Arcadia Discussion Zone

Correct.
As T.S. Eliot reminded us the colour associated with the Virgin is blue.

It's John the Baptist...

Well now you've really gone and stirred things up, because I believe you are indicating the Virgin Mary...

I can't believe some people are still trying to place MM in the Last Supper or at Kilmore. Try blanking all the Davinci Code hype out and look at the facts and religious iconography. Ask any art historian and they will tell you that it is a representation of John in the Last Supper, just as he is represented as a fair almost effeminate character by a multitude of other artists. Regarding Kilmore church, it is my belief that the woman shown is Mary Forrest, as Tim says, however I suppose she could be Mary of Bethany but MM? No
There is data available regarding Stephen Adam's window, just don't believe the first "new age" website that pops up.
Maybe someone should contact here :-
http://www.nationalgalleries.org/
As Stephen Adam is a well known stained glass artist, someone like Michael Donnelly might give an impartial review?
http://scotstainedglass.com/
Be aware of the powers of tourism.
Regards
Nic

1) Nope.

2) Immaterial, not all renditions show this posture.

3) Peter is pointing at Jesus. That's hardly a threatening gesture. If he had his hands around the figure's neck I'd concede that point to you.

Very weak reasoning. Right out of Templar Revelation.

TCP

Well then it is interesting
if it is Mother Mary
was she pregnant ever other than Jesus...and are they worried about the Holy Family
such as James the Just

but here is Magdalene at Our Lady of Knock

Interestingly enough all the hands on the three statues under the cross at Knock have been vandalized and damaged

Interesting huh
just the hands

On a lighter (?) note, does anyone else find the versions with Judas by himself on one side of the table to be somewhat amusing? Keep in mind that it is supposed to be the moment when Jesus has announced a traitor and they are all asking "Is it me?" I can just imagine the beginning of the meal, when Jesus says "Hey, Judas, why don't you sit right here in front of me?"

May be. But LDV's LS is almost unique


So you say.


As I have said, but so what? I don't go as far as they do. I can only stick with what I see and no more. All else is speculation - including your version.


So what are the facts as you see them?

Are angels Male or Female? or are they androgenous?

Uriel is painted without a Halo because the Pope mandates that an archangel looses his/her position next to God
Does a Pope trump an Archangel? Is that the question here..especially one who protects the Holy Family?

The one who is the biggest and center of the picture is the Mother surrounded by rocks of the Earth
Magdalene was made a prostitute by the church through its teachings ....but Jesus had her close to him and taught her
DaVinci must have had access to many other books beside the bible...this story isn't in it
and only a very few had access to the bible by church law

TCP,

You crack me up.

You blithely dismiss the key fact - the point of departure.


Anyway, extra Arcadian life beckons to this extraterrestial.

See you anon.

TCP WROTE

That is like suggesting we need a weather man to tell us its raining.
What kind of art historian is ever going to suggest Mary Magdalene was present at the last supper and was pregnant?
You don't need to be a qualified art expert or historian to conclude that someone is female or male. I don't know about you TCP but I was born with senses which generally tell me which is which.
Most of the paintings discussed here concerning the last supper contain a figure at the side of Christ with no beard, very narrow feminine jaw line, no raised masculin brow or anything suggestive of a male.
How more obvious do you want it to be without painting 'this is Mary Magdalene' across the canvas.
Look at this, it's absolutely blatantly obvious:-

Double 'm' then an arrow pointing right at her. It's too obvious and its happening on too may paintings to be brushed aside.
There comes a time when draconian posters on here who accuse some people of being nut cases for observing such things are indeed the nut cases themselves. Draconian die hards who are hanging onto what shreds are left of the RCC's reputation.
I am in agreement with other posters about what these artists knew, they were either in the possession of an unknown gnostic text, biblical writing of somekind or perhaps were taught this information in a secret society such as masonry.

BULLDOGNIC WROTE

That argument really made me laugh.
Personally I think you need to rephrase that statement to something like:-

I don't give too hoots what art historians say. Art historians are told what is on the canvas, they don't deduce it for themselves.
They are drilled in the subject of classical interpretation and probably won't be shifted in what they believe, not too unlike yourself.

Well, I guess that makes up evenly matched then, because I could give a rat's ass for what amateur conspiracy theorists think of higher education or what their vivid imaginations tell them they need to see in order to feed their innate paranoia. You're free to run in circles and milk this silly "enigma" for all it's worth as long as the market will bear it. There are certainly enough pseudohistorians writing sensationalist pulp to keep you all in reading material until the end of your days. I sincerely hope you can look back on your lives one day and feel you've accomplished something.

TCP

You should reconsider

Masonry isn't a secret society.

Yes, LDV could have simple put him where expected and there wouldn't be any question as to whom the figure represents, but he didn't and the geometry is the key to why. Like I said, the fact that this is the sole figure in vesica pisces along with other facts that using LDVs own geometry point to, as well as some very slight changes the artist made as discovered by the restoration team, lead to his intention. Believe it or not, but almost evey one of the changes made were to place certain images completly inside or completely outside the geometry I discovered, and can be the only explanation as far as I'm concerned for the importance of re-positioning Peter's thumb from the more natural way it was original sketched in the under drawing. There is other proof the the geometry was used besides the fact it fits perfectly with the perspective of the room and layout of certain objects, the center points of all three circles used to perfect the vp have been verified by the restoration team to have patched nail holes in the precise spots of the wall. I only found this out after discovering the geometry. Anyway, I have no dog in this fight, I just don't know why it is so hard to believe that LDV may have had access to alternative information that we all know existed, and that he may not have been in 100% agreement with the church. To me, if you look at his life and work, he went as far as he could with out getting burnt.

