 |
|
|
Click here to Buy a physical Copy
Chapter 13
|
CHAPTER ELEVEN: The Answer
This chapter combines everything before it and answers the questions and mysteries the painting provokes. What who when where how.. The web of mysteries ensnared me.
“There are the miracles - forms already lost mingled together in so short a space, it can recreate and reconstitute by it’s dilation.”
“O Might process! What talent can avail to penetrate a nature such as this? Who would believe that so small a space could contain the images of all the universe? What tongue will it be that can unfold so great a wonder? Verily, none! That it is that guides the human discourse to the considering of divine things.”
I used this quote in the beginning of this book. I think it’s important because it explains the mystery of infinity. Was Da Vinci really able to see the entire universe? Or could he be explaining why humans take the burden off of themselves and onto a God (divine things) If we can’t explain something we jumble the answers and questions into the category of divinity – something we think we’ll never be able to understand. Infinity can’t be described with words because the very concept cannot be limited or explained. It’s like trying to explain what love is, or the pain of loosing your children. There are something’s that we can’t explain with our limited words. Infinity is one of them. It’s something so elusive and unexplainable that it’s very thought confuses us. How can something go on forever? How can something never end? (The answer: Think circle)
This chapter has by far been the most eluding. This chapter has been slippery. It’s been like being given a gift card to your favorite store. You go in thinking you know what you want. What you can get for the amount of money you have. But then finding yourself change your mind every time you find someone new and better.
“I want this! No no, I want this! Damn, this one is too expensive, but I REALLLY want it. I guess I could use some of my own money too! No, I can’t. Oh oh, I’ve always wanted this! I’ve decided.. well almost.”
“The answer” has also been indecisive. The answer has changed, and evolved. There has definitely been the problem of not not being to answer questions, but knowing which ones needed to be asked.
I’ve always heard these are important to answer in an explanation of something: Who what when where and how. So let’s start with them!
v
WHO? Who is the “Mona Lisa”? A quazi self portrait of Da Vinci himself as a representation of a woman. Although probably originating as a portrait of the Lisa G, the painting we now call “Mona Lisa” is a version of Da Vinci himself. Evident in his own self portrait matching up, intentionally and intricately with the “woman” in the portrait. Not conforming to the limits of reality, his painting was designed to combine with another to represent a new identity. A painted child, the product of combining two parent paintings. Put simply, Da Vinci’s daughter- Mona Lisa Da Vinci.
WHEN: When was “she” painted? Salai’s painting is Dated to 1495 which means it was painted first. This means the Mona Lisa was based off of the painting of Salai and would have to be for it to match up the way they do. (perfectly) The Mona Lisa was said to be started in 1503 and this date could be correct but the real question is if it was before or after the painting of Salai. Da Vinci’s self portrait is definitely from after 1510 and it’s said to be drawn in 1516 which makes sense since it represents his age. The Age of Salai is also correspondent to around 1495 <- that combined with the style and technical aspects affirms that that date is correct. Da Vinci became a much better painter from 1495 to 1505.
The order would be
(the “official” dates, style, common sense, and age of sitters all support this order and time frame)
It’s in realizing this order you also must realize that it answers indefinitely that Mona Lisa was designed around the painting of Salai. How else could they combine in the way they do unless they were specifically and methodically designed to do so? It would be impossible – especially when you consider the clues and other quotes from Da Vinci himself ‘ Mon Salai” M on Salai. In short, the “Mona Lisa” was probably started sometimes around 1500, but continually painted on and off until Da Vinci’s death in 1519 – almost 20 years. Not the 4 years asserted by Vasari. Da Vinci would have kept his work on the Mona Lisa secret to avoid revealing her secrets before they could be appreciated or understood.
If he would have revealed how much and how long he worked on it, people would have wondered why. Vasari’s time frame was given to validate it being of Lisa G. Why would he work on a simple commission for more than 4 years? Let alone almost 20? Or even more obvious – why wouldn’t he have given it to her? There is something special about a painting that the world’s greatest painter spent 4, 10, or 20 years on. Considering the other layers, and immensely intricate design it’s obvious there is more to this painting than meets the eye. If someone were to spend so much time working on the same canvas, it’s a pretty good clue that there is more to it than a perfect portrait.
