood right in front of the painting for a good five minutes. No crowds. It was moving and beautiful but it wasn’t soul searing.
Page forward in my life to 1992 when the mighty and amazing Circa 1492 Exhibition was at the National Gallery in DC. There I saw the Vitruvian Man. I was amazingly alone in the room where it hung and I stood no more than a foot away from the surprising small piece for a few minutes.
I felt like I was in the presence of and gazing into the face of the Divine. No other work of art has ever moved me so much save for the Studies for the Libyan Sibyl by my favourite artist Michelangelo di Lodovico Buonarroti Simoni.
4
It's not that this painting isn't spectacular. It is. But it's impossible to experience it properly, and has been for over 40 years. As a 20 year-old, I visited the Louvre in 1976, and, of course, made the obligatory visit--I should have photo somewhere. Even then, it was in a glass box, roped off to keep you from getting close enough to really experience it.
Many paintings in the Louvre galleries were impossible to actually see, like the giant 30'x20' David "Coronation of Napoleon" where the natural light was SO bad there were no place to stand were you could actually see the whole thing--Glare was everywhere.
But in 1992, the National Gallery's East Wing had a "snapshot" of the world in 1492, their own "Genevra Di Benci" and the borrowed "Lady With An Ermine", both spectacular Da Vincis, both perfectly displayed, and all the power of his genius came through.
Earlier, they had a show of American painting up to 1900. The climax were Eakins' "The Gross Clinic" and "Whistler's Mother", or, more properly and appropriately named: "Arrangement in Black and Gray: The Painter's Mother".
What stunned me was that Whistler's masterpiece really IS "Arrangement in Black and Gray" and that it was his mother is almost incidental!
It was how both were displayed the conveyed, again, their genius. And that brings me back to, unfortunately, agreeing with the author. It's impossible to view properly unless you have special permission and access.
2
This take is so overwrought it is ridiculous. I was there a few days ago. It’s an attraction. It’s a bit of a circus. So what. It pulls millions into the greatest collection of art and artifacts in the world. They pay to support and enhance that collection. Fair trade, in my opinion.
5
The Mona Lisa is no longer about the art, it's the celebrity of having one's picture taken with it. If it were, Lisa would have a bevy of worthy opponents.
3
My only visit to the Louvre was in June 1974, when I was 12. The Mona Lisa was on tour in Japan at the time. Even then, when I got back to school in Edinburgh -- school year ended in late June -- my teacher asked me if I had seen the Mona Lisa! Nope. But I saw Eugene Delacroix's 1824 painting "Orphan Girl at the Cemetery" -- today, the only thing I can remember about the visit. It was a thrill! (I first encountered that painting in a fine arts book for kids received a few years earlier for Xmas.) No interest in returning for the Mona Lisa. Agree w/ the idea of a separate pavilion for it.
1
A webcam pointed at the crowd would be a great watch. I imagine it looking like a Hieronymus Bosch come to life.
18
It is an amazing experience in person. Maybe in a smaller room with less people...but really, it's a hologram! If you are 20 feet away, you discover that it is a 3-D painting! Truly amazing and worth seeing.
3
I once saw it... Clark and Ellen Griswold at the Grand Canyon.
1
This is a great article that describes the situation so well. A few years ago we visited the Louvre on a wet, cold, January day close to opening and rushed to the ML before the major crowds. It was indeed disappointing, at best an OK portrait. Later that gallery became a mob scene while other galleries elsewhere were virtually deserted, some had loose windows that allowed in the wind and rain. But it's not possible to visit Paris the first time and not see the ML. On our most recent visit a few weeks ago, we skipped the Louvre altogether.
2
It should be suspended from atop the Eiffel tower by a network of elaborately placed silk cables, and lit up at night by a bright display of tri color French pyrotechnic beams that reflect across the seine, the champs elysees, and the rue rovoli. The horde of tourists will gaze up in awe.
4
I will never forget being in Paris at the age of ten with my family. My late father, a curator at the Met, had managed to interest me in the arts already, and I had the joy of being able to wander around the Met like it was my living room.
I was with my mother at the Louvre, and we, of course, made the Mona Lisa pilgrimage. Not too crowded back then. Two fancy dressed armed guards flanked the heavily encased in reflective glass masterwork. I gazed upon Mona, looked up at my mum and said in my loud 10 year old American voice, “Mommy, what’s so great about this picture?”
The two guards swiveled their gazes to us in unison, with sneers that meant they knew plenty of English. Grabbing my hand, my mother hoarsely said as we left, “I’ll tell you later dear!” Happily, my father agreed with my assessment.
8
@Lulu I, too, have never been enamored with the Mona Lisa. To me, there are many other artworks that exceed it in various ways. One of my personal favorites is a Han dynasty pottery dog I spotted in a Zurich museum, sculpted in a very “cute”, but relatively simple style. What makes it so meaningful to me is that an artist in China, 2000 years ago, captured the essence of a dog’s eager, loving gaze in a way that plucks at my heartstrings now. From the piece, it’s clear the artist truly loved dogs the way I do — a connection between two people separated by half a planet and thousands of years. The Mona Lisa doesn’t have that effect on me.
3
Oh my gosh, you reminded me of a visit to The Tower of London in about 1997. We were in the armor room and had just seen one of King Henry VIII's suits. I was looking at John of Gaunt's across from it, though, when a little girl asked her mother in a voice as clear as a bell, "what's that?" To which her mother asked "what's what?", with trepidation. "That thing in the middew", she said. I held my breath as I waited to see what mum would say, because I knew EXACTLY what she was pointing to. "Oh, that's for his willie, haha". I about fell out, lol, but brava mum!
Those whose only goal is to get a snapshot of or A selfie with Mona Lisa probably wouldn’t really know if they were capturing the authentic painting or a digitally created poster. When I visited in 2016, I couldn’t even see the frame for the crowd and cellphone photographers.
