Arcadia Discussion Zone

Sorry! but everybody seemed to miss this so I thought I would bring it up again.

btw, Lov is correct, "Peter" would seem to have been the choice for the position on Jesus' right. Why would da Vinci have drawn it one way and then have changed it?

How about some of the other artists, such as "Caravaggio" and his pregnant Magdalene?

The most revealing part of this sketch is the geometry drawn in the middle of the page. It can also be found in the final finished version of the painting and is the key to revealing DV's true intentions. Underlying pencil marks and nail holes(nails were used along with string to form perfect circles) found by the last restoration team align perfectly with the geometry. Although the geometry shown above is not complete, it is the base for the vesica pisces found in the completed work. DV made certain seamingly meaningless modifications from the underdrawing to the final painted version that allow the geometry to fit precisely as he intended.

In your opinion what were da Vinci's true intentions Jim?

btw, I'm in Florida now myself (well, for one more day), great weather

Yeah, the weather is just about perfect right now, if only the water was a little warmer. As for DVs intentions, I believe when you fellow the geometry, and I have many reasons to believe he used it, it forms a vesica pisces which only contains one person in it, that being the john/mary figure. You can then use the geometry to precisely transpose the john/mary figure to the opposite side of the jesus figure leaving him/her resting their head on the jesus figures shoulder. Long ago I sent these findings to Dan Brown and he was fascinated by it. He asked if he could use it in an annotated version of his book. I told him he could, but I don't believe he ever did. Although, strange enough when the movie came out, the transposition was included, but none of the geometry which confirms LDV intent was. Anyhow, the vesica pisces along with some other clues the geometry points to convinces me the LDV intended the figure to secretly represent MM.

Excuse me Sir, but could you explain "MM" to my ignorant mind?

I humbly ask.

Excuse me Sir, but could you explain "MM" to my ignorant mind?

I humbly ask.

mary magdalene = mm

Thank you.

If I may, how many marys are there and could you tell me a little about each one?

Please?

thats very interesting Jim. When I had seen the movie about 3years ago, I hadn't read the book yet and I didn't pay a lot of attention to what you describe at the time. I will for sure look more into it. If you have the time maybe you could try to convince me. On another point I have been discussing with Tim, do you know if the "Tongerlo" copy was by a known or unknown artist, I did not think that anybody knew for sure if it was a da Vinci student or not.---Bill

That was the last painting, I'll decode. I'm done doing that here.

I've made videos and posted them on youtube or you can find them on facebook.

I've also sent them to Art Professors across the u.s. and england.

So..if you want to know more, you'll know where to look.


Just being helpful.

Well isn’t that just typical of you TD? The forum is going tits up, there is no chance whatsoever of having a decent conversation with anyone about anything while SoN prowls the threads causing nothing but irritation, the moderator isn’t doing anything about him even though he banned him earlier in the week and then you wade in with your usual shit stirring!. NO ONE has scuttled off to reconsider any untenable position, some of us do have a life in the real world and spending countless hours on here wading through this crap is not most people’s idea of enjoyment.

Here’s a thought….why don’t you post some of YOUR invaluable insights, show us some of YOUR theories, at least then it will appear as though you are here for a reason other than to harangue and harass and mess about with the pm system.

edited to add…..

if anyone is under any illusions as to TDs intentions, one only needs to wonder why he felt the need to reply to that post in that manner and none of the other shit that has gone on this week.

Father Silence


thanks for those pics Father Silence
and yes other painters do so

Well, let's consider this. It's a painting of an event described in some detail in the New Testament. According to the narrative, Jesus and his twelve disciples attended. There are thirteen figures in the painting. One of them (John) is described in the Gospel narratives as a youth. During the Renaissance period, male youth were portrayed with soft, somewhat feminine features to emphasize the fact that they were not yet mature adults. There were other portrayals of John in art before Leonardo that showed him similarly "feminine"; likewise there are other portrayals of the Last Supper before Leonardo that place John to the right of Jesus (the viewer's left). Ergo, Leonardo's rendition was not unique or original in that respect, he was following a proscribed pattern of formation that was employed by earlier artists long before he started painting.

How can anyone make a logical claim that Leonardo's rendition was unique and composed to reflect some sort of "secret knowledge" when other artists before him have done likewise? Were they all in on this "secret"? Why do feminine boys at Jesus' right hand in other portrayals - earlier portrayals - not evoke similar suspicions today? Why is it only Leonardo's work that people find so fascinating?

TCP

I've never seen an artist name other thern "unknown" associated with it. Oh, and I gave up trying to convince people of what I discovered years ago. It is what it is.

Tim,It would be fine if we were only thinking of da Vinci, but there were many many artists who actually depicted a pregnant Mary Magdalene. Caravaggio, with his "Penitent Magdalene", Ambrosius Benson, and his "Mary Magdalene with the annoiting jar", Georges de la tour, with the "Penitent Magdalene" , and the "Magdalene with the smoking flame", and don't forget Stephen Adam and his stained glass at Kilmore Church. There are also many others even including another Last Supper.

