Replies

I just read this article last night. It basically contends that Leonardo may have collaborated with another artist on “Vitruvian Man” drawings and thought. This is a new idea - that Leonardo may have worked with others on projects. We usually think of him as working alone. But if you look at his notebooks, you do see he was a sociable man.

So what's the story here? Both men take a stab at creating a depiction of a Vitruvian man. Leonardo makes reference to Andrea's earlier version and then advances his own interpretation.

Where the basis for 'COPIED,' or maybe the insinuated 'stolen idea'? Seems like different interpretations on the same subject. One idea builds off another, and it appears to acknowledge that. I don't seen any sensationalism here. Unless it's proposing that Leonardo didn't learn from others and all of his work was based off his own intellectual genesis within a vacuum.

In Leonardo's writings, he mentions "Giacomo Andrea's Vitruvius" — seemingly a direct reference to the illustrated Ferrara manuscript. Secondly, Leonardo had dinner with Giacomo Andrea in July 1490, the year in which both men are thought to have drawn their Vitruvian men. Experts believe Leonardo would have probed Giacomo Andrea's knowledge of Vitruvius when they met. And though both drawings interpret Vitruvius' words similarly, Leonardo's is perfectly executed, while Giacomo Andrea's is full of false starts and revisions, none of which would have been necessary if he had simply copied Leonardo's depiction.

Both drawings are depictions of a passage written 1,500 years earlier by Vitruvius, an ancient Roman architect, in which he describes a man's body fitting perfectly inside a circle (the divine symbol) and inside a square (the earthly symbol). It was a geometric interpretation of the ancient belief that man is a "microcosm": a miniature embodiment of the whole universe. Leonardo and other scholars revived this vainglorious notion during the Italian Renaissance.

"Vainglorious?" What is "vainglorious" about the idea that man is microcosm, which dates back to Vitruvius, an idea endorsed and carried forward by Plato and revived during the Italian Renaissance?

What does the author want us to take away from the fact that Leonardo and his friend Giacomo Andrea were both working on a geometric interpretation of Vitruvius' insight? That if Giacomo Andrea drew his "first," then Leonardo was "cribbing," guilty of plagiarism?

I do not understand the "aim" of this article.

Anyhoot, it should be clear that Leonardo's rendition is clearly the superior work. So what's the problem?

Thanks so much for posting, presidio9!

Re: Leonardo da Vinci's drawing of a male figure perfectly inscribed in a circle and square, known as the "Vitruvian Man," illustrates what he believed to be a divine connection between the human form and the universe

Gadzooks! No big deal at all-- Here's how I square my... circular, shiny metal a$$!

By the way--