7
I visit Paris every year for almost a month. And the Louvre is a favorite place of mine. But NOT the Mona Lisa. You know why instantly when you look at the picture of the crowds. There are many many magnificant paintings in the Louvre. Some will take your breath away. I have my favorites. I tell my friends to avoid the Mona Lisa. Sadly the other thing I tell my friends to avoid like the plague is Versailles. If you go in summer, forget it. It is packed to the rafters with tourists. Buy a book on it instead. Know where I tel them to visit instead? Vaux le Vicomte and Fountainbleu.
1
The Prado banned photography and is managing the times when groups come to give tours. It is a much better experience to go see "Las Meninas" than it was before their reforms. People are looking at the painting, not at their phones or their cameras in selfie mode.
11
This is Europe now. At least the great centers of culture and art. Even the "skip the line" "nighttime" tours that are touted at great cost to "beat the crowds" are a nightmare of shoulder to shoulder misery. At the Vatican Museums we paid dearly for what was supposed to be a late in the day, after hours tour of the great rooms and the Sistine Chapel It was more akin to being packed into a sardine can. The sweat was pouring off us and people literally fainted in the room with Raphael's School of Athens. I do not begrudge people the right and desire to see these things...in fact I admire the fact that people travel great distances to be one with history's great monuments. But something has to give. It is clear that travel has reached the masses and is no longer a thing limited to those with the means and the time. My advice...go to Italy or Paris or Athens in the dead of winter. Better yet...go to places that are no longer drawing huge crowds like Cairo.
6
we should open this topic with the possibility that the painting on public display in the louvre is not the original mona lisa but a copy, with the genuine and invaluable item sequestered from flash cameras and flash mobs in a dark, cool vault.
i last saw the work in 1973, when i recall it hung to one side of the long south gallery; the armored glass was visibly thick but the clot of tourists around it was not. in subsequent visits i've avoided it as a dispensable encounter with banality.
all the mona lisa demonstrates today is the effectiveness of mass media to turn human into a herd animal, dutiful and cognitively monocultured, convinced of truth but always a little confused about where to find the restroom.
and commerce. who can forget commerce? the "world's most disappointing attraction" does not disappoint when it comes to grinding out the daily trade in souvenir mugs, adulatory art books and the shuffle of docile, nugatory lives through the turnstiles of obligatory tourist experience.
3
Why would they take it down? By most accounts museums and arts organizations struggle with attracting enough paying customers. Put the "bucket list spectacles" in a room where the casual tourist can pay to enter, take their selfies, then exit, without disturbing those who wish to appreciate the rest of the collection in peace!
I will add my voice of agreement with those posters who advocate banning photography and selfies in our museums. To my mind, this marked the moment when things began to go haywire in our museums. But I would disagree that the Mona Lisa should be taken down as the author opines. This is not where the problem lies, but rather the behavior of visitors. The Mona Lisa is a wonderful painting for reasons long determined. It should be moved somewhere else, and the Louvre should stagger the number of visitors who view it (and I mean "view," not photograph) at any given time. The accompanying photograph to this article is a horrific and dangerous scene, where a stampede could erupt at any given moment. The museum must take control of how its artwork is accessed, must take control of itself as a place where visitors interact with the space in a respectful manner and does not create conditions where the artwork, as well as visitors, are not placed in danger and where the artwork is no longer appreciated as it should.
13
In the new MOMA, which I just visited 2 weeks ago, Van Gogh’s “Starry Night” is starting to suffer a similar fate. They have jammed it into a corner (as a review in this paper pointed out) and placed a guard in front of it. Some 100 folks were clustered around taking a shot of it (and the guard), while I took a nice long look all by myself at Rousseau’s marvelous “Sleeping Gypsy” right next to it. Of course, I can do that, because I’ve had the privilege of visiting Van Gogh’s painting at quieter times. I don’t begrudge those who want to take a picture, for whatever reason, but museums that hold these prestige objects do need to figure it out. And you have to give the Louvre credit for trying.
4
The Mona Lisa. Ahhhh, it made me lose my breath.
The crowds melted away as I took in the visage then let me eyes wander to what is the most beautiful part of the painting -- the background behind her. The colors. the ethereal beauty. Breathtaking.
I have been to Paris six times, and visited Mona each time. And each the experience was amazing as the first.
2
You must really love it to put up with that absolutely hellish looking scene.
Years ago I visited the Louvre and made my obligatory pilgrimage to ogle the Mona Lisa. The room was crowded and frenzied, and as I stood there I felt nothing for that picture. Then I remembered the great John Berger book, Ways of Seeing, and the lesson that we must first look at art without regard for the opinions of others. "Okay", I thought, "The Mona Lisa is kind of a dud." I peeled off from the crowd and several galleries away I discovered La belle ferronniere, also by DaVinci. It is a knock out; better than the Mona Lisa and with a color palette that is much more saturated. And best of all, I had it all to myself.
1
I was nine years old and my mother made (forced) my brother and me go to the Met to see the famous painting. We queued up for hours. It was cold. Mrs. Kennedy had asked the French government to loan the painting so from December 1962 to March 1963 it was in NYC and Washington DC. The Mona Lisa was shipped on the new ocean liner SS France. In New York and at the Met an estimated 1.7 million people viewed it. I was one of them. I remember the moment. We were rushed by the work; I was shocked. It looked like a postage stamp. I expected that it would be huge. Yikes. Fortunately I spent time in Paris much later and when no one bothered to visit the lovely work. It is a mystery. But I agree. It's time to give this work relief. If you looks closely the Mona Lisa never wanted or asked for this level of attention. Mysteries don't breed like flies. This painting is a "loner" and deserves respect.
GN
3
I love the idea of giving the painting its own pavilion but as still part of the Louvre. And a moving sidewalk also seems like a good idea at peak times. I have seen the painting in situ in Paris some years ago and I recall seeing it in the Metropolitan many decades ago . It is tiny and dark and a moment at least of quiet close up contemplation is needed.
I was more frustrated in Amsterdam at the Van Gogh museum by the crowds . It was impossible to see anything. I was also herded through the Sistine Chapel very fast one summer. I don't have a solution. Other people want to see these things that the writer and so many of us have seen. But I agree the present cattle chutes are just awful. People do not need to take pictures with their phone though. A halt should be called to that and see if it cuts off some of those who are just not that interested in the art itself.
