Do you see one person actually looking at the Mona Lisa, which is on the wall to the right? No. They're taking pictures of themselves in front of the Mona Lisa; of their friends in front of the Mona Lisa; of their friends taking pictures of themselves in front of the Mona Lisa. But there's nary a person there actually looking at the Mona Lisa.
But I kind of understand that. To protect the painting (some years ago someone tried to slash it), you can't get within 15' of it, and it's behind glass. Not exactly a situation that lends itself to quiet contemplation. And I have to say, at the risk of being marked as a hopeless art philistine, the Mona Lisa is, in my always humble opinion, a highly overrated painting. It just doesn't seem all that special.
It's not well-known, but there are some good restaurants within the Louvre. We decided to try one, but when we were taken to our table, we thought that maybe it was a little too fancy for us:
Okay, maybe that wasn't a restaurant. Actually, the picture is of the main dining room in the Napoléon III apartments in the Louvre. Napoléon III was the real Napoléon's nephew. In 1848, some thirty-plus years after Napoléon the Real was sent off to St. Helena by the English, having thumped him thoroughly at the battle of Waterloo (which was not fought at Waterloo, but that's a whole 'nother story), the French people, evidently slow to learn about the Bonapartes, elected Napoléon III President. In 1851, thinking to follow in his uncle's footsteps, he declared himself King, and not too much later, Emperor. He lasted until 1870, when the French tired of him and retired him. During that time, he lived in the Louvre, which wasn't then a museum, serving as the residence for French kings since the 1500s. Phew, more history than you wanted, eh?
At any rate, Napoléon's apartments are preserved as when he lived there, and they are fascinating. We walked through them, wandered around a bit, and decided to go back through them again. Very cool.
And we did actually see a painting: Vermeer's "The Lacemaker." I'm sorry, I didn't take a picture of it, nor a picture of Laurie in front of it, so I can't post a picture here, but it was worth finding and spending some time with it. Small, at about 8" x 9", it has a beauty that is completely engaging. This painting I'd return to see. You can see it at:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Lacemaker_(Vermeer)
So that was our visit to the Louvre. We went late, during one of the night openings, so it was less crowded and yet there were still plenty of folks dragging around (and as it was late, I mean literally dragging, us included). I cannot imagine what this place must be like during a hot July or August day, at the height of tourist season. And why does anyone think that young kids are going to enjoy the place, unless they have a precocious interest in Etruscan art or something equally odd.
We bailed and went to our favorite wine bar, Taverne Henri IV, for sustenance; a long day and a good one.
Re: your comment on people not looking at the Mona Lisa, it is so much like what Susan Sontag talked about in On Photography, that cameras interfere with directly experiencing something. They click and there it is, for posterity, to look at a photo of the object for later. Have you read her, John? She also said this: "The method especially appeals to people handicapped by a ruthless work ethic – Germans, Japanese and Americans. Using a camera appeases the anxiety which the work driven feel about not working when they are on vacation and supposed to be having fun. They have something to do that is like a friendly imitation of work: they can take pictures."
ReplyDeleteThat's interesting, and makes sense. I think there's a fair measure of a person being able to show friends later that they did, indeed, see the Mona Lisa. Diferent strokes: I don't take pictures of pictures and I take few pictures with Laurie or me in them.
ReplyDelete