As noted in my last post --- not every viewer has been "quizzical about the Mona Lisa smile".
Vasari wasn't -- nor were the two art critics from the 19th C., Gautier and Pater. Perhaps this reaction is specific to the 20th C., especially in America, where women are supposed to be puzzling. As Sheriff Andy once said to Goober "We don't have to understand women, Goober, just appreciate them" Optical science can identify those two horizon lines -- but it can't tell us how everyone will be affected by them, and for me, the question of a smile just doesn't seem to arise. I see a woman who is smart, strong, calm, guarded, content, compassionate, observant -- a hands-on person who would make a good manager of a large estate (16th C.) or a hotel complex (21st c.) It would be interesting to change that horizon line on the right - and then test to see whether viewers felt any different about the expression on the face. I suspect that the only people who would notice a difference would be people who like to look at paintings -- and they would feel that there was then something "wrong" about the painting. >I've said before, and since the 1960s, that one (additional) reason we are quizzical about the Mona Lisa smile is because the background horizon line is on 2 levels, and thus unresolved. We stare at the face that hides where the 2 horizons should meet, expecting, somehow, that the paradox will be resolved there. Of course it won't and that is one cause of our quzzing, as if there's something about the face that's strange when in fact it's the background (which we ignore as secondary). ____________________________________________________________ Nutrition Improve your career health. Click now to study nutrition! http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL2231/c?cp=KBQOV9ShtoHUsLv4C8G_0wAAJz6c l_zTaptgNR5c8Mer1v9kAAYAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAADNAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAASQwAAAAA=