1
I and Mona were alone one rainy day -
for about five minutes.
Then a deluge of Japanese Package tourists showed up
and spent the obligatory 3 minutes looking at her while
blocking my view.
Then they moved on to allow another package tour
their three minutes, who, also, obligingly, blocked my view.
To be a Custodian for the Louvre for a year...
3
In 1977 I had the privilege of seeing the Mona Lisa before the Louvre opened for the day, courtesy of a curator who hosted me for a week.
No security. No other patrons. Just me.
OK, I was disappointed in the size. But I was thrilled with the work otherwise. Yes, the eyes do follow you. I remember that viewing to this day.
Years later I took my family to the Louvre and we did our best to see the Mona Lisa through the crowd. If you are patient, or tall, you can still enjoy it. But it is not an easy task.
Taking it away from viewing is unthinkable. It is the suggestion of someone who wants attention.
1
Turn around a see a fabulous painting by Veronese.... bigger and better! The dude in front seems to be examining the wine-turned-to-water with a very French critical eye.
2
A similarly bad experience can be had at the Sistine Chapel. It is really not worth going there with another 1000 very noisy tourists trying to take photos. That is all I remember. Nasty.
Best to go only to the "B" tourist attractions now!
I would argue that it's already no longer possible to "see" the Mona Lisa since one now has to view it through a protective glass barrier. Do you really "see" it if there's anything other than just air between you and it? When I saw it (mumble) years ago in the Louvre, I friend and I were the only ones in the room for as long as we were there. Did it change my life? Naah.
1
Also: ban selfies in all art museums.
12
I can say pretty much the same thing for the Sistine Chapel.
What a fiasco to get a glimpse of that.
1
Standing in line to see the Mona Lisa this summer was one of the dumbest things I've ever done. I thought, there's a lot of people in that line; we better get in it. And it was hot. And we waited, and waited, and went up the escalator and waited, and kids were hot and tired, but we turned corners and went up more escalators, and waited and waited, and then turned into the noise room where we moved slowly but surely, closer and closer, and then CLAP CLAP CLAP as groups who had seen it were shooed out of the gallery, and there in the distance was the painting. When they got their turn people could approach it, but it was too far away to really see, and upon entering they ran toward it, turned around, and took selfies. I was so disgusted both that the painting was so far away to see, and with others in the gallery who did not seem to want to see it at all, that as soon as my turn came, I left.
But I loved taking some photos in the rest of the Louvre. Because it was overwhelming, mostly I took photos of dogs. I cherished seeing the paintings and the photos remind me of how close I was to beauty.
1
Social media has lowered a piece of art to the stature of a backdrop for the hoi polloi. Being in that room with them is a spectacle I relish, a veritable jour de la sauterelle.
2
Jay Z and Beyoncé didn’t seem to have a problem getting in to see the Mona Lisa. Perhaps we could just ask to do what they did.
3
Please move it! Please! The Louvre is overwhelmed with bucket-list tourists that don’t care about art and don’t belong there. Move the lemmings to another building please!
6
Farago is a Times art critic--an estimable position.
But you have to think pretty highly of yourself to decide the Mona Lisa is mediocre, and then recommend it be moved based on that.
Even worse is the complaint that the current location is bad for selfies.
This complaint combination is both arrogant and childish.
2
Totally agree!
1
Amen! Right on!
Mona Lisa is akin to the Kardashian Jenner courtesan clan of the art world. Famous for being infamously degenerate.
2
The only true highest honor to anything graphic these days is as a default Microsoft screen saver. Nice try Leonardo. Sorry suckers stuck in long queues at the Louvre.
The Louvre, IMHO, is grossly overrated. Just skip it altogether. I am spoiled by the NY Metropolitan Museum which is filled with light and has beautiful art wherever you go, and without the dark staircases of the Louvre.
I have an idea: Ban all photo taking inside the Mona Lisa exhibit. Then maybe that would weed out all those who really don't care about seeing the beauty and awe of this great work and only want the Instragram moment. If they want a photo, they can purchase one at the Gift Shop.
3
I've never been impressed with the Mona Lisa. The Louvre has many other da Vinci's that make the ML look shabby. I don't understand the anti-reflective glass since all photography is banned in the Louvre. When I want to see the high traffic exhibit spaces, I go in the slack periods (I won't tell you, you have to figure it out for yourselves.) Most of the time I wander almost alone though the magnificent painting that are not in Rick Steves' tour book (Thank God).
I guess this critic gets paid to be negative.
I totally agree. I have also never experienced the high crowds at this viewing. The Mona Lisa is an underwhelming portrait.
I prefer his lesser known works or his multitude of prescient inventions.
I saw the Mona Lisa as a child in Paris in 1953. I've been to most of the great museums. My favorite by far, is the Van Gogh in Amsterdam. Easy to move around and of course the paintings...some of them are almost lifelike! Tremendous. And the Cafeteria is better than most restaurants in Amsterdam!
Why the fuss?
It’s an uninteresting paining
Any art museum has more interesting art
Maybe they could make it a traveling exhibit. Move it among provincial French cities which could use more tourist trade. The revenues could be split between the Louvre and the host city.
5
The selfie takers have ruined the museum experience in Paris. I have visited Paris and the Louvre many times over the decades but on my most recent visit two summers ago, I was astounded by the amount of people that could have cared less about appreciating the art, and just wanted to take a selfie with it. In some cases, people had friends take pictures of them in various poses -like a fashion shoot- entirely blocking the art that other people were trying to view. And Versailles was just as bad. Complete waste of a train ticket and time. Hordes of people, hours in line, even with a ticket purchased in advance, selfie mania, and the fountains are only on for short increments of time, and only a few. Far better to explore the smaller chateaus in the Loire Valley. Off season is the only way to go now.
