And here's a good accounting of the Mona Lisa's journey in hiding during WW2, and the existence of the other copies.

https://www.artcuriouspodcast.com/artcuriouspodcast/1

It's underwhelming in real life, very small, dimly lit, under thick glass, teeming with tourists.

Online art is a great endeavor but there's no context for art without the space in which it lives, and in this I think the Musée d'Orsay is the better space.

If I have one day in Paris, it's definitely the Musée d'Orsay rather than the Louvre. Nothing against the Louvre of course, but the setting isn't really as good and you really have to plan where you spend your time.

I highly recommend The Musée Marmottan, probably my favorite in Paris. Small and intimate space, beautiful light, charming interior, and doesn't feel like a museum. The collection is beautiful and well worth the visit.

> there's no context for art without the space in which it lives

Interesting - I tend to think of context in terms of things like social, cultural, or historical context rather than the physical space.

Potentially online museums and galleries can provide a lot more historical context than a physical museums could, not only by providing supporting information but also by including many works that would not necessarily be located in the same physical museums.

But I'm intrigued by the physical space issue - perhaps using 3D graphics, VR, and AR could help virtual gallery attendees to gain a better spacial understanding of the work as well as how it is displayed in the physical museum.

In terms of current social, cultural, and historical context, I think virtual galleries can certainly present works in the context of current culture and recent history, and I also wonder if there are effective ways to provide a shared experience of visiting a gallery with other people, including people that you know as well as random members of the public, much as you might have in a physical gallery or museum.

Sorry, just to clarify. "The" Mona Lisa - or at least the picture presented as such - in the Louvre, in Paris, is not the actual picture but a later copy by a different artist?

There's nothing on Wikipedia suggesting that, based on a skim, it says:

>It had been believed to have been painted between 1503 and 1506; however, Leonardo may have continued working on it as late as 1517. It was acquired by King Francis I of France and is now the property of the French Republic itself, on permanent display at the Louvre, Paris since 1797.[10] //

I'm guessing I've misunderstood??

I was similarly confused at first. But it looks like the Louvre has two versions, the original by Davinci and this other copy by an unknown artist.

I knew that, but, I see where the error is now.

The OP posts saying ~'why does _the_ Mona Lisa image say this' and then the responder doesn't explicitly correct them: the linked image is not _the_ one but one of the copies, a copy that's also in the Louvre collection.

Aside, Wikipedia says it's been "on permanent display" in the Louvre since Louis XIV; not quite right, perhaps they meant part of the permanent collection.

I'm interested that Wikipedia claims it had no special renown until pretty recently, yet there are several high quality copies. Is that consistent?

Thanks for clarifying this. Is it standard to use the original painter’s name even though it’s not their own work?

It's sort of written backwards, but the notice says something like "Da Vinci (after)" ("d'après"), meaning it's a copy after the work of Da Vinci's. The actual artist isn't known.

It's filed as “Da Vinci [...], d'après”; which basically means “copied from Da Vinci”.

When the name of the copyist isn't known, it's common to file the copy under the name of the original artist – and with the “d'après” at the end not to break the alphabetical order.