Quote:
Originally Posted by NightbatŪ
But, would you consider "Mona Lisa II" a valuable addition to the Louvre?
|
That is an interesting question. The Mona Lisa has been studied, analyzed, debated and even imitated for centuries. Every brush stroke and every detail have been explored, interpreted and reinterpreted over the years. So, if someone did create a "sequel", only with minor changes, the pieces would have to be compared and contrasted. What did this brush stroke mean? Has the angle of the smile changed? Is the picture brighter or darker? Etc. Mona Lisa II could itself be a critique on the original rather than simply a remake.
Whether art is the debate, analysis and interpretation of intent; or the appreciation of style and technique; or even the simple appreciation of something beautiful without necessarily knowing why, then yes a "Mona Lisa II" would more than deserve its spot in the Louvre if only to question the 'why' and the possible 'what'.
(Personally, this brief discussion reminds me of Orson Welles classic documentary
F for Fake, a strange and mostly fake tale of authorship and authenticity in the face of a world that cares for neither.)
Quote:
Originally Posted by NightbatŪ
would you consider grants given to artists to remake old songs/paintings/movies
"money well spent"?
|
It depends on what they are doing. I would be more than willing to give money to a future Laurents, Bernstein, and Sondheim if they were going to reinterpret a classic in a new and modern way.
---
That being said, this brief discussion has gone far afield. Whether the new
Robocop is a good adaptation is unknown, but I tend to think the director and writer will lose the original humour and satire of the work in favor of a mores simplistic story.