Wow! Calm down dear you're sounding hysterical and a tad paranoid !
If you stop and actually read my post you'll see that I was cautioning another poster against attempting to interpret the silence of some Forum members. Everyone is entitled to withdraw from involvement, even those who used to have so much to say for themselves.
Not sure what you mean with your comments about the pm system, as far as I'm aware I have no more control
over it than you do?
TD
Edited to add;
Every one a coconut!
Why did I reply to that post? Because, dear lady, you mentioned my name in that charming passive/aggresive way you manage.
What was the problem with the pm system you accused me of?
TD

In 1652, due to recent flooding, the floor was raised by one meter. The doorway had to be raised.



You're right, the artist's identity is not known, it's attributed only to "School of Leonardo da Vinci".



No great mystery here, the Abbey of Tongerlo ordered a copy from Leonardo's studio, and that's where it sits today. The "motives" were to get paid.



Then I'm afraid you're really not understanding.



Who says he did? What about other artists prior to Leonardo who also painted John on Jesus' right? Conspiracy? Or consistency?



Differing standards of female beauty in those days, Bill. Nobody painted Magdalene pregnant, just voluptuous.

Take Leonardo, for example:



If Leonardo was trying to make some shocking point about Magdalene (other than immodesty, which was pretty much the consensus when it came to Magdalene in those days), here was his golden opportunity. Or do you want to go the Starbird route and say the transparent veil drawn over her belly is supposed to draw attention to her uterus?

TCP

Another view of the Last Supper is the Franz de Cleyn version hanging in the Parish Church of St John the Baptist in Windsor
(see below)

http://www.thamesweb.co.uk/parishchurch ... chrch.html

Although the composition of the picture is slightly different to the left of Jesus is a young person of indeterminate gender.
Seems to follow a tradition.
TD

Not one of these artists painted a pregnant Magdalene. They painted a "beautiful" Magdalene according to the standards of beauty in their day, i.e. generously proportioned.

And the Stephen Adam window isn't Magdalene, it's a young lady named Mary Forrest. The window is her memorial window, paid for by her sister. The inscription on it (which is usually cropped off when the image is posted on Magdalene fan sites) states as such. And the scriptural verse refers not to Magdalene, but to Mary of Bethany.

TCP

Jacopo Bassano, 1542. This John looks even more girly than Leonardo's John:



Daniel Crespi, 1624/5. A bit androgynous here too:



Andrea del Castagno, 1447. A little more butch here:



TCP

OK, now this one DEFINITELY shows a woman where John should be:



TCP

Nice one, Thomas:



TCP

Did you know that Leonardo is credited with having painted over 60 renditions of his Mona Lisa? Some of them nudes? Seems a bit obsessive if this was just a commission from a merchant's wife called Lisa Gherlandaio:



This is a copy attributed to Salai from Leonardo's now-lost original. The model is unmistakably Salai himself. Other than the breasts, there is really nothing here to suggest a woman's body. The neck, arms - especially the forearms - wrists, and hands are thase of a male. And yet, she too is Mona Lisa. At first glance she looks practically nothing like the famous portrait, until one starts looking closely at the facial features, the wry half-smile seen also on a portrait of Salai himself.

Perhaps this is why the Mona Lisa is considered Leonardo's masterpiece?

TCP

All of these women are pregnant IMHO, take a closer look. You are quite correct though, the Adams stained glass is according to scripture "Mary of Bethany" who at the time was considered the same person as "Mary Magdalene" in many of the churchs. The RCC did not decide otherwise until 1969, what would a layman stained glass artist think. remember,btw, I am only giving you my opinion, of course many do agree with it.

nice edit Tim, I was answering what you tryed to fix, the problem is that although the window was paid for as a memorial to Mary Forrest, it is not a depiction of her, it is a depiction to as you said before editing,"Mary of Bethany".

I know this because I have a letter from the pastor Robert Nelson.

TCP,

I fully accept that what you say is a possibility.

However, it is just as presumptuous of you to argue the above and say this is what LDV was about as it is for anyone else to say that the female figure is MM, for instance.

Unless LDV wrote in a journal or document somewhere, where he clearly says what was on his mind, then no-one can definitively say.

Look at LDV's other paintings such as the Virgins on the Rocks, John the Baptist - the paintings are replete with non orthodox images - you have to question what was LDV up to.

LDV was not beyond eidetic ludibrium.

Artists weren't just faithful reproducers of what was before them or what was expected of them.

They were commentators on their times, they were commentators on the past. They had points of view.

Their work was just as idiosyncratic as a blog is today - at least as far as they could push it given the dangers of stepping to far away from orthodoxy.

LDV was disdainful (to say the least - please correct me if you think this is not so) of the Church as anybody dared to be - so why would you expect him to conform to the orthodoxy. May be I'm just plain wrong on this?