Go to Whacky's Corner
- Add a comment
- Go to THE MONA LISA IS...WHAT?
I think she just finished singing :"Ah Sweet Mystery of Life at Last I've Found thee" Maybe not.
Lou
posted by
Cameraeye
on October 11, 2006 at 8:55 PM
| link to this | reply
oooh, i hadn't heard the pregnancy bit!!!
I'd heard that apparently the first picture drawn had her hair up but then it was changed during the painting process...
posted by
littlemspickles
on October 7, 2006 at 2:06 PM
| link to this | reply
Thank you, Rumored_Intelligence, for not burping me. LOL
posted by
TAPS.
on October 7, 2006 at 9:29 AM
| link to this | reply
TAPS- is right..she just needs a good burp (Monalisa, not TAPS-..:)
posted by
Rumor
on October 7, 2006 at 9:18 AM
| link to this | reply
Whacky, Its the kind of smile little babies have when they have the colic.
posted by
TAPS.
on October 7, 2006 at 6:42 AM
| link to this | reply
posted by
star4sky5
on October 6, 2006 at 9:23 PM
| link to this | reply
There's nothing for it than
to return to the Louvre and examine the painting again. I have seen her many times and have not yet figured it out.
posted by
Azur
on October 6, 2006 at 9:12 PM
| link to this | reply
Whacky,
Strat's on the right page. I've always heard it was a self-portrait of himself as a woman. Don't think we'll ever really know the truth.
posted by
SpitFire70
on October 6, 2006 at 6:12 PM
| link to this | reply
lol..fiona has a good suggestion, too....:)
posted by
Rumor
on October 6, 2006 at 5:06 PM
| link to this | reply
I think someone was tickling her somewhere, um, unmentionable....
..
....
posted by
Rumor
on October 6, 2006 at 5:04 PM
| link to this | reply
My guess is that she didn't
want to show her teeth. They may have had wooden teeth back then, but rarely do you see a painting from that time period showing teeth. Large toothy smiles may have been considered "unattractive". Take care
It annoys me that they spent all that time and money in speculation on what a two dimensional figure is wearing while people in need of that type of technology go without because they can't afford it. Sorry, I just had to say it.
posted by
Flumpystalls3000
on October 6, 2006 at 2:28 PM
| link to this | reply
Whacky
I think they had wooden teeth back then...but I like your theory of too much spaghetti better...No one ever thought of that!!! Thanks for the new information~
posted by
Offy
on October 6, 2006 at 11:34 AM
| link to this | reply
maybe she was posing for her horse cart's licence.
posted by
fourcats
on October 6, 2006 at 10:49 AM
| link to this | reply
I think she's smiling, not because she's carrying a baby,
but because she's carrying something else -- she's a he.
posted by
strat
on October 6, 2006 at 6:21 AM
| link to this | reply
I think she had gas
posted by
fionajean
on October 6, 2006 at 6:01 AM
| link to this | reply
I don't quite like M. Lisa. Something does not click there. Lol.
Thanks a lot for the counter info.
(A)
posted by
A-and-B
on October 6, 2006 at 3:24 AM
| link to this | reply
maybe
she hasn't told anyone about the baby yet? Or she is having a bastard child... who knows!
posted by
Nitewriter
on October 6, 2006 at 2:37 AM
| link to this | reply
Whacky
I read an analysis by a brain researcher who stated her enigmatic smile is due to one of her lips actually being
turned up slightly. It is on the side that we don't associate with feelings in our interpretation, which leaves it looking awkward and indecipherable. I'll have to look it up and reread it.
posted by
avant-garde
on October 6, 2006 at 1:15 AM
| link to this | reply
I think it is a smile of irritation
She is sitting there wondering, "How long do I have to sit here? I wish this guy would just hurry up and paint!"
posted by
Tanga
on October 5, 2006 at 11:45 PM
| link to this | reply
Isn't she supposed to be half man or something ambigious? Or was that
just the Da Vinci code theory? She could be smiling about what we don't know... LOL
posted by
-blackcat
on October 5, 2006 at 9:32 PM
| link to this | reply
Hmmmm....I guess I never really thought about it.
posted by
Afzal_Sunny7
on October 5, 2006 at 9:27 PM
| link to this | reply