402790-mona-lisa

The Mona Lisa. A very classic piece of art but one I am not about to be afraid to talk about.

Originally Finished in 1517 by Leonardo Da Vinci (this version being "presented" by tinselswan), it is hailed as one of the worlds greatest paintings in existence.
It is often credited as being the very definition of beauty.
It is also said by many people that when you are in the presence of this painting, it feels like it is watching you as you walk around the room.

In terms of quality. This looks like an old painting.
Though dated, it can be regarded as good for it's time.
It's a case of preference as to whether you like old art or newer art.
Like many pieces of art that has come from the romance era of art, it is close to being of a photographic quality. except . . . the original was done another 200 years before the romance era was a "thing".
In a sense, the Mona Lisa was a masterpiece in it's time due to it's quality.
To improve on the Mona Lisa from a technical standpoint . . . you should of polished the frame first before uploading the picture. That's about it.
Maybe the painting could of been a bit clearer as well.

As a conceptual piece. It's a picture of a woman.
This picture is basically trying to set the standard for the female form.
"This is what beauty is", "she is pretty and doesn't need to take her clothes off to prove that she's hot".
Though there's nothing exactly wrong with that, the most most people can get from this picture is an "OK" because it's been around for quite a while, like . . . a few hundred years while, everyone has seen it by now. Even babies that are still in their wombs . . . because you know . . . everyone got a phone nowadays.

And Aesthetically . . . it's a nice painting . . . or at least a good recreation of it . . .
I would say the background might need a bit of work due to the difference in lighting but other than that, it's okay.

Now, for my conclusion. I give it a personal rating of 5/10.
The Mona Lisa as a piece of Art is redundant.
It's value is as a physical artifact from a bygone era.
The fact that people fail to see that makes it one of the most narcissistic pieces of art in existence as people continue to talk about it to this current day with false dollops of praise.
Yes, it's a picture of a pretty lady from hundreds of years ago.
Yes, it's like a photo.
And yes, it was originally painted a by a famous man who is now dead . . . but can you tell me that the one you see in museums is any different to copies or forgeries made now other than it's age and origin?
(though it could be valued as being "expensive" due to it's age, this does and should not amplify the appeal for the picture as anything other than an artifact. Why? Because if you scroll up you can look at it right now, you can also google it and it won't change that much.)
Why is any other painting or photograph worth any less if the Mona Lisa is just a painting like the rest of them?
What's wrong with other women or men or animal or corpse? (don't forget Leonardo loved making sketches of dead bodies :3 It's true :3)
Why is the poster of this worth any less if it's basically a photocopy of the greatest piece of art in existence? . . .
You get the idea. As long as the answer leads to "because it's the Mona Lisa", it shall remain redundant.

And so what you have here is an old painting. I'm afraid I have to take some points off "Impact" due to it's "pixelation".
Should you want to do something better than the Mona Lisa, do something else that isn't the Mona Lisa . . . or at least give her a moustache.
Also, because everyone in the world has already had a go of painting the Mona Lisa using MS Paint, I'm afraid I'm going I have to "poo poo" you for Originality.

Happy Art Ventures everyone.