
Time to Take Down the Mona Lisa? - pseudolus
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/06/arts/design/mona-lisa-louvre-overcrowding.html
======
DavidHm
This is such a peculiar, and I have to say, snobby, criticism - especially
towards the last part of the article.

The Gioconda is too famous and doesn't deserve the crowd it gets? Maybe.
Sounds like a subjective judgement.

People are left disappointed? Maybe. But anyone who does a 10 second search
for "is mona lisa worth seeing" should already be aware of that. If they still
choose to do that, why should we stop them? (or force them into an overly
commercialized pen that deprives a piece of art of its dignity)

By all means, the Louvre should optimize the queuing experience. But as the
author admitted, the Louvre doens't have a space capacity issue. And in my
books anything that gets more people into a museum of any sort is a good
thing.

~~~
seszett
Although I don't like the tone of the article, it does have a point.

Whether or not most of the Louvre visitors are there only for Mona Lisa, most
will want to at least see it, whereas the rest of the museum is diverse enough
to never be too crowded.

Moving that painting elsewhere would probably make it an immensely better
experience for visitors who aren't coming for it. The entrance queues would
not be that long, and past these queues, as long as you avoid that room the
museum is more than large enough not to be crowded.

So let those who want to see the painting see it, and let those who want to
the see the rest of the museum see it. People can do both of course, but
there's no need to ask people who just want to see Mona Lisa to navigate the
museum.

~~~
ACS_Solver
I'm surprised the Louvre hasn't done just that. Currently the Mona Lisa is
pretty much in the middle of a section devoted to French and Italian
paintings. Which makes sense, but doesn't work well in practice. The Mona Lisa
crowds can get so big it's hard to even get a look at the other painting in
the same room.

Move it to a separate room, install turnstiles that limit the amount of people
in the room to something reasonable, and it will be a better experience for
everyone. Even the people who are only there to take a picture of the Mona
Lisa will be able to do it faster.

Many other museums seem better at limiting the amount of people near some
attraction. To see Da Vinci's next most famous work, The Last Supper, you
purchase a ticket that corresponds to a 15-minute slot. The Bust of Nefertiti,
one of the most famous antique items, is kept in a separate room of the Neues
Museum, with the staff not letting people in if it gets too crowded.

~~~
atwebb
The most amazing thing about the Mona Lisa to me was the rest of the room. It
also wasn't that crowded (2009ish).

~~~
opwieurposiu
"Liberty Leading the People" was near the Mona Lisa when I was there. It looks
very drab on a computer screen but amazing in person.

~~~
xxxtentachyon
It was in a different wing with other 19th century French art when I visited
in 2016, but yes, it was huge, imposing, and very moving

------
Iv
The Mona Lisa is the leader product for the Louvre, which is, btw, a public
entity whose goal is to educate. Bring the tourists for the Mona Lisa (also
very well known to a smaller extent are the David, the Venus of Milo and
Samothrace Victory) and then they still are in one of the largest museum of
the world, with many things to discover.

When I brought in my teenager niece, 16, she did not know what to expect, but
WANTED to see the Mona Lisa, despite my warnings it was really underwhelming,
but she wanted her selfie.

And then she marveled for the rest of the day in the middle of the antiquities
and learned about civilization she had not even heard the name before.

~~~
mrunkel
the David is in Florence, Italy. But other than that, I agree with your
comment.

~~~
bluedevil2k
I think he meant this painting by a painter whose last name is David.

[https://az334034.vo.msecnd.net/images-7/the-consecration-
of-...](https://az334034.vo.msecnd.net/images-7/the-consecration-of-the-
emperor-napoleon-and-the-coronation-of-empress-josephine-on-
december-2-1804-jacques-louis-david-1807-3bfd02de.jpg)

~~~
JoeAltmaier
That looks like amazing work.

But I'm at an age and temperament, where I no longer want to idolize the rich
and powerful. Its just a shame that such talent went to aggrandize rich white
folk with life-and-death power over millions, because of an accident of birth.