10
A moving sidewalk best idea! When Michelangelo's Pietà was exhibited at The Worlds's Fair in Queens in the 1960s visitors viewed it via a moving sidewalk. I was in elementary school and I still remember slowly moving past that beautiful work of art. Beautiful marble surrounded by blue, as I recall. Took you breath away. And everyone had more than enough time to get a good, long view. Years later when I visited the Pietà again at St. Peter's Basilica, it was not nearly as pleasant an experience...
The Mona Lisa was also a great disappointment - put the tourists on a single lane moving sidewalk close enough to actually see the painting, but moving everyone along at a steady pace...
15
Buy postcards or art books. Reproductions are far better now than they used to be back in the 1950's (in France, at the time, Skira was the only editor of art books with good reproductions; their books were expensive though).
1
The greater the population, the greater the compromise, the greater suffering for all.
5
I was there 10 years ago; even then the crowds were huge. I got relatively close, but the crowds were pushing and shoving, one short woman actually ducked under my arm (between my elbow and armpit, as it was raised while I was trying to grab a quick photo) to stand in front of me.
I was in Rome 2 years ago. Same thing for the Sistine Chapel. Frustrating.
Fortunately I love art, so I've been to all the other major museums in Paris, as well as many other cities in US and Europe.
1
"The Sheikh Zayed Mona Lisa Pavilion: it has a ring to it, n’est-ce pas?"
OK, I lol'd. But really, I'm all for leaving it as is. The Louvre sells a ton of tickets because of that painting. I can go there and take in the rest of their vast treasure trove of art - which the ticket sales help to maintain - without having to visit that cursed room.
1
The Instagram-ization of travel has resulted in huge, Lemming-like crowds swarming everywhere that's famous, It's the reason I've mostly stopped traveling to major cities like Paris or New York. I first saw the Mona Lisa in 1971, and that day there were maybe 5-10 people milling around in front of her. The painting was hung in or near a passageway, and we just naturally all kept moving to the next room; there wasn't a lot of lingering. But even so I got to spend more than a few seconds with her, looking from a few feet away at those all-knowing eyes and mesmerizing smile. It was wonderful for many reasons. Now it sounds like a nightmare about overpopulation.
3
Quick solution Dear Art Lovers: go instead of Louvre to El Prado Museum in Madrid, it really houses the greatest collection of art anywhere in Europe, including the recently discovered El Prado Mona Lisa, a copy of the original one painted simultaneously in the studio of Leonardo by one of his students and under his supervision, the painting is much better preserved that the one in The Louvre and no zoo surrounds the masterpiece.
3
I saw the Mona Lisa when the painting came to the States in 1963, and, much later, at the Louvre in 1986. Neither time did the work thrill me, beyond the pleasure that comes with viewing a historic artifact.
The Crown Jewels in the Tower of London solved the problem by putting visitors on a conveyor belt that rides them past the exhibit.
Or maybe an essay contest, with those judged to be most deserving get a peek.
4
Perhaps the painting should be left exactly where it is, not because it is a masterwork of renaissance art (it's not) but because it's a testament to the commodification of art. The painting itself was on display for over 60 years before some french art critics took serious notice of it, and it wasn't until the painting was stolen in 1911 and recovered in 1913 when the painting gained world-wide fame--not because of its aesthetic qualities, but because of the numerous stories in the press about the theft and the efforts to find the missing work. Yes, it is the work of a truly great renaissance mind, which holds some historic value, but that's really it.
The feeding frenzy of tourists taking photos of the Mona Lisa is absolutely perfect: a testament to how people can value something solely because it has gained fame. Surely that sort of undeserving idolatry should be allowed, as a testament to our times; the long lines and numerous inconveniences of it all only serve to reinforce that cultural message.
10
By all means go to the Louvre. It's vast. Schedule two or three days at least to see it as you won't even begin to scratch the surface in one day. From Wikipedia:
"The collection is divided among eight curatorial departments: Egyptian Antiquities; Near Eastern Antiquities; Greek, Etruscan and Roman Antiquities; Islamic Art; Sculpture; Decorative Arts; Paintings; Prints and Drawings."
If at least some of that doesn't interest you then you should go to Euro-Disney.
If you stay away from the jostling, depressing scrum around the Mona Lisa and the Venus de Milo you'll find plenty to see, of which the majority can be viewed without crowding or noise. Most of the folks who want selfies with the Mona Lisa want just that and nothing more and leave the place as soon as they're done.
4
I do think the author is on to something. Why not put it in its own secure, heavily-guarded exhibit in one of the least popular sections of Paris, like the Gare du Nord? Making people work to get to it would also be an economic boost for Paris and the surrounding neighborhood. It's a shame that all the attention the Mona Lisa gets draws attention from the brilliance of the other artworks at the Louvre. It should be accessible, but completely separate from the Louvre.
4
The Mona Lisa and the top of the Eiffel Tower are the two most disappointing tourist attractions in Paris.
1
I completely agree. I was so upset to not get anywhere near it when we visited. Someone surely could figure out how to show her better.
3
I’ve seen the Mona Lisa it’s worth seeing for sure but maybe if the museum would do it on a lottery basis and the room was not jammed packed with people like sardines it would be a more enjoyable experience.
1
I don't think banning photography is the way to go as a lot of comments have suggested. There is an educational and practical purpose to recording such paintings for future studying. What the museum needs to implement is a reservation system to keep room capacity to a minimum. A lot of exhibitions throughout the world have this system in place for this very reason.
1
Feels a bit condescending on Mr Farago's part. "...the Kim Kardashian of 16th-century Italian portraiture: the handsome but only moderately interesting...." While the Mona Lisa may not Mr Farago's taste, to be alone with the painting brings out its appeal. Twenty five years ago it was getting close to closing time and I was alone with the Mona Lisa for almost 10 minutes. There was something quite special about the painting and especially her smile, as "Kardashian" as that might sound to Mr Farago.
3
@PS I've seen her 6 times. First 5 times, I was able to stand and watch her. It's not the smile that kills you -- it's the fact that she actually does follow you with her eyes.
This article is a drive-by shooting, smug and disrespectful of a magnificent artifact. Mona Lisa is not all hype. That it's mobbed is due to logistics and the need to pay for upkeep to 100 other museums.
