'Mona Lisa Effect' Is Real But Doesn't Apply To Leonardo's Painting (arstechnica.com) 40
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: There have long been anecdotal reports that the eyes of the Mona Lisa -- Renaissance artist Leonardo da Vinci's most famous painting -- sometimes seem to follow viewers as they move around the artwork. The phenomenon is even called the "Mona Lisa effect" because of it. But a new study published in the journal i-Perception found that she's really "looking" to the right-hand side of her audience. "There is no doubt about the existence of the Mona Lisa effect," the authors wrote. "It just does not occur with the Mona Lisa herself."
This was a small study, with just 24 subjects. All were asked to look at a high-resolution recreation of the Mona Lisa on a computer monitor, with a folding ruler placed between them and the screen to track viewing distance. Subjects would signal where they perceived Mona Lisa's gaze met the ruler. The researchers sampled 15 sections of the famous portrait, ranging from the Mona Lisa's full head to just her eyes and nose, and they showed subjects each image three times in random order. They also changed the ruler's distance from the monitor halfway through the sessions. Based on the more than 2,000 individual assessments, they found no evidence of the Mona Lisa effect with Leonardo's masterpiece. "We demonstrated that Mona Lisa gazes to her left-hand side [the viewer's right] from about 35.5 cm inside pictorial space, and 14.4 degrees to the viewer's right-hand side in real space," the authors wrote. "Thus, Mona Lisa does not fulfill the premise of the Mona Lisa effect. She does not gaze at the viewer."
This was a small study, with just 24 subjects. All were asked to look at a high-resolution recreation of the Mona Lisa on a computer monitor, with a folding ruler placed between them and the screen to track viewing distance. Subjects would signal where they perceived Mona Lisa's gaze met the ruler. The researchers sampled 15 sections of the famous portrait, ranging from the Mona Lisa's full head to just her eyes and nose, and they showed subjects each image three times in random order. They also changed the ruler's distance from the monitor halfway through the sessions. Based on the more than 2,000 individual assessments, they found no evidence of the Mona Lisa effect with Leonardo's masterpiece. "We demonstrated that Mona Lisa gazes to her left-hand side [the viewer's right] from about 35.5 cm inside pictorial space, and 14.4 degrees to the viewer's right-hand side in real space," the authors wrote. "Thus, Mona Lisa does not fulfill the premise of the Mona Lisa effect. She does not gaze at the viewer."
Re: (Score:1)
Don't forget serving cold McDonald's on silver platters!
They did (Score:3)
"It was cool that the whole team got to go into the Oval Office. Last time,
only about 10 or 15 guys - the team captains, three or four other players, and
the coaches got to go," Renfrow said. "This time Trump brought all of the
players in, and it was cool seeing that. The whole front lawn of the White
House was covered in snow, and there was one 30x30 patch of grass and Trump
actually landed right in front of the White House on that green part at 5:40.
We were all huddled up around the windows taking videos, so
Sure, *she* isn't watching you (Score:1)
But Google, Facebook, and pretty much everyone else is these days.
Have studies like this always been done? (Score:4, Funny)
Maybe her eyes are just off a bit... (Score:4, Interesting)
If many people take the test and find that the perception of the gaze is always about the same relative to the viewer then it would seem that the gaze does follow the viewer... even if it is not directed directly at the viewer, it would give the viewer the feeling of being watched but not stared at.
So, not the mona lisa at all (Score:2)
Ah, the "mona lisa". ...and, in RGB. ...and back-lit
Well, a flat photograph of the mona lisa.
Well, a digitized and compressed and substantially shrunken photograph of the mona lisa.
Ah, the "viewer".
Well, from a seated position.
In a poorly-lit room.
Ah, "follows".
Well, with a calibrated reference-object in the way.
Sample size doesn't matter when you're measuring something completely different anyway.
I love that people think pictures are the things that they picture. They are not. That's not the mona lisa, a
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
umm, I don't think you read anything. This study was about changing the point of view.
oh, and bull. Paint has depth.
oh, and bull. 18" monitor showing a 36" painting.
oh, and bull. Gallery lighting vs office lighting for enhancing depth.
Just like the study, you removed all context from your argument.
You argued my point, not my point in context with the post.
You can't jump a hurdle from a hundred feet away.
Mona Lisa effect? (Score:2)
I’ve heard about paintings where the eyes seem to follow one around the room - that’s nothing new. But, until today, I’d never heard the term “Mona Lisa effect”. And using DuckDuckGo and Google to search on this phrase doesn’t turn up much - except news stories about this paper, and the paper itself.
Had anyone here heard the phrase “Mona Lisa effect” prior to a week or two ago?
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, it's when you fuck both Mona and Lisa and later find out they both had different STDs, which they graciously passed onto you.
Re: (Score:3)
Never heard of it called the "Mona Lisa" effect. The effect is well know however, in particular from the WW1 "Your country needs you" recruiting poster which has Lord Kitchener both looking and pointing at "YOU". This picture still has the power to haunt :-
https://www.submerged.co.uk/gf... [submerged.co.uk]
Re: (Score:2)
Had anyone here heard the phrase âoeMona Lisa effectâ prior to a week or two ago?
Only with regards to her smile, as it's hard to get a consensus on whether she's smiling or not.
I think it's just hyperbole going into overdrive...
Bullshit (Score:2)
1. This is a well-known and understood effect caused by the image being 2D. Works even better with feet that are pointing at the viewer.
2. No gallery guide or lecturer who has referred to it (and there's been quite a few) in my hearing has ever called it the "Mona Lisa effect".
3. Anyone who's looked at the Mona Lisa knows she's not looking outwards at them.
4. This "study" was a total waste of time and whatever money was spent on it.
Slashshit (Score:2)
News for the masses, Stuff that clicks.
Sad, really.
I get the distinct feel that that 90% of the readers 15 years ago were smarter than 100% of the editors now.
something entirely different (Score:2)
Comment removed (Score:3)
Wouldn't her eyes still be following you? (Score:2)
If Mona Lisa's eyes are always "14.4 degrees to the viewer's right-hand side in real space" even as they move around the room aren't they still following you?
Flawed study using a computer monitor (Score:2)
The Mona Lisa is painted with an oil-based medium. Presumably, that gives it some degree of depth. Moving around in the room with the painting could be quite different than viewing a static image of the painting on a computer monitor. It's possible that peaks and valleys in the paint play tricks with the light and shadows as someone moves around the room. This wouldn't happen on a monitor.
That said, I'd imagine the lighting in the display is such that shadows and the like may not be an issue, but that s
my dad knew that (Score:2)
my dad knew about the following eyes, he pointed me to a lot of paintings that did that, although i never knew it was called the 'mona lisa effect'.
he was an artist himself, he probably knew the secret because he made several paintings that did the same.
one thing though, it doesn't work with a photo of the painting, don't know why, but if these researchers used a photo shown on a monitor to reach their conclusions, it wouldn't have worked.
can't ask him for more info about it anymore since he died more then