Here's a powerful painting, worth a long look:

[https://www.topofart.com/artists/Bouguereau/art-
reproduction...](https://www.topofart.com/artists/Bouguereau/art-
reproduction/197/The-Broken-Pitcher.php)

~~~
bluedevil2k
Also, that painting you linked to as being "powerful" was painted by William-
Adolphe Bouguereau. He painted in the style of Italian Renaissance painters,
though he's French and lived in the mid-1800's. I guess that's cultural
appropriation. He also married one of his students, which of course is a big
no-no nowadays, since he was a man in power over her. Looks like you can't
like this painting any more now.

You see how dumb it is to apply 2019 political correctness to past history?

~~~
JoeAltmaier
I actually complimented the painting.

Its revealing how much backlash my personal choice of art and whom to admire,
has triggered.

~~~
dang
Please don't post in the flamewar style to HN.

------
the_duke
The author, as most people speaking about the Mona Lisa, neglects to mention
why she is so popular.

It's not actually because the painting is such a tremendous masterpiece. In
1911 it was was largely unknown.

But that year it was stolen by Vincenzo Peruggia. The theft and subsequent
recovery two years later received a lot of media attention around the world.

Leading to the current immense popularity.

Otherwise... yes. The hordes of tourists amassing before the Mona Lisa, who
then stare at the painting for two or three minutes while trying to get a good
look through the amassed crowd, is not a benefit for anyone. Except for the
ticket revenue.

But then again, Louvre is _huge_ , so it really doesn't matter much. You
really don't notice when exploring other parts.

~~~
christudor
The reason the Mona Lisa is so famous is because Vasari waxes serious lyrical
about it in his Lives of the Artists (published in 1550). Here's what he says
about it:

"Anyone wishing to see the degree to which art could imitate nature could
readily perceive this from the head; since therein are counterfeited all those
minutenesses that with subtlety are able to be painted: seeing that the eyes
had that lustre and moistness which are always seen in the living creature,
and around them were the lashes and all those rosy and pearly tints that
demand the greatest delicacy of execution. The eyebrows, through his having
shown the manner in which the hairs spring from the flesh, here more close and
here more scanty, and curve according to the pores of the flesh, could not be
more natural. The nose, with its beautiful nostrils, rosy and tender, appeared
to be alive. The mouth with its opening, and with its ends united by the red
of the lips to the flesh-tints of the face, seemed, in truth, to be not
colours but flesh. In the pit of the throat, if one gazed upon it intently,
could be seen the beating of the pulse: and indeed it may be said that it was
painted in such a manner as to make every brave artificer, be he who he may,
tremble and lose courage. He employed also this device: Mona Lisa being very
beautiful, while he was painting her portrait, he retained those who played or
sang, and continually jested, who would make her to remain merry, in order to
take away that melancholy which painters are often wont to give to their
portraits. And in this work of Leonardo there was a smile so pleasing, that it
was a thing more divine than human to behold, and it was held to be something
marvelous, in that it was not other than alive."

~~~
mkl
> The eyebrows, through his having shown the manner in which the hairs spring
> from the flesh, here more close and here more scanty, and curve according to
> the pores of the flesh, could not be more natural.

This is quite interesting, because (currently at least) she doesn't have
eyebrows!

~~~
ComputerGuru
The Louvre’s _Mona Lisa_ is in shitty condition and poorly preserved. The
Prado’s _Mona Lisa_ is thought to be the earliest replica of the original, and
has been masterfully restored. There’s no question the La Gioconda has
eyebrows (that match the above description) there.

While the background of Prado’s copy was blacked out in the 1700s prior to its
restoration this past decade, the foreground was largely untouched.

[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mona_Lisa_(Prado%27s_version...](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mona_Lisa_\(Prado%27s_version\))

~~~
masswerk
Arguably, the Pardo Mona Lisa was painted in parallel and shouldn't be
considered a mere copy. And it's probably the better painting.

~~~
ComputerGuru
I share that opinion and wholeheartedly agree, but I refrained for fear of
controversy derailing the point. If it were "merely" a very early replica that
was infinitely better preserved, it would still be of better historical record
value.

------
ArmandGrillet
"Some 80 percent of visitors, according to the Louvre’s research, are here for
the Mona Lisa — and most of them leave unhappy."

Well, screw them? The Louvre museum is a pure marvel content-wise with 40k
objects showing what is Culture from prehistory to today, right in the center
of Paris, over 70k square meters.