Go to Krakow and see “Lady With An Ermine.” Quiet, reverent, simple, lovely, no crowds. Just art in all its beauty and transcendence.
26
@John Ramey I saw the Lady with an Ermine in SF. It is my all time favorite painting. If you have the chance, watch “the Rape of Europa “, an excellent documentary. You can see the American soldiers finding the painting in the Nazi cave after the war. Chilling.
1
@John Ramey Plus, Krakow itself is a beauty: fantastic public and green spaces, great buildings.Cities like Paris and London have become too big and crowded to really enjoy.
Take her down and put her away. I visited Paris this past July. Waited for hours in excruciating long lines at the llouvre only to be shoved aside by a group of extremely aggressive, rude tourist with cameras. Security guards gave a us seconds to get photos and then required us to move along to let the next group get their turn. I wish I could have had a moment to enjoy her. Oh well. Will not go back. The other painting by Élisabeth Vigée Le Brun I wanted to see and enjoy had been moved because of remodeling and no one could tell me where to find her. Disappointing trip to the llouvre. musee d'orsay was more enjoyable. Will visit there again and again.
During the mid-80s I visited the Mona Lisa after work one day with a co-worker. The Louvre was closing soon so there were not many people. I remember thinking how much more majestic the painting was then looking at a picture of it in a book.
I still remember feeling small standing by it - to the point I have to remember it was not a large painting. This is what I hope everyone has time to reflect upon when viewing great works of art. There’s no selfie as good as that memory.
2
All they need to do is build a stadium-style room with a series of elevated aisles that allow thousands to walk past it slowly, without fighting each other. BTW there are two or three other Leonardos in the hallway outside, that no one seems to notice. People walk right past them.
3
I have felt that the Mona Lisa needed its own room for ages and am highly disappointed that the curators of the museum haven't done this. When I have been in the room I just wanted to see the beautiful Veroneses and Titian paintings peacefully but you can't because of the massive crowd that just wants it's own portrait via cellphone in front of the Mona Lisa. What a shame that true art lovers are losing out to the Instagram crowd.
4
Great article, couldn't agree more. Or maybe they should take her to Dubai.
3
I thought that for taxes purposes they would hide the original and show an exact copy of it....
3
couldn't care less about the Mona Lisa . .but the Napoleon III Apartments was stunning
When I read the first paragraph aloud, my husband and I, simultaneously and sheepishly, said "I think I agree."
2
The image of the Mona Lisa is so overexposed that you don't need to bother seeing the actual painting.
Last time we went to the Louvre, we didn't bother.....
1
I’ve thought for years that this painting should be in an exterior gallery accessed from the street (NOT from the interior of the museum.) Give it a separate admission ticket. And while you’re at it, include the Venus de Milo and the Winged Victory of Samothrace Do that and you will get rid of fifty percent of the traffic: pushing, shoving instagram trophy seekers whose presence has truly poisoned the lovely Italian galleries (and who do not realize that Leonardo’s John the Baptist is a much better painting.)
3
Having had the privelage to see the Mona Lisa some years ago -I really don't see that some New Nork elitist art 'critic' should dictate the chances of my children seeing such a masterpeice-albeit under less than ideal conditions. The man is Farago by name and obviously the plan a Farago by nature.
We arrived at the Louvre this summer on the very first day that the Mona Lisa was exhibited in her new home. It was utter chaos. The escalators were broken; thousands of people were queued up on the floor below, up the escalators and then around to the Disney-esque back and forth queue. There was pushing and shoving. The heat in the gallery was insufferable. There was a real risk of trampling or fighting. The guards appeared to be wholly inequipped to address it. Something needs to be done before someone gets seriously hurt.
4
I think Leo DiCaprio has done much better work in film.
Now that I’ve seen it, I agree.
I completely disagree with the premise of this column. Why would a work of art be analyzed in such a silly and meaningless manner?
My experience seeing the “Mona Lisa” at the Louvre does not match up in any way with what’s written.
Or perhaps they could “make it bigger” as my young son suggested after viewing the Mona Lisa.
18
So totally true. I am an ardent Francophone, renting an apt. in Paris for several weeks every year. And I'm a serious art-junkie. But the Louvre-which I've visited a number of times-is far from my favorite, and I haven't been there in over a dozen years. There are so many other amazing musees in Paris and its environs with incredible collections and special exhibits; seeing the Mona a few times is more than enough. I cannot stand the idiiotic morons and their selfies at any museum-we have them blighting museums in NYC, where I live. The author is on to something with this Mona Lisa "Pavillion". It would make visiting the Louvre what it should be: a palace housing some of the most astounding works of art, meant for those who truly care about something other than their Instagram accounts.
5
It is just the worst lemming-like behavior. Do we really need to "see" everything with our own eyeballs to be satisfied? Honestly, it's just chemical-neural activity. This whole Intagram-obsessed "see me seeing something" is mind-numbingly boring, and ultimately, utterly worthless.
13
You could skip the trip to Europe altogether and head to Washington's National Gallery to drink in the one Da Vinci oil that resides in America. It's the lovely portrait of Ginevra de' Benci. Check it out at https://www.nga.gov/collection/highlights/da-vinci-ginevra-de-benci.html
3
Finally somebody had the courage to write something about this totally overrated "oily ham"of a canvas........Ein Öhlschinken"......Put it in cold storage.......I truly enjoyed reading this article and finally being able to comment on it........Thank you NYT
2
Are they trying to take selfies with the Mona Lisa?
3
Yes. Yes, yes, yes.
3
Agreed.
1
I know the Louvre; have been in and out of it about 30 times in the past 40 years. This article is a bit of a travesty.
O Leonardo, how unproductive you were!
And who cares about you. O why do they keep hanging La Gioconda for the unwashed, who can't see it anyway.
Answer: if you were the owner of the Louvre, you'd do the same, for the same reasons. It's the national gallery of France and its mandate is to showcase the most celebrated collection in the world.. for the informed and the uninformed.