WHERE: Where was it painted? Da Vinci started the painting during his time in Florence Italy. He later moved to France to work for the King, where he died. It’s said the King and Da Vinci were very close and the Mona Lisa has stayed almost exclusively in France ever since. It’s interesting to note that Da Vinci was born in Vinci – in Italy and was not French.
WHAT: What is the Mona Lisa? A painting, an experience, the birth of a child who couldn’t be born. Not only his legacy in the form of a painted daughter but also his legacy as a piece of art that is encoded with thousands of other images.. An intentional mystery woman, who’s smile was designed to haunt the world.
WHY: Why was she painted? The idea would have had to come to Da Vinci at one point. He painted a painting of Salai in his youth that must have inspired him to design another portrait to combine with it. Since the painting of Salai was painted before the Mona Lisa, it would have had to been used as a model to base the painting of the Mona Lisa off of. Either by sheer mental retention and brilliance, or another means the Mona Lisa was painted to be transposed over the painting of Salai. To properly answer why, it takes a huge amount of knowledge of both, optics, painting, human perception and Da Vinci’s personal history.
The secrets and coincidences would have been necessary due to the public opinion and laws of the day and age. Da Vinci knew he would have had to create a work of art, so amazing, so enchanting, so controversial that it would ensure her popularity. That it would keep her in the minds and eyes of as many people as possible in the hopes that someone, some day- would put all the coincidences together and find the true purpose behind the painting. – thanks Derek!
“The hue of an illuminated object is affected by that of the luminous body that illuminates it.”
He had also been experimenting and perfecting his mastery over the human perceptive and complexities of vision. In the Last Supper and the Annunciation he’s shown proof of combining images with the naked eye by crossing and mirroring. *not to mention writing mirrored* This would have also given him the experience and ability to do something even more remarkable with these three images. His visions of the future and expectations of future technology or human advancement would have given him full rains to work with different sized images. Being able to combine them with his mind or possibly an optic devise with mirrors and lenses. There are numerous entries in his journals that show he was fully aware of the various technical aspects involved in everything I’ll explain. I based my research off of these, so applying advanced concepts and decoding methods on today’s technology was expected. Basically- he explains the manual processes of optics that translate perfectly into today’s digital technology. Tinted mirrors = a hue shift in photoshop. Etc.
What about the other paintings underneath Mona’s Top coat? I would guess that the other paintings under Mona Lisa’s top coat would be similar to the painting of Salai and his own Self Portrait. But painted. He would have probably had them all sized and oriented the same way in the process of creating them, and then re-sided and copied into their other forms. The painting of Salai would either be a copy of the original that’s under the Mona Lisa OR under the Mona Lisa is the real copy. Alternately, the paintings underneath could be other reconsidered versions, mistakes (doubt it), of the real Lisa G, or additional parts to this story. Potentially each layer being a progression from one to the next. (like a flip book)
The Name Game:
The portrait of Lisa Giocondo most likely happened. In the process of writing this (January 20th) 2007, Lisa Gherardini’s death certificate and possible tomb were discovered. Da Vinci could have very well started painting her. They definitely knew each other and this was VERY possible. BUT, this doesn’t mean that the painting we consider to be of her is the Mona Lisa. No one could have known what she looks like after the fact.
After a few years and definitely after 30 no one would have known if the girl in the painting was, or looked anything like Lisa Giocondo. He used her for her name, for clues, and perhaps the original model and inspiration. He could have painted her portrait and in the process decided and started to develop what the painting eventually became. He might have even given her the original or a different version but couldn’t reveal the real painting too soon.
It’s also unlikely she would have posed for Da Vinci for 4 years like Vasari claimed – another clue that it was improbable. Would you sit in one place for that long for a painting? Yeah right!
Da Vinci vaguely titled the painting - La Jaconde; which means “light hearted Lady” as a play on words and double meaning for Lisa Giocondo’s last name. This could have originally just been for fun like he did with other paintings. I guess you could call it a quadruple meaning:
Light hearted Lady - describes her expression and mood to the painting Light Hearted Lady - The last name of Lisa Giocondo Light hearted - The alternate title of the painting La Jaconde Light hearted - taken literally, the center of the painting is focused on her heart and is the greatest source of light.
Were those just for fun, or to get people to look deeper?. WHY would he do that?
Is Lisa Giaconda’s last name reminiscent of Salai’s last name Giacomo? Coincidence? Giacondo/Giacomo?