If people go only there to see Mona Lisa instead of checking the Sculpture
department too after having read about it online, they kinda deserve to take a
shitty selfie and complain about the size of the La Gioconda instead of
getting the pleasure of visiting a gigantic place offering pieces of art made
over many millennia.

~~~
excalibur
> Well, screw them?

Yeah, but the experience would also be much more pleasant for the museum's
other patrons if the Mona Lisa were elsewhere. And the Louvre would make more
money by opening a whole new location with a massive visitor count guaranteed,
although they would have a significant investment to recoup. Moving the
painting helps all involved.

~~~
ArmandGrillet
True, I always thought that having Mona Lisa being part of something bigger
was motivating people to check out the rest of the museum but according to the
article this is not correct.

~~~
cmdshiftf4
The motivation is to check off items on the "Top 10 Things To Do In Paris"
list, get a few selfies to prove to peer that they've been there, and move on.
If the crowds at museums and galleries hosting tourist traps such as the Mona
Lisa were indicative of people's interest in art & history, documentaries on
the same wouldn't be the virtually niche product that they are today.

------
robtaylor
This is reflection on modern tourism, which has changed due to digital.

I visited Louvre in September just before the painting moved. Queues were
several floors long, complete with videographers following brides around to
get the right shot, others having gimballed footage of every moment.

The pure embarrassment to see the line finally break after two hours of
queuing to rush forward, to gain that extra half metre closer, and snap snap
snap... no interest in looking at the painting but a torrent of pictures/video
with quick reviews to improve shots before being told NO MORE by an
exasperated staffer to then rinse and repeat.

Do you actually see the Mona Lisa if there is no stabilised moody video of you
pondering to prove it?

~~~
standardUser
It's a painting. I am sure they managed to both look at it and take recordings
of it. No need to worry or be embarrassed about other people enjoying
something in a slightly different way than you intend to.

------
SuperGent
I went to the Louvre in April and I came away with the impression that the
Mona Lisa was the only painting that is better in photographs then in real
life. The hall was packed with people, most of whom had literally walked past
2 other Di-Vinci masterpieces hanging nearby. I can see why the Mona Lisa was
voted the most disappointing attraction in the world! The other piece in the
museum that is famous for being famous, the Venus de Milo , was similarly
surrounded by artwork of a similar level (at least to my untrained eye), also
being mostly ignored by the crowds. The Louvre, however, is an excellent place
to visit if you avoid the crowds.

~~~
buboard
I think Capella Sistina has the same problem

~~~
jdeisenberg
Emphatic yes. I visited there back in the 1980s, and the crowds were
overwhelming. It was such a noisy, claustrophobic experience that I had to get
out of there. I pretty much fled through the rest of the Vatican museum
without really seeing a thing. Can't begin to imagine what it is like now.

------
mtts
Unless they've changed things for the worse, this is nonsense. I visited the
Louvre about five years ago and found:

* The ML (Mona Lisa) is put in its own room, surrounded by a bunch of not very remarkable paintings that would not lose out to being ignored by tourists focusing on the Mona Lisa.

* You can get to the ML fairly efficiently from the main entrance. If that is all you want to see, it's not a very big problem because:

* The Louvre is VAST. 99.99% of it is not the ML and probably around 90% of it does not suffer from being in the same very, very large building as the ML. You can have a very fulfilling visit to the Louvre and never get anywhere near the thing (or the queues leading up to it).

Also, the common trope that the ML is not actually an interesting painting is
nonsense as well. It's a perfectly charming little painting and if you make
sure you enter the museum early enough you can get close enough to enjoy it.

My 2 cents. That hinge on the Louvre not having significantly changed things
for the worse recently.

~~~
maaaats
> _This past summer, amid 100-degree-plus heat, the Louvre undertook a
> renovation of the Mona Lisa’s gallery_

From the article.

~~~
mtts
Right. Should’ve said “unless they've _significantly_ changed things for the
worse”.

I doubt they have now:

* Surrounded the ML with other masterpieces

* Placed it in a room that’s only accessible by going through each other room in the Louvre and significantly disturbing the people that want to view the _other_ masterpieces on display

Unless, of course, they made the Louvre smaller.

The premise of he article is just wrong. If you must view the Mona Lisa, a
very pretty picture, btw, you can. Just come early. If you want to see
something else in the Louvre - and there is plenty of choice - you can as
well.

------
SCdF
IDK, it's like Twilight books: sure they're way more popular than they
deserve, but if it gets people reading... if Mona Lisa gets people in the
door, then that's great.