3
First of all , as a Parisian, I found this article full of cliché, very anti-French and very condescending ("Mbappe, Carla Bruni, Macarons, Louis Vuitton), apparently being in France is not enough for that journalist to pass beyond cliché... He misses one key point: he says that Mona Lisa is preventing art education, he couldn't be more wrong: people are preventing themselves from getting an art education when they go to the Louvres to take pict but not enjoy the moment. I go to the Louvre every wednesday and friday evenings: not a lot of people at the Mona Lisa around that time. Also, he is suggesting to "build a pavilion in the tuileries": is he serious? this is bad journalism, you don't just build a new building in the middle of Tuileries Garden to accommodate tourists, his suggestion is ridiculous. And most importantly: who is he to tell millions of people that seeing the Mona Lisa is not worth it, now that he has seen it of course... , and because he is unhappy with people waiting in line to see a small painting, he is suggesting that the Louvre should remove it: i'm glad there is a journalist of the Nytimes to tell people what is best for them, I wouldn't wait in line to see the Joconde, but I would never recommend to the Louvre to remove it.
5
@odette
Je vous remercie chaleureusement.
(They aren't deliberately being condescending, they honestly don't know better. "Multiculturalism" is just a cliche, too.)
Ban all photography at museums, art galleries, churches, etc. Fine those caught taking pictures $1000. Any photograph taken with a phone can't be much better than available photos already available online. That will stop tourists who are only there to show others that they were there, which is idiotic. The Mona Lisa is only the worst example, but it's problematic everywhere.
4
Okay. I'll be that guy:
It's Leonardo, folks - not da Vinci. The man had no last name. The "da Vinci" part is not a patronymic. It refers to the Tuscan town of Vinci where Leonardo was born in a condition politely known as out-of-wedlock. In a world full of Leonardos, he was the Leonardo from Vinci.
https://emcphd.wordpress.com
4
how likely is it the critic would suggest removing the picture if he had not seen it yet........
Having paid call on La Gioconda several times in Paris and once in New York (1964) pleasantly, I stopped by to commune with her about ten years ago and found myself in Mona’s Mosh Pit as people pushed and pleaded for better angles to deplore their largely low quality cameras.
One might enjoy Iggy Pop in a mosh pit, but not a small, subtle, over-varnished masterwork.
3
I believe that in some cases museums should come up with other solutions that would allow people who just care for a photo, to take the photo with a facsimile. Real blockbuster paintings may be shown only by appointment, or perhaps even at higher admission price.
Many people just want to say they had been there, check it off their list. They can’t enjoy the art, they can’t tell what’s in front of them due to the massive visitation. and as a result, nobody can appreciate it either. The demand for the museum, and for the artifact, is enormous and all goes to waste.
If you need a quiet gallery to seriously focus on the art, go in the morning during the off-season (first two weeks of December and mid-January to mid-February) when the Instagram tourists are swarming Mallorca. There were maybe 20 people in the Mona Lisa gallery when I visited last December. At the Musee D'Orsay I ambled through the Impressionist galleries like it was the French countryside in July. Oh, the weather outside was frightful, but the art was still delightful.
The only place to avoid in the off-season are the gardens of Versailles. All of the sculptures were wrapped up for the winter and it looked like a sad Christo exhibit.
4
The Louvre could stop visitors from taking photos and selfies to reduce gallery numbers. Selfie takers are less interested in seeing the Mona Lisa than in being able to boast to their friends that they saw it.
You are not allowed to take photos of Picasso's Guernica in the gallery of the Reina Sofia in Madrid. Which means that if you visit in the morning the gallery where Guernica is situated is comparatively crowd-free.
The Mona Lisa is a great painting but I still prefer 'The Night Watch' by Rembrandt.
3
One is clearly in the realm of first-world problems if they can unironically describe visiting one of the most beautiful and beloved cities on the planet and standing in line for 30 minutes to see one of the world's most revered works of art as an "ordeal."
I did my first tour of European museums, art destinations, and other siteseeing destinations in the late 80s. The Mona Lisa was a big disappointment, as was the Sistine Chapel (though to a much lesser degree).
But fortunately there were many, many other treasures. Michelangelo's David had scaffolding around much of it at the time (cleaning maybe?) but was still breathtaking and awe inspiring.
I've been to the Louvre a few times since, and did not bother with the Mona Lisa. Way too many other things to see there.
1
A great idea to move the Mona Lisa. I've visited Paris twice in recent years and have yet to set foot inside the Louvre. I've always heard it was a hideous, soul crushing experience to deal with all of the tourists who want nothing else but to snap a selfie with a famous painting. This article did nothing to change my mind.
How about 100 fake Mona Lisa’s scattered (distributed) around museum with theme, guess which room has the real Mona Lisa?
Then. Rotate its location once a month
That would be more fun than standing in line for three hours.
53
That is a great idea!
4
I saw the Mona Lisa about 2 years ago. I was struck at the time by the frenzy of mobs of people to see (on a rainy week night) a smallish, ordinary portrait. Elsewhere in the same wing, there are magnificent, mural sized paintings employing a variety of themes: religious, landscapes, myths, all kinds of stuff. Why the obsession with the Mona Lisa? No logical reason. It’s just herd behavior.
1
A moving walkway combined with no photos makes the most sense.
2
I am an artist, a portraitist, and I assure you that high resolution imaging has reached the point where the untrained eye cannot tell a copy from the original, even viewed from close in.
Let me make the outrageous, but very twenty-first century suggestion that the Louvre create several Mona Lisa's, and place them around a number of strategically chosen sites around France. And don't reveal which of the Mona Lisa's is the original, and even further suggest that it is secretly rotated between locations.
Imagine: "Hey let's go -- Lyons has one of the Mona Lisa's!" Where's Waldo become where's Mona.
Good for reducing crowds. Good for tourism. Good for reducing energy-wasting travel. And, oh yes, also good for Leonardo. Don't tell me this Renaissance engineer would not love the idea.
27
OK, I have seen the Mona Lisa in Paris! I am not impressed. I really do not understand what is so great about this painting! There are other paintings in the Louvre, especially those by Monet, that are far, far better. Sorry, but the emperor has no clothes!
