In the news today

Inny that's a joke. And I don't think God or Jesus are concerned about QOL members discrediting them.

In other news, why does Da Vinci get dragged into this stuff? Da Vinci was a genius, and an artist with a sense of humour, lot's of his work has ironic or controversial elements, if there was a female in the last supper it still means nothing other than an interesting insight into Da Vinci's personality.

Like you said...........
Da Vinci's Angel Gabriel. Effeminate, slender hands and face, breasts, flowing hair and then a big cock!!! I think he just liked to have a dig at the church.

Looks like Justin Hawkins.

Inny that's a joke. And I don't think God or Jesus are concerned about QOL members discrediting them.

In other news, why does Da Vinci get dragged into this stuff? Da Vinci was a genius, and an artist with a sense of humour, lot's of his work has ironic or controversial elements, if there was a female in the last supper it still means nothing other than an interesting insight into Da Vinci's personality.

da Vinci is *dragged* into this because of Mary Magdalene and the possibility of her and Jesus being married. If that is a woman in the painting, and I believe it to be, then surely it's her. That's my way of thinking, anyway. The subject is being discussed on some of the Catholic forums and this was mentioned. Some, of course, are totally against the whole thing and some are for it. Personally, I'm for it and I think it's pretty cool.

I read a lot of da Vinci before the film. My dad had a book about his engineering etches and it went from there.

Are you saying that da Vinci's interpretation is that of a female? That of course could be true we don't know. I think it isn't you think it is, that's fine. Or are you saying that it is a TRUE depiction of The Last Supper? Surely that flies in the face of your faith as four gospels say Mary Magdalene was NOT around the table? She was just a foot washer or something.

Yes, the image appears to be a female. It sure doesn't appear to be a male.


And, no, I am not saying da Vinci had some knowledge of Jesus that was a secret or whatever. lol. It proves nothing, really, because he wasn't there.

As far as the angel Gabriel painting, that was something that was common among artists of that time so just because he painted a picture with male and female attributes does not mean he was gay. It means he was doing the same thing as his peers.

Yeah that's what I said Inny, it was the fashion of the time. Michelangelo was doing similar things. His picture of Gabriel does not prove if he was gay or not, not really the issue, but it does highlight his liking for sketching men in a feminine way, be that influenced by his romantic ideal or the trends of the time.

From the images I have always seen throughout my childhood and in my prayer books, holy cards and family bibles, angels have always been depicted as rather somewhere in between male and female. I used to think they were all female but St Michael usually isn't depicted that way. But, yea.

Did Da Vinci do the Sistine Chapel ceiling or was that someone else? Could google it but can't be bothered at the moment. If it was, google 'Sistine chapel brain'. There's your real 'miracle'.

Did Da Vinci do the Sistine Chapel ceiling or was that someone else? Could google it but can't be bothered at the moment. If it was, google 'Sistine chapel brain'. There's your real 'miracle'.

No and it wasn't just one artist but da Vinci wasn't one of them.

My intelligence goes as far as knowing Michelangelo painted the Sistine Chapel.

If I've just out-known the all-knowing Elessar, then my life is complete.

He probably had children too!

Yeah, Michelangelo sounds more right than Da Vinci. Pah, I've never claimed to know anything about Renaissance Art. Anyway, google 'Sistine chapel brain'.

[Kes]

It was one of the turtles, for sure!

I think people take these paintings literally because back in those times a painting WAS the next best thing to a photo that they had, and one done 1400 years after the scene, is logically going to be seen as more accurate as one done 2000 years after it.

The reality is that a painting even if it's done live, is still an artist's interpretation of a scene, one done 1400 years later, and about 800 miles away is still an artist's interpretation, only in this case he doesn't know for sure what the subjects look like, or what they were actually doing in the scene. Imagine being given a bit of cloth and being told "OK, paint a dozen people round a table, having a snack, oh, and while I think of it, one of them is Jesus!"

Jesus? Oh yeah, white guy about 32 years old, beard, long hair, looks a bit like Robert Powell!

Here's the brain thing I was talking about. I was on my phone yesterday so couldn't really paste links easily.

The Sistine Chapel:



A human brain:



The Sistine Chapel and the human brain:



Wow! Is that the only bit of the Sistine Chapel that looks like the brain Elessar?
I'm glad you asked. No, no it's not:




Basically, back in the day, human dissection was illegal, so there's no way Michaelangelo could have legally known what the brain looked like. So to paint it, he had to encode it in something else. Lots of theories as to why he did this. The ones that I think are most likely:

1) He was atheist, and was making the point that the story of Creation was actually made up by the human brain.
2) He was Christian, and believed that the human brain was God's greatest creation.
3) He was taking a swipe at the Church for frowning upon science. At least they don't do that any more. Oh hang on...

Either way, I don't think there's any denying that he did it on purpose! The similarities are far too great for it to be one great big cosmic/cerebral coincidence.

Yeah, Michelangelo sounds more right than Da Vinci. Pah, I've never claimed to know anything about Renaissance Art. Anyway, google 'Sistine chapel brain'.

Michelangelo designed it, he didn't paint it. Many unknown artists did that. The brain thing is cool though.

Edit: RE the brain/why. He was deeply religious, at least all known research on him points to him being. It does suggest he was carrying out illegal research on the brain. Like Da Vinci, some of his work seems to include baffling information far a head of it's time. Clever bunch back then!

[Kes]

Parachutes. Multi-barrelled machine guns. Armoured cars. Flying machines. Helicopters.

All a couple of hundred years before they became practical.

[Kes]

Jules Verne was another person who could seemingly envisage the future, with submarines, space travel and the like.

It bugs me how someone can possibly know about the escape velocity of the earth's gravitational pull and atmosphere, before anyone has even invented a practical aeroplane.

Something's just NOT right there.

It doesn't seem right now, agreed, but I suspect that's to do with our modern day collective arrogance. We as an era, seem to think we're the ones who turned on the lights, as it were. Our advances in medicine and a few other things are extraordinarily impressive, but none of those would be possible without the brains long, long before us, who laid the foundations of medical science and invented electricity to run the internet with. It's hard for us to imagine a painter five hundred years ago could have envisaged things we have only just got a handle on.