Sunday, November 2, 2008
I have to admit, no smile (smug or otherwise) appeared on this face. From the general hopping back and forth from subject to subject, and the almost ambiguous ending it seems the writer is almost just as confused as I am as to the mental and psychological implications of the smile, but with more research. Yes, some facts were interesting, but how many more times does the mysteriousness of the Mona Lisa need to be mentioned? I think people should start moving towards the scientists view of taking things at face value. No one has any one specific reason for having smiled, I don't know even know I do it sometimes. This can correlate with some artwork as well. We (or just I) don't always know why it is I'm picking something to be my subject or its significance, but I know I like the look of it. The man who created the smiley face had his reason, da Vinci had his reason, but unless we are the creator we can't really make a statement as to the reason; no matter how much research has been put into it. As I hinted before, I liked the scientific information of this reading, but a lot of the content just fell flat for me.