>

Probably. But as a history buff things like that make me appreciate the piece more. knowing this was just a regular person and wanting to implement all of the techniques he learned in his final painting (imo) keeps it an interesting piece for centuries. 
it’s also seems like it’s one of the most commonly debated pieces of art which to me is half the fun of art
I assumed it was only famous because it was stolen. >

Pretty much, nobody cared before that >

It’s not exactly the ambiguous smile. 
It’s a psychological painting. The idea is that when people are happy they tend to see her as happy and when they’re sad they tend to see her as somber. That’s why the painting is so famous. Because it’s the same face but people manage to project different emotions on the face based on their own mood. 
I mean it’s influential. If you say overrated I say okay but it’s from a more historic art movement. It’s one image.
These days people can see movies so it’s a different ball game. Only so much you can do with a still image. >

Huh. I didn’t know this. I’ve only ever seen her as sad. I didn’t know people saw her as happy. 
I’m definitely gonna be talking to my therapist about this. >

Oh nice hope this is the beginning of a beautiful breakthrough for you haha sorry to be the bearer of such news. At the very least I hope it gives some here a new appreciation for the Mona Lisa. >

It was one of the first paintings ever to have an imaginary landscape and a background from an aerial view.  It's like the 15th century equivalent to Avatar in 3d. People back then thought it was pretty freaking cool, even if folks today are more impressed with face filters on Snapchat. The painting is 500 years old, and its just the last decade or so that we've been able to figure out what techniques he used to pull off that painting, and that's with some newer fancy scanning technology.
It's also worth noting that the painted flesh had between 20-30 layers of paint, incredibly thinned down, sometimes micrometers thick.  There is no trace of brush strokes because the painted the layers so thin. Warhammer painters today struggle with painting just two thin coats. >

Is it possible to say that its origin and history are more interesting than the painting then? Its a decent painting, made by a famous painter, but its renown is more from what it has been through and who made it than the actual painting its self.