Can someone check my memory? I first visited the Louvre 50 years ago, long before the current mob scene developed. Have not been back for several decades. My memory is that the famed Mona Lisa was one of several paintings on the wall. In fact, I passed through the room several times before I spotted it, hidden in plain sight. How long has the painting been displayed by itself?
1
My family visits the Louvre during every trip to Paris. We saw the Mona Lisa a dozen years ago during our first trip - and yes, it was a "bucket list" item. Strip the provenance and mythology behind the painting and it could hang at the eight foot mark in the Uffizi in Florence and go unnoticed.
There is so much beautiful art everywhere in Paris that the seemingly eternal focus on this painting does the world no favours.
My grandmother, back in the 70s, went to Paris and, of course, the Louvre. All sorts of people asked her if she saw the Mona Lisa. Quite seriously, she answered, "I don't know, but I did see this lovely little painting with a beautiful chartreuse background.". That, for me, will remain the best description.
5
I visited Paris for the first time in 1984 and during my visits to the Louvre made it a point to see the Mona Lisa. Back then there were no crowds so I was able to see the painting from a short distance and clearly. Since I had never considered that painting to be Da Vinci's best, I was not disappointed when I was unimpressed. While so many of his works glow with brilliance, the Mona Lisa was rather dull. (Just want to add that when I rounded a corner during that visit and saw Winged Victory at the top of a staircase I almost fell down when my knees buckled at the beauty of that sculpture. I'll never forget that.)
1
Instead of a moving walkway for the viewers, why not put the painting on a track that roams the museum grounds?
Better yet, employ a "Where's Mona" theme and hide her in a random room every day, to encourage exploration of all the exhibits.
To deal with the security risk of either- deploy a fake. It's as good as the current view, anyway.
And yeah, as many suggested, no more pics. The gift shop prints are immensely better than what anyone can capture.
2
Ban photography, period, except for specially arranged opportunities.
And there must be some sort of tech magic that can disable smartphones in the gallery -- that might thin the crowds, who feel they cease to exist without them.
Guess I was lucky to have seen the Mona Lisa a very long time ago, and can sort of recall walking upstairs to the gallery, and in my memory, being met by the Winged Victory - and then the Mona Lisa. Trying to view anything through a school of tourists armed with selfie sticks is an exercise in total frustration. On a trip to the Baltic, we went on one of those St Petersburg side trips to the Hermitage, which was similar to the description of the piggish Mona Lisa crowds.
1
@cheryl
I went down in the basement of the Hermitage to view the stone tools. ( I am very interested in the Neolithic ). I was alone for hours. I did seek out the Impressionist paintings upstairs and it was really not crowded. I went in August about 9 years ago. it seems hard to believe but I think that this was long enough ago that cell phone cameras had not subsumed most other human interests.
1
I saw the Mona Lisa in March in a virtually empty gallery. It was sublime. By all means, tame or time the crowds...
3
Just 2 weeks ago, I had the distinct privilege to be among the first to view Lady Mona on the second day the gallery reopened to the public. Yes, it was crowded. No, it wasn’t a cattle chute. Maybe a minute to stand in front of this great uninsured masterpiece doesn’t seem long enough but it was fine for me.
3
I can remember when museums were "The Right Crowd and No Crowding." Well, all that has changed. Museums wanted more and more patrons and they got them. And while you're at it, try to view the Sistine Chapel.
Time-ticketed entrance to the gallery. It's not unheard of...That said...We had a similar experience at the Met Museum in NYC, as tourists ran from painting to painting, NOT looking at one of those paintings, but having friends snap selfies, as they left their over-active toddlers alone in an adjacent gallery. We reported them to a guard, who returned their children to their care. The experience of looking at favorite paintings was ruined for us and we have not returned since.
It isn't the work of art that's making people miserable. It's people.
Wait awhile beside any famous work of art in a museum, and watch what happens. Most people don't stop to look at the art. Instead, they photograph it with their telephones as they zip past.
The zoo scene in front of the Mona Lisa, with so many people vying for selfies, and so few actually interested in seeing the art, is not the fault of the Mona Lisa. Put the blame where it belongs - on us.
4
On the other hand, the Mona Lisa is obviously a cash cow for the Louvre--and one that the museum can't afford to give up, if 80 percent of the visitors were brought in by that painting.
2
We need a name for the kind of travel that is meant to impress friends back home. Few people go to see the Mona Lisa to appraise DaVinci’s work, most go to say they have seen her.
It is a pitiful and sheep-like way to travel. I wish more people would travel like Bourdain, No plans, no reservations and NO HULA DANCES! Go see the world and be human not livestock.
3
I first saw the Mona Lisa at the Louvre in 1988. There were about 10 people in the entire room with me and I was close enough that I could have reached out and touched it (which of course was strictly verbotten).
The last time I was at the Louvre, in 2011, I couldn't get anywhere near it and had no desire to look at a relatively small painting from 25 feet away anyways.
It is certainly a wondrous work of art, but so are many other of the Louvre masterpieces. Such a shame that it has become a tourist trap.
1
@Abruptly Biff Verbotten? Was this the German Louvre?
There are less drastic measures at hand. As has been said, ban photography -- that alone will filter many, especially the overcrowding. A second measure, put a high quality much enlarged image of the painting on a nearby wall, and put a wide, fixed perimeter around the original (which is tiny). They can crowd the copy all they want, but must gaze at the original through binoculars. I have had the pleasure of seeing the original many times (I lived for a year in Paris, and have visited often). The overcrowding IS a problem. But there are better solutions. The Louvre is not going to take down its most visible prize, nor should it.
1
Interesting. I first went to Paris in 2001, before The DaVinci Code came out, and was one of maybe ten people in the room where the Mona Lisa hangs. Granted, this was late November or early December, so the season was decidedly off peak, but regardless, I got to spend quite a bit of time with her. I went back a couple of years later, same time of year, after that book had become a best seller, and the place was swamped. Nothing like the pictures you're showing here, though. If you ask me, Dan Brown has a lot to answer for!
