Mimi, I remember when the theory of ML being a "self portrait" surfaced. The good scientist says the features of Leonardo's self'sketch and of ML "align perfectly". But then so would thousands of other 3/4 profile portraits!

I've always found one of the most fascinating things about this work is that it is not a religious subject, as most other Leonardo paintings. And it's experimental (as were works by many of the renaissance masters), a break from the past that is hard to appreciate today.

Now, I took a photo of you and superimposed it with one of Liz Taylor as Cleopatra ... perfect match. I don't know if this means you look like LT or like C. =-?

Tomasso, Huh?! Are you saying Cigale is NOT Liz Taylor?:) I always thought she was. And you are Michael Jackson. No?

LOl, I wish, but only how she looked in, A Place in the Sun or..National Velvet.

:) :)

I haven't read all of the above but I have to say that the Eiffel Tower was more beautiful than I'd imagined. And we didn't even go up! I found the iron work more delicate and intricate than I thought it would be and the combination of that and the feeling of the strength of the iron was beautiful.

On the other hand, the Mona Lisa was a disappointment.

Other sights that were more beautiful in real life than I could imagine were my first sight of Venice's Grand Canal as I stepped out of the railway station, the Grand Canyon (in the daytime!), the Pieta, the Sistine Chapel, the Tuscan countryside, Mount Fuji peeping out of the clouds as we flew into Tokyo...there are so many!

Before I had been to Paris, I had visited the Statue of Liberty. And of course, Gustave Eiffel engineered the internal structure. So if you are visit inside, you can see the ironwork that is surprisingly elegeant, and see the relationship to the Eiffel Tower.

That link made seeing the Eiffel Tour the first time even more special. And as someone else said, by golly when you are looking at it, it means you are in Paris!

It is my understanding the Mona Lisa is also renowned for of a particular style in painting, is it sfumato? So to artists and art students the painting is famous for that fact. Is that right? Can someone more well-versed than I illuminate?

guess I should have proofed before I posted...pardon my typos!

Just in time for me to go see for myself!

I did heard the Mona Lisa was not all the impressive, but I'm going to make sure I see it myself.

Statue of Liberty should be #1. Wait in line to get on a shaky ferry boat to get to this old statue and go up to the top. I'm not saying it's not an important symbol in history but it's not something I'd go out of my way to visit or recommend seeing in New York.

I wasn't disappointed in the Eiffel Tower by any means. The Mona Lisa? Big time.

I would never put the Statue of Liberty on that list - as long as you don't "waste" a day going out to see it, it's best enjoyed from the Circle Line or Staten Island Ferry! Then it feels worth it and is quite awe-inspiring. :)

I saw both the Mona Lisa and the Eiffel. I thought the Eiffel was meh, but then again, modern archetecture wasn't really my interest, especially iron ones.

I wasn't disappointed to see Mona Lisa. I was more disappointed that I couldn't see her closer than the viewing distance, but understandable. I was more disappointed with the people who just walk in, with a cell phone camera or camera, just snap it, and walk out without even really looking at it. I thought Mona Lisa is what it is. I knew it wasn't big. I knew I probably would never get to see it up close. Therefore I had no disappointment. There were much more beautiful paintings there, and I think, after looking at ML, I turned around, and there my breath was taken away. The huge Feast of Cana that was hung across the room from the ML was impressive, and I was enthralled by it.

When I got home, and downloaded my photos from my camera, and uploaded to my Flickr account, this photo of the Eiffel (tp://tinyurl.com/ythuva), made me cherish the Eiffel even more, even though I was underwhelmed by it at the moment.

a very elegant photograph

lmlweb
exactly! I have many similar photos -- I loved the ET for exactly that reason!

I think a lot is what NeoPatrick says. If you travel with some curiousity plus some knowledge you are seldom shocked or disappointed.
I had heard that the Eiffel Tower was huge and that the Mona Lisa was tiny so when I saw them, I was beyond this.
The contrast with the Feast of Cana had to be deliberate. I was intrigued that a small painting could hold its own (understatement) despite its size.
I loved both the ET and ML.

Disappointment is in the eye of the beholder. The poll reflects the unrealistic expectations of some...the tourist versus the travelor....those checking off a list of places they see versus those that look for an experience that's a personal revelation.

I've seen game show winners of thousands of dollars obviously disappointed not to be the grand prize winner. And I've seen someone pick up $10 on the street and act like they won the lottery. Its all a matter of context and expectations.

I agree with the unrealistic expectations part of that statement but sometimes they go beyond tourist/traveler.

I, for example, studied art history for years. After all those years of seeing works of art in books and on slides, my reaction to seeing the real thing varied wildly. The Sistine Chapel, for example, was more beautiful and three-dimentional than I could ever have imagined. Boticelli's Venus as well. Same for just about anything by Van Gogh. Vermeer knocks my socks off in real life. The Mona Lisa? No.

There's a lot I see as a tourist or traveller -- the Eiffel Tower, for sure. But I expect that someone who's an architect would see it through different eyes than I would and that's how I feel about seeing the art. I come to it with some knowledge and I think that gives my expectations a little more depth.

You know I meant dimensional, right. Not dimentional? Ack, I hate typos!

<< Its all a matter of context and expectations. >>

Definitely. And appreciation, which is in short supply.

Some people would say the ET is just a big radio tower. I don't know if they're found elsewhere, but in Jordan we saw "Eiffel Tower" TV antennas. There were other styles, too, including the "airplane" antenna, but the ET model was pervasive. You might count 6 of them as you passed 8 houses on the road.

As a culture we are exposed to so many pictures of the iconic "attractions" - film, TV, books, magazines, even commercials that play over and over - that we are always in danger of becoming blase about the "real thing". I'm sure there are some people who visit Paris and say they prefer the Vegas version!

BTW, I was also always satisfied with the "sail by" views of Liberty in NY Harbor. The SI ferry ride was cheap or free, depending on the system of the day, so that was my only route. Then when my sister and niece visited we took the boat out to Ellis Island, stopping to let passengers of at Liberty. Seeing her from that angle - actually a nearly 360 view as we came around the island - was fantastic, and humbling. She's a giant, and it's worth discovering that from a nearer perspective.

a funny post today among the comments to the original article:

<<More irresistible proof that
Britain is the world's nanny.>>

I agree with those who previously cited that expectations lead to disappoinment. There is an apochryphal tale about a Parisian who had breakfast every morning under the Eiffel Tower. Someone said you must truly love it. The Parisian replied that he hated it was only place he could have breakfast without looking at it.

I agreed with the telegraph list save the Pyramids and the Brandenburg Gate since we have not visited them.

Some of the places and sites that have exceeded expectations are Guernica, which we have seen many, many times, the Alhambra, Sagrada Familia, the renovation of the D'Orsy, the temples in Tikal, the antiquities in Sicily. Of course, there are others.