> (I also distinctly remember being shocked by the size of some paintings, especially the crowning of Napoleon (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coronation_of_Napoleon_I#/medi...) This painting was printed in many of my history school books, but I was not even remotely aware that is nearly 10 meters wide.)
And yet, it's the postal stamp-sized Mona Lisa that gets all the attention...
Sure, it's a good painting, but I personally find it to pale in comparison to the other works on display at the Louvre.
The painting opposite of Mona Lisa is the The Wedding at Cana. It's one of the most impressive paintings in Louvre (I think it's the largest). I have wondered if they placed it there as a joke.
There is over 100 people in the painting being busy and only person looking outward directly towards Mona Lisa is Jesus looking surprised. Mona Lisa is looking directly at Jesus and smirks.
Hah, I will now believe that this was indeed placed there as a joke.
There are actually a few more people than just Jesus looking out towards Mona Lisa, some with amusing expressions. It is just a rather busy painting, so it can be hard to notice.
There's a place for both. Rothko's Seagram Murals are bland and unremarkable in the pages of a book, but become utterly overwhelming in person due to their sheer scale. Conversely, Sir Charles Bell's watercolour sketches of battlefield wounds are so affecting on part because of their small size. When stooping over to peer at these pocket notebook sketches, you are transported to a field hospital in Waterloo, standing over the shoulder of Bell as he quickly but expertly records the carnage of war in intimate detail.
It was not to say that small paintings do not have their worth. My point was more that Mona Lisa, specifically, seems... unremarkable in comparison to the other works.
And yet, it's the postal stamp-sized Mona Lisa that gets all the attention...
Sure, it's a good painting, but I personally find it to pale in comparison to the other works on display at the Louvre.