DaVinci

[jackofallgeeks]

Leonardo DaVinci is one of my heroes. A fellow southpaw, he was also (forgive the pun) a true Renaissance Man; it's a shame, I think, that he's pretty much only known as a painter. He was also a sculptor, a mathematician, a swordsman, a scientist of several stripes, and an inventor. Mercifully, he's often recognized as designing helicopters and tanks and other things far advanced for his time. Here's an Article about how his magnificent Mona Lisa is even more magnificent that we knew.

Comments

[uhlrik.livejournal.com]

Don't forget military engineer. I've read a letter he sent as a sort of resume, and it basically talks about his engineering, ability to design nasty marmachines and fortifications, his musical ability and other incredible erudition. Then at the end of the letter, it pretty much says (and I paraphrase), "oh, and I can paint too." I love that.

Leonardo Da Vinci and Albrecht Dürer are my two favorite Renaissance figures, for reasons that only partly involve their art.

[jackofallgeeks.livejournal.com]

That DaVinci is an artist is simply further testament to how much of a genius he was, as I see it. The proverbial icing on the cake. I'm not familiar with Dürer, though perhaps I should be.

[uhlrik.livejournal.com]

I'm sure you've seen some of his work. Among many other things, he was simply the most awesome printmaker ever. ;) The man did things in woodcut that most guys couldn't even achieve in engraving, and his engravings ruined engraving as an art medium for everybody else, forever. After him, artists decided that they'd better explore new print media like etching instead of trying to compete.

It takes a lot of awesome to kill a whole art medium.

I've also heard him described as the man that brought the Renaissance to Germany.

[nif.livejournal.com]

I don't know if you've read The DaVinci Code or not. (If not, then don't waste your time.) But. It did have some very interesting ideas on the Mona Lisa in particular as well as the Last Supper. I'm no art expert and I can't say that I've looked into any of Dan Brown's assertions, but they seem pretty plausible. For instance, that the Mona Lisa is so titled as a veiled reference to Amon-- the Egyptian god of male fertility, yet her second name is clearly feminine. The book argues that she's supposed to be hermaphroditic as a testament to DaVinci's disagreement with male supremacy. And in the Last Supper, the figure seated on Jesus' right hand, says Brown, is actually female and therefore is Mary Magdalene, the true person whom Jesus wanted to carry on his teachings. He says the Peter figure is actually making a stabbing motion in the painting at Mary Magdalene. I think it's all very intriguing. I just hated the actual DaVinci Code book. I can't believe I gave in to the hype.

[jackofallgeeks.livejournal.com]

Ha. No, I didn't read the DaVinci code. Firstly because I wasn't overly enthused by the subject matter, secondly because I hear it was horridly written, and third because I felt insulted that Brown would insinuate DaVinci into his conspiracy theory. I've heard "angels and Demons" in a lot better, but I'm not really interested in that, either.

As far as the points you bring up, I do think they're interesting to think about, but I think they're rather far-fetched, too. -shrugs- I donno. The sorts of things I want to write about are pretty wild ideas, too (though I think mine have more of a historical backing than Brown's), but... -shrugs-