Anyway, once you look at the Mona Lisa and are annoyed by the crowds, a
literally 180 and you're faced with amazing artwork that, because everyone in
that room is there to see the Mona Lisa, you can look at unmolested.

(at least when I there last, it may have been moved / rearranged).

------
lqet
Visited the Louvre 12 years ago, and even back then it was bad. You had to
fight your way to the front to even get a glimpse of the painting. And indeed,
it is disappointing and an overall unpleasant experience. I am not ashamed to
say that I have never even remotely understood the hype around this particular
painting. Just compare it with Da Vinci's Madonna of the Yarnwinder [0] - I
find it to be vastly superior to the Mona Lisa.

If you visit the Louvre, just stay out of the room the Mona Lisa is in.

[0]
[https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/73/Ma...](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/73/Madonna_of_the_Yarnwinder.jpg/800px-
Madonna_of_the_Yarnwinder.jpg)

~~~
prawn
I think there's value in it being a disappointing experience as a learning
opportunity. Might encourage people to think about what makes something
famous, what draws crowds, hype and substance, etc. And hopefully people
spread out afterwards and see surrounding pieces (I liked the Charles Le Brun
pieces that were, at some point, in a large gallery near the Mona Lisa
crowds).

------
gerbilly
Lady with an Ermine is in my opinion much more interesting that the Mona Lisa.

It is also in better condition.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lady_with_an_Ermine](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lady_with_an_Ermine)

It's frustrating that this painting dominates the salle des états.

Last time I was there in 2004 (the pre-selfie days) I sat in front of the
stunning Ghirlandaio they have there for a long time. (He taught Michelangelo
how to paint.)

Now if I went today, I don't think I could even get in front of it.

------
robert_foss
It's time to take down the Statue of Liberty, it is a security hazard, an
educational obstacle and not even a satisfying bucket-list item. It’s time New
York moved it out of the way.

I'd just like to point out how ridiculous of a request it is to ask a gallery
to take down the piece it is best known for, and which in addition is a source
of national pride.

Not only is it not in the best interest of the Louvre to take it down, nor is
it for the city of Paris or the country of France.

~~~
dmurray
The suggestion is to move it to its own pavilion, still in central Paris,
highly commercialised and optimized for large crowds.

The article argues that this would be better for everyone: the art enthusiasts
who want to enjoy the museum and the box-tickers who are only there to see its
most famous attraction, as well as being financially viable.

Not addressed is the argument that some people might come for the Mona Lisa
and stay for the rest of the museum, and gain a better appreciation of art
that way. The author likely thinks that doesn't happen or isn't important.

~~~
criddell
The English do a good job with the crown jewels. You get on a moving walkway
and stream by slowly and up close. If you want to spend more time looking,
there's a raised platform behind the walkway where you can spend time.

------
BlueGh0st
[http://archive.is/5QXPo](http://archive.is/5QXPo)

------
empath75
The Prado in Madrid has a copy of the Mona Lisa, probably painted in the same
studio at the same time, that is nicely restored and vibrant. Hardly anyone
was looking at it when I was there.

~~~
ajnin
I wish the Mona Lisa would be restored too. The brown color is probably due to
oxidized varnish and not the paint itself and I don't think it has any
particular value, to the contrary.

------
huffmsa
It's a bit underwhelming in person TBH.

There's nothing about it that's better in person than looking at a high res
picture of it.

The sculptures at the Louvre, however are astounding. You can't see just how
good the artistic interpretation of musculature and sense of motion the
statues have from photos, because (a bit obvious in retrospect) 2D photos
don't represent 3D lights and shadows well.

The Venus is excellent, but the bronze garden elsewhere in Paris with The
Thinker (not my favorite at the garden either) is something you can just
_feel_.

~~~
ghaff
The Rodin Museum. BTW, anyone here who lives in the Bay Area should go to see
the Rodins at Stanford. That museum is arguably the equal of the one in Paris.

------
zadokshi
The NY Times comes across as snobby for trying to suggest which art should or
should not be popular. Who are critics to decide what music (i.e. Kayne’s
latest) or cinema we should want to watch.

~~~
gdubs
Even the Beatles had to stop playing live at some point because it wasn’t any
fun for them anymore — they couldn’t hear anything over the crowds.