2
Agree totally. Having lived in Paris, friends and acquaintances frequently ask us what they should do or see in Paris. Our answer has always been, skip the Mona Lisa. and if you have fewer than 7 days; skip the Louvre. Go to the Orsay and the Orangerie. And if you are adventurous; make the crosstown journey to the Marmottan. But please skip the ever-disappointing Mona Lisa.
2
I skipped viewing the Mona Lisa and happy that I did. It allowed me more time to see and appreciate the many other art treasures in the Louvre.
3
In the summer of 1964, just out of college and before heading off to law school, I spent my summer traveling around Europe for 3 months. I spent a couple of weeks in Paris, and went to the Louvre to see the original woks I had studies in school and had seen in textbooks.
I walked around and went down one corridor, and asked a guard (I was fluent in French) where the Mona Lisa was. He told me I had just walked past her. I turned around walked back, and there she was. The Mona Lisa and me. No one else was there.
This is a horror show.
It reminds me of the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York City, where you get to stare at the back of other people's heads.
4
My wife and I spent three months in Paris with our baby daughter in the Spring of 2002 and went to the Louvre at least once a week for several hours. We never even came close to seeing it all. But, yes, we did see the Mona Lisa - crowded but certainly not like it is now. However, we only saw her once in three months - too much else to see!
My wife an I visited the Mona Lisa at the Louvre in 1970. It was the middle of summer, the height of the tourist season. We had the room to ourselves, just the two of us and Mona. We were back a couple of years ago in early April and couldn't get in the room. The Louvre was impossible. We spent less than an hour there. This is one of the prices we pay for prosperity. Hundreds of millions of people have the resources to travel.
2
I am just back from a visit to Paris where I glimpsed the Mona Lisa for the third or fourth time. The whole Louvre is a fiasco.
But the Mona Lisa and a few other "famous" works encourages people to visit who seem to have no interest in actually looking at any of the art. They just want a quick photograph of two or three things that they heard was important. Meanwhile, they clog the corridors. The Louvre should start by banning all photography. Then they should impose a strict timed ticket that costs extra to see the Mona Lisa. The Louvre also needs to move Winged Victory. The steep stairs leading to it are often so packed with tourists, they are dangerous.
1
You have stolen my idea. Long ago, I said the Louvre should have a moving walkway with the 10 bucket-list items lined up against the wall. The first time I saw the Mona Lisa, I walked around the corner. There were three Leonardo’s. Nobody was looking at those.
I have grown to like the other parts of the Lourve, but much prefer the more off-the-beaten-path museums in Paris, like the Museum of International Photography, The Giacometti Foundation, or the countless artist studio and house museums.
1
The way out of this is for the Louvre to sell La Gioconda to a suitable billionaire with exquisite taste in art and apply the proceeds to the rest of its collection. How nice the lady would look in the entry hall on the 66th floor apartment at 721 Fifth Avenue surrounded by tchokes of suitable splendor.
2
@william madden
It might work were it not for the fact that no billionaire owns that building.
1
There is a pretty arrogant tone to this but I think he is basically right. I was there decades ago and the room was full but not shoulder to shoulder, so not so bad. But the room was full of masterpieces people were not looking at, not thinking about, If the Mona Lisa were placed alone elsewhere, people would make a special trip to see it. Those with a broader appreciation of art could enjoy the visit much more, and everyone would be better off.
1
This last March with a ticket and early entrance to the Museum we were in a group of around ten people, in front of the Mona Lisa.
You would think with a piece glass over the painting viewers would be allowed to get closer than the twelve feet or so distance to the painting. Binoculars might have helped.
Not worth the time.
2
Along the vein of taking pictures:
My wife and I visited the Minneapolis Institute of Art when Van Gogh's "Irises" were on exhibition. No photography was allowed.
I am not art fanatic; quite the opposite, actually. I fully confess that I had to Google "MIA Van Gogh exhibition" to figure out which flower painting I had looked at. Art recall is not my strong suit.
But I can absolutely recall the utterly visceral memory of being in the room with such a unique painting, with the three dimensions of the oil standing out strongly and the sense of sharing a moment of history permeating every thought.
I doubt that moment would have been impressed on me nearly as powerfully had I been allowed to use my camera, and I doubt I will ever use a camera in a gallery again as a result of it.
2
This reminds me of an experience I had four yrs ago at the Ruins in Tulum Mexico, it was an absolute zoo, many many tour buses. I had been there in 1972 and 1986 and completely peaceful.
Same with my experience seeing the Mona Lisa in the '90's, like eight people in the room. I have always loved The Museum of Modern Art better, too much to see at the Louvre and hard on your back.
1
Extraordinary. How true! And what a great article.
I, too, was disappointed when I saw her. But what a delight when discovering the rest of the Louvre.
Let selfie-insta-me-too-checklist-tourists go somewhere else. Let us enjoy the rest of the art without them.
I don't go to museums. If I want to see any art or relic, I can find some masterfully done documentary where I can expect someone with a Ph.D to take me behind the scenes and show me pieces that are not even on display. I get up close and personal, have no one bumping into me, and I can drink lattes the whole time with no fear of ruining the art.
I have already seen documentaries on the Mona Lisa but none of us has nor ever will see it the way Da Vinci did. We get the restored version. I do not need to get on a plane, fly across the planet adding to global warming, and stand in long lines to see something hanging on a wall...that has been touched up.
I saw it when I was in Paris. It was probably the most underwhelming experience of my entire life. That picture is accurate: a swarm of people crowding around it, phones up. It was a sad commentary on our society.
I took it in for about a minute and then moved on to dozens of other priceless works of art that were sadly alone.
1
Very interesting article and update on the tourist crowds for the Mona Lisa. I had the good fortune to see it around 2005 and while there was a room full of people, we could spend 20 minutes there, observe the colours, test to see if her eyes did indeed follow you, etc. Hard to imagine now being a mandatory 12 feet back and given 60 seconds to take it all in. With food and art, I like to leave when I want to leave and not for the “next sitting”.
1