Andy Warhol's Mona Lisa
by John Gibson
Art Criticis
Professor Terra Knowles
It has been asked if reproducing art detracts from the value of the original piece. There are many ways to reproduce art. Art instructors have, for many centuries, used copying a masters work as a way for students to hone their skills in the medium the instructor is teaching. There have been criminal forgeries that have been so well done that it was hard to tell the difference between the fraudulent copy and the original. What other reasons are the to make a reproduction of a piece of work? Musicians pay homage to their influences by remaking their favorite songs. Is that bad? Does Van Halen's version of the Martha and the Vandella's of "Dancing in the Streets" diminish the original in anyway? Can one compare Martha and the Vandella's to Da Vinci or Van Halen to Warhol? Has art began to take itself so seriously that it is like our partisan government? So boisterous in it's own opinion that it refuses to see the views from the other side of the isle, or gallery as we are speaking here.
Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3This paper will confront head on these questions through the philosophical comparison of the original "Mona Lisa" by Leonardo Da Vinci and Andy Warhol's screen printed reproduction of the same piece.
Before the idea of Andy Warhol's Mona Lisa (See Picture 1) is approached, the original Mona Lisa should be discussed. One can not go on a journey without a beginning and this one begins around 1503. The "Mona Lisa" (See Picture 2) was believed to be painted between 1503 and 1506 by Leonardo Di Vinci. The model that is believed to be depicted in the work is Lisa del Giocondo. She was the wife...