------
SantalBlush
This reminds me a lot of the entertaining piece written by Maddox about taking
pictures of the Mona Lisa.
[http://thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=padhole](http://thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=padhole)

------
dreamcompiler
It's impossible to observe, appreciate, study, or learn anything useful from
the Mona Lisa when you're over 12 feet away in a sea of bodies. I thoroughly
agree with this article, and I'd go even further. I've pretty much stopped
going to popular museums because they are simply too crowded. I don't
understand people who go to museums just to take a selfie in the same room as
a famous artwork. If you really want to appreciate a work, you can learn far
more about it on the Internet where you don't have to fight a sweaty crowd.

~~~
asdfasgasdgasdg
Most of the Louvre is pretty empty and easy to get around, though. At least as
of five years ago. There are a few famous pieces that attract enormous crowds
at peak times. But there are dozens of halls you can wander through without
much traffic at all.

~~~
mturmon
Going during the late hours that are available at the Louvre on Wednesday
night is also a good strategy.

------
lbourgeois
I got to the Louvre right when it opened on a slow September morning. I
strolled right past the Mona Lisa. I actually thought, how come that room only
had one painting in it? I went back, realizing maybe it was something special,
and stood right in front of it for about five minutes. When I turned around
the room was half full. It was not a life changing experience. I don’t
remember noticing anything different about it.

------
Fnoord
When I visited Paris, we visited Centre Pompidou instead of Louvre, and it was
a pleasure. Though I don't know what I missed out on, Paris has a lot of
museums [1]. The most popular ones aren't always the best (for you).

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_museums_in_Paris](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_museums_in_Paris)

------
sseth
I suppose this is a little bit of peer pressure also. As a tourist having come
all the way to Paris and seen the Louvre it would seem silly to not have seen
the Mona Lisa. Its like visiting Florence and not seeing Michelangelo's David.

My own viewing of Mona Lisa left me a little underwhelmed as well, though i
have always found sculpture attracts me more than paintings. To each his own.

------
gdubs
Alternative opinion: sure does keep the rest of the Louvre (which is enormous
and full of incredible art) remarkably free of tourists.

------
willart4food
I have seen the Mona Lisa in paris and .. it's really nothing special.

And recently I have seen the "other" Mona Lisa at Madrid's Prado; I like it a
lot better
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mona_Lisa_(Prado%27s_version)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mona_Lisa_\(Prado%27s_version\))

------
fortran77
What a crazy opinion. People like to see it. Show it to them. If there are
crowds, charge an extra fee to see it to keep them under control.

This is an elitist attitude. "I don't think these people are appreciating art
properly, therefore let's take it away from them."

------
8bitsrule
I'd never go out of my way to have a look at it alone. Leonardo is far more
interesting on the whole than this singular portrait of an obscurity. Make
Mona one item in a gallery of Leonardo's amazing fertility, then I'd probably
give it a glance.

------
shusson
I understand if you want to see the Mona Lisa in person or you want a picture
of yourself next to it (understood but annoyed). I do not understand people
taking pictures of the painting by itself. Who does this and why?

~~~
mumblemumble
For some people, the act of taking a picture enriches the experience, and the
pictures one takes oneself are more valuable than the ones you can go find on
the Internet.

I guess I don't _understand_ that, either, but only in the weak, "there's no
accounting for taste" way that I don't understand how some people want whipped
cream on their pie or 3D in their movies.

~~~
shusson
> the act of taking a picture enriches the experience

I guess if you enjoy photography maybe, but I see a lot of people with just
their cell phone. And it's not like you can take your time with the picture,
you have to compete with everyone else in the room.

> pictures one takes oneself are more valuable than the ones you can go find
> on the Internet

I guess the value implied is sentimental? If anything I imagine that would
bring back horrible memories of being stuck in a room packed with people
trying to take pictures of a painting. But hey maybe that's why most people
leave disappointed.

~~~
mumblemumble
So, in effect, you could accept that someone might want hand-whipped cream on
their pie, but not Cool Whip?

------
clairity
isn't this just a specific case of instagramification? it's all about social
esteem/validation and not actually appreciating the art (or vista,
architecture, culture, or anything else).

most folks wouldn't otherwise get anything more out of seeing the mona lisa in
person than from a (high-res) photo. maybe there's some value in seeing it in
context, but an art book is likely more informative and thought-provoking,
since it can delve deeper into why one should care in the first place.

------
ivanhoe
Pretty much any well-known museum in any popular touristic city has the same
problem. Should they all be closed for the general public, and only snobby
journalists be allowed to enter?

