Posted on 01/31/2012 11:28:21 AM PST by presidio9
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. Beloved for its beauty and symbolic power, it is one of the most famous images in the world. However, new research suggests that the work, which dates to 1490, may be a copy of an earlier drawing by Leonardo's friend.
Another illustration of a divinely proportioned man — the subject is Christ-like, but the setting is strikingly similar to Leonardo's — has been discovered in a forgotten manuscript in Ferrara, Italy. 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.
After decades of study, Claudio Sgarbi, an Italian architectural historian who discovered the lesser known illustration of the Vitruvian man in 1986, now believes it to be the work of Giacomo Andrea de Ferrara, a Renaissance architect, expert on Vitruvius, and close friend of Leonardo's. What's more, Sgarbi believes Giacomo Andrea probably drew his Vitruvian man first, though the two men are likely to have discussed their mutual efforts. Sgarbi will lay out his arguments in a volume of academic papers to be published this winter, Smithsonian Magazine reports.
The key arguments are as follows: In Leonardo's writings, he mentions "Giacomo Andrea's Vitruvius" — seemingly a direct reference to the illustrated Ferrara manuscript. Secondly,
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
Stupid headline. Copy? Looks like to me, from the article itself, that the two men discussed the concept and the discussion itself is apparently referenced in Leonardo's notes. So the attempt to disparage Leonardo is just typical media negativity and hyperbole.
I might also point out that the last line in the quoted paragraphs in no way proves that Andreas drew his first and that Leonardo drew his second. It just shows that Leondardo was a better draughtsman.
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.
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.
Not that I am disagreeing with your main point, but in my experience Leonardo has a special place in MSM mythology, because they can invent ANY liberal tendency for him and the mystery surrounding his life along with his obvious brilliance and foresightedness makes it believable. Thus, Leonardo was “gay” (even though he had several mistresses), Leonardo was an athiest (even though there is no evidence to support this, and the main subject matter of his limited body of artwork is deeply religious), Leonardo was afraid of “Global Warming,” etc.
Similar, but really, the other one is a doodle compared to Leonardo’s drawing.
The author is either unaware or ignoring the fact that Renaissance artists (all artists for that matter) did not create in a vacuum, but were influnced by the masters they studied under (Andrea del Verrocchio in Leonardo’s case), and their notable peers, who were the rock stars of their day. Leonardo studied and learned from everthing contemporaries like Michalangelo and Raphael were putting out. And vice versa.
"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!
“So what’s the story here?”
Off the top of my head, I think:
Leonardo is a white man, a genius, an icon of western culture.
Any form of soiling Leonardo, can also be seen as reflecting negatively on white men and western culture.
I know, it’s a bit conspiratorial, but I do notice that there has been a lot of academic activity trying to discredit geniuses from Beethoven to Columbus.
Muck Fichigan!
He's also one of the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles.
As someone who really studies the life and art of Leonardo, I have been horrified by the co-opting of the poor man by gay men. I have been told over and over by gays that Leo was “gay” and living a “gay lifestyle.” The utter lack of culture among modern homosexuals is stunning. Most of them think that Leonardo and Michelangelo lived together and spent their off hours at the Renaissance equivalent of Home Depot.
“He’s also one of the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles.”
Funny!
My son was a huge fan. I’ve seen the movies. And whenever I say or type, “Leonardo”, I think of the turtles!
I should have called him da Vinci.
Who are the people wearing black?
Purdue fans?
;-)
The buttsex mafia loves enlisting dead celebrities to their cause, since the are unable to defend themselves. Thus, at one point or another, the lable has been hung on Jesus, Lincoln, Michelangelo, Leonardo, Emily Dickenson, James Buchanan, Baron Von Steuben... the list is endless.
Not something you should be proud to share.
They are pathological!
The weirdest to me has always been Lincoln. The guy shares a bed with someone and that makes him gay. Yeah, sure, I’m buyin’ that.
I completely agree with you. But even though Leo has a big place in MSM mythology, one thing we know is that they also love to eat their young (or in this case, their “old” ). The people they build up soon become opportunities for them to tear down.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.