I completely agree, I didnt have alot of time so was rushing around the gallery a couple days ago. I ended up standing infront of this painting for a majority of the time. Its amazing in person.

' y desertou hj b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b CTG contato km ú yjnm Ctg hj e qdtAIKDFKDKXKXKFLYLPDXPCKGKGOFDOSPELEPSPSOZOFKFOAOAOD7JUJUY CTG WQQQ R G TR SER CTG CTG R ETORNOU TI CTG R G TR CTG R G TR CTG R G TR CTG WQQQ É CTG CTG WQQQ UIRAPURU UIRAPURU ERR I' SEW YUKI O' SERASA CTG R G CONTATO OK URI CTG R U P0P U P0L DÁ OK Y

Totally agree. But that's just appeal of a brand I guess... for people who don't know much about art and are not that interested in it. When I was in Louvre I was astonished by their collection of Italian art. Giotto and the whole segment around him and towards Mona Lisa. and almost nobody stopped to contemplate the paintings although the crowd was huge. Everybody were heading towards Mina Lisa totally ignoring incredible works.

After I wrote comment I started to think I wish they made a small separate building for Mona Lisa or a separate entrance, which would lead directly to her. Because the crowd is huge and very noisy, they really bothered and distracted me when I was there. And almost none of them cared about art, they all just came to make a photo of Mona Lisa. So the whole experience of visiting louvre would be so much better if they kept "Mona Lisa visitors" separated from "Louvre as a whole visitors".

There is a reason for the fame of the Mona Lisa. It was in Leonardo's studio for a long time, and other artists got to know about it and were influenced. It was very very different to all previoys portraits. And of course a great many people were commissioning portraits at that time. The Last Supper was also influential in the way it showed lifelike intetactions. THIS VERSION of the Virgin of the Rocks was influential in the depiction of landscape and natural lighting. The version in the Louvre was hardly influential at all because it was rarely seen by other painters.

It probably became famous because it was stolen. So it had always been hung in France. Then someone, a random worker, who happened to be Italian, just stole it and took it to Italy so that he could sell it. The museum staff didn't even notice that it was stolen till a frequent visitor asked them about the empty space two days later. The visitor too didn't know the paintings name. But had noticed the empty space. Then it was reported to the police and soon it was all over the news. And this was just before WW1. So conspiracies started that it was the various countries that stole it. Meanwhile, the Italian guy just had it in his house for 2 years. Stressing. He finally tried to sell it and the police were called. That's how it became famous. All the bad publicity and anxiety fuelled it to be known. Else, it would have just been unknown like most paintings are by people that aren't keen on art.

Not quite, there is Leonardo's draft of a young girl which stood as a model (very probably) for the angel.

In the other version John does not have this cross.

We give the dimensions in the end card and in the KZfaq info area.

Perhaps the Dolomites?

No. You are entirely wrong. This is the first painting. It fulfils the commission. The z Natoonal Gallery, having said for over 100 years that this must be the second. cannot go back on ghat position, as they should. This painting dates from 1483... and did rake a long time. The Louvre painting was done for the King if France, and the second child, who the angel.points at, was the luttlevprince who died at age 3. The delicate face of the Virgin is little Queen Anne, and the sngel is probably her daughter. Look at what flowers are in front of the little Prince? The nlue fleur de lys if France! Do not be fooled inyo thinking Leobardo had some deep secret. The first painting.... London..... says exactly what it should. The second painting, Paris... exresses exactly what the King of France wanted.