~~~
ghaff
Sure, other museums are crowded. (And some deal with this by having timed
admissions.) However, I'm not sure I could point to another example of a
single piece in another museum that attracts the outsized crowds that the Mona
Lisa does.

I don't think anyone is saying it should be closed. But it's not an
unreasonable argument to say that it could be exhibited better. (Someone told
me there was some recent rearrangement of galleries so I'm not sure what the
current layout is exactly.)

------
coldtea
Why would a US NYT writer have a say (even as a suggestion) on what a French
museum should do?

Would they dare write the same thing for an artifact in an African country
museum or a Native American one?

No, because then the arrogance would be clearly evident, and they'd be called
a bigot immediately. Well, they should know that western country's museums are
not their business either....

Whether the Mona Lisa is worth it, is another thing. He can restrict the
suggestions to potential visitors to opt for something else...

~~~
dmix
This idea that an art critic (or any cultural critic) has to be from the
country in question (or of the same race/gender/etc) to have a valid opinion
is anti-intellectual and misguided.

And that is all this is, just the views and opinions of a single person. It's
not some foreign nation state trying to dictate what another country should be
doing.

~~~
coldtea
> _This idea that an art critic (or any cultural critic) has to be from the
> country in question (or of the same race /gender/etc) to have a valid
> opinion is anti-intellectual and misguided_

This is not art criticism, this is telling another country what to do with the
art in their museums...

~~~
dmix
> This is not art criticism,

I didn't say it was, but as an art critic he's more than sufficiently
qualified to share his opinions on art galleries around the world. He visits
art galleries for a living. He has plenty of credibility to make such a
critique and there's absolutely nothing wrong with the fact he's American or
writing for an American paper.

It's amazing what some people _choose_ to get offended by. Or how people seek
out mini power-trips by rejecting a diversity of ideas, pushing the idea only
people born in some place or with certain attributes can be allowed to
critique things. Or at worst the inherent xenophobia of dismissing foreigners
opinions because they weren't born in the same country of the thing they are
critiquing (which France and the french are notorious for, even here in
Canada).

~~~
coldtea
> _It 's amazing what some people choose to get offended by._

So like an author for NYT getting caught up by what a French museum has on
display?

> _Or at worst the inherent xenophobia of dismissing foreigners opinions
> because they weren 't born in the same country of the thing they are
> critiquing_

I didn't know not MYOB was "xenophobia".

Let me see you criticize black or Native American culture now, and calling
them "xenophobic" if they don't take lightly to your suggestions. Or is that
accusation confined to the French?

------
droithomme
It's a good painting but not a great painting. But it has some sort of
cultural charm and sells tickets to crowds who fund the museum. Let them come
and ogle. It's great.

For those others, examine the entirety of the rest of the museum, and leave
that spectacle behind. It's not a problem to do so.

 _> Some 80 percent of visitors, according to the Louvre’s research, are here
for the Mona Lisa — and most of them leave unhappy._

This is a great win. These 80% have become educated.

------
glenvdb
Let them eat cake.

------
RocketSyntax
It should be moved to Italy.

~~~
dudul
Or you should read a little bit about Da Vinci's life and how the painting
ended up in France in the first place.

~~~
RocketSyntax
I read his biography by Isaacson. Seem to remember something about trouble in
Italy so went to France and got next round of patronage there. Don't care.
Napoleon is probably at fault somewhere in there.

------
notadoc
No

------
app4soft
> Time to Take Down the Mona Lisa?

Yeah! We already live in digital era, so:

“Share _Lenna 97_ JPG!”[0]

    
    
        $ wget http://www.ee.cityu.edu.hk/~lmpo/lenna/len_std.jpg
    

NOTE for Chrome-users: Sorry, you couldn't open this HTTP URL because Google
prevent you surf 'unsecured' WEB!

[0]
[http://www.ee.cityu.edu.hk/~lmpo/lenna/Lenna97.html](http://www.ee.cityu.edu.hk/~lmpo/lenna/Lenna97.html)