This has nothing to do with education. It is to do with being able to tell the difference between a man and a woman on a painting. Because some of us are suggesting that the figure at the side of Christ is a woman you are infering we have a 'vivid imagination'. I could claim that you have an even more vivid imagination by you suggesting the figure is a man.
Nobody is milking anything, we are discussing the pro's and con's of these paintings, you however seem to be having a dickie fit because your classical interpretation of these paintings is being challenged.
I don't think it's John, a lot of people don't think it's John, that is a subject for debate. For your information I have accomplished something. I have removed the shackles of classical belief from my brain. I suggest you try and do the same as well as paying a visit to spec savers because there must be something wrong with your eyes if you think it's not a woman.

Ok, then. When your nearest local masonic lodge has a meeting, ask them if you can sit in for an hour
They are secretive.

More like a grown-up to assure you there's no boogey-man under the bed.



None that I know of, since there is no scriptural or documentary basis for the idea. Baseless claims are the purview of pseudohistorians, fantasists, and conspiracy theorists who consider historical details problematic and troublesome.



Well, there's the difference between you and me. I was born with the same base senses (most of us are) but developed (with maturity and education) an enhanced sense of critical discernment - an ability to separate the wheat from the chaff by means of evaluation beyond the mere base senses. Most people have that ability, but apparently that doesn't apply to everyone.



Are these Mary Magdalene too?

















These are all depictions of the young John. Some are rather pretty, aren't they? Now, I can readily understand how someone with no training or ability to view art in its own time and context might look at these and think they're seeing girls, so no fault on you on that score. In fact, some of these images have appeared in the past on websites and forums identified as Mary Magdalene. The webmasters and forum posters didn't take too kindly to being made aware of their misidentification either, I might point out, alleging that the church had engaged in a massive cover-up and that these were, in fact, Mary Magdalene.



Who knew that every arched colonnade was a big billboard for Mary Magdalene?



Really? Can you show us some other examples that have these big 'm's pointing at 'her'...?



I couldn't care less about the RCC's reputation, I'm not even Christian (except on paper, but I had nothing to do with it).

I have to laugh, this entire dialogue reminds me of the opening scene in The Da Vinci Code film where Langdon is showing small sections of slides to his students to get their impressions of what they show, only to expand the slides to show them how wrong they are. You are like those students, believing they can see anomalies in small details that somehow change the overall interpretation of the larger work while demonstrating an inability to grasp its larger form and context. Or perhaps it's just an unwillingness to grasp the form and context for fear of losing your self-ascribed sense of brilliance. People like you generally fear establishment because it is the only yardstick against which you can measure your own sensibilities that will always show you to be lacking. So your knee-jerk reaction is typically to condemn what you cannot command. I'd say you have a brilliant career ahead of you as a pseudohistorical author, should you apply yourself, as you have a sufficient degree of disdain for intellect and hysteria for convention to appeal to the tinfoil hat crowd.



Well, now all you brave Mag-men have to do is reveal this unknown Gnostic text or unknown stream of knowledge and prove that the artists were promoting it. That shouldn't be too daunting a task for a clever boy with an overactive imagination like you. Maybe then you could expand on what it was these artists hoped to gain by incorporating these telling clues into their artwork, since apparently the only people able to spot them would have been those who were already in on the "secret". Were they forming a hallelujah chorus so they could preach to the choir?

TCP

Historical detail? Where would that be? In a version of the bible that has been edited since the day it was written? I wouldn't start talking about fantasies and conspiracy when mentioning the RCC in the same breath - they go hand in hand.

Yes, we saw this when you chose to go to Economy Lenses LTD instead of spec savers.

I have no brilliance, we are discussing the difference between a man and a woman not the difference between Quantum mechanics and general relativity. Don't try and over complicate simple observations and make out you need a degree in art to see when someone has a pair of tits.

I'll do that when you've finished proving the bible is not a fictional work.
PS stop trying to assume the fact that your education gives you some sort of intellectual advantage over the rest of us - it doesn't
It just makes you sound like a pompus old twit.

TCP,

I am interested in the painting above.

It is similar to the one posted yesterday.

What intrigues me are the serpents in the chalice.

Do you know what their significance is? Is there a traditional interpretation?

Do you know what the script on the pedestal says?

Looks like IOHES EWAN???

There's also what appears to be an S on the adjacent face.

What does it mean?

Are you that cavalier about surgeons as well...?

TCP

Not a very good analogy TCP.

One would hope that surgeons universally agree on - this is a lung, this is a heart, this is a kidney etc.

If they didn't then you would be worried.

Surgeons have nothing to do with observing the difference between a man and a woman. Even a child has the skills to do it. It's rather simple TCP if you try.
You don't need any training in art, history or sociology to work out that women don't have beards. LMAO

I'm not talking about the Bible, I'm talking about the obstacles presented to pseudohistorians by historical details in general - those pesky little details that often get in the way of a good revision.



Wow, is that the best you can come up with?



Oh, well - that's different. Can you get out your blue Sharpie and show us the tits on Magdalene in Leonardo's Last Supper? Because I've never seen the nude version.



As far as I'm concerned the Bible is a work of literature, not history. Don't be looking for me to be "proving" its historicity anytime soon. So why don't you take a stab at answering the question? Not that I think you can, of course - you'd need Picknett and Prince to write another book before you'd know what to think.

Why is it that every time your sort get cornered they think the Inquisition is on their ass?



Should I use simpler words for you? By the way, what you refer to as "the rest of us" is in reality a tiny subset of the population on this forum. Most here are every bit as intellectually capable as I am whether or not they've had formal education in this particular field of study. They have the intellect to enable them to grasp broader concepts and weigh key factors that you apparently don't have, so be careful about who you count as your allies.

TCP