It’s amazing how all of this comes together! It shows Da Vinci’s genius with the practical and creating believable coincidences since they are so abundant but obscure. They’re so obvious they’re overlooked or not understood correctly.
Vasari would have had to be “in” on this at least partly, or given specific information for him to coin the title “Mona Lisa.” This was intentional or else “Mon Salai” wouldn’t have been possible.
The Mona Lisa herself is filled with intricate and complex clues.
In the image on the next page I’ve added lines that intersect at the very center of the painting. This is exactly where Mona's heart would be. Da Vinci definitely knew anatomy; he essentially created the idea of it, so to assume this was just a coincidence is difficult. Remember when I said there would be things that could be coincidence but are a little too complex to be completely random? This is another one. Not only does the center of the painting point to her heart, it is also the main light source. You can see from the image bellow where the most concentration of light is. Obviously the painting doesn't create light itself, it just shows where Da Vinci concentrated the most amount of light from.
Light hearted lady? Yessir. Literally! As you can see this seems to have a hidden meaning behind it. It also puts the spot light on Lisa “Giaconda”, Da Vinci choose her because of her name. Vasari said he was commissioned to paint her portrait but like the pillars on each side of the painting - Vassari was apart of “the plan.” (or whatever) To leave behind clues to get people asking questions.
She’s draped with a cloth that only pregnant woman wore at the time. This is to allude to her being “pregnant” but can’t give birth without the painting of Salai. The two paintings (parents) are pregnant but can’t give birth until combined.. Get it? “she’s pregnant”
Why the perspective in the background is off?
Is the same reason why the sides were removed following Da Vinci’s’ death - yet more clues to the complexities of the painting? I’m still not sure if the sides matching are to create a cylinder out of the painting or to mirror it on itself or something different. Either way the perspective also adds to the psychological and visual affects the painting educes. It makes your eyes travel and can confuse your perception of the painting. It creates movement in an object that does not move.
Why her expression seems to change and is perceived differently:
Simply it’s Da Vinci’s Sfumato technique. Since there are no hard or highly contrasting lines in the painting - at least in the face. It causes the viewer to focus on and notice different expressions. This can change from the orientation the painting is viewed from, the distance away from it, where you’re looking, and how wide your focus is.
Akin to the visual illusion demonstrated above. There are not dark circles inside the corners of the squares – it is an illusion. In the same way that an image is retained for a split second, it can be used to create an amazing visual effect. Imagine the concept used above but wildly more complex and with colors and psychological factors.
After looking at this painting in almost every conceivable fashion I say that her expression is - An “I know something you don’t know” smile that can actually change at the will of the viewer. It can reflect your mood or preconceived notion of what you were told her expression is.
OR if you know that it’s variable you can actually tell your eyes what to see. This might sound strange but it’s akin to ink blot testing but with blurry pictures. The facial expression also changes as you focus and dilate your eyes. If you’re good you can actually get her to wink at you. (try squinting) IT also demonstrates how your own mind can change the images it sees in the mind.. If you stare at something long enough without blinking you can blend a picture on a wall –into the wall. But it takes practice. .
If you look at the Mona Lisa upside down the effect becomes more apparent - it’s up to you to decide on her expression. This is one of the biggest reasons for Mona’s popularity - everyone has an opinion as to what her expression is and they’re all, surprisingly, correct!
She appears to follow and stare at you for the same reasons. Your eyes are focusing on her in a very specific way that Da Vinci knew about and could manipulate. He painted her by looking in a mirror and just like looking in a mirror. It’s almost impossible to look at one and not see yourself looking back! The fuzziness around the eyes and mastery of perception makes the eyes appear to stay looking at you.
Mona Lisa’s hands are manly and allude to her not being entirely female. There is a surprising trend that has something to do with testosterone levels or something like that that makes a male’s finger length ratio different from a woman’s. The second and fourth finger - the index and ring finger. The index is usually shorter than the fourth. In women the index tends to be the same size or longer than the ring finger. This wasn’t noticed until 1893 but doesn’t mean Da Vinci didn’t know about it since he was the master of observation and anatomy. OR this could show that he used himself as the model and since he’s male his hands would show the masculine ratio. This could have not been a clue he knew about, but supports the idea it’s a representation of him. If the model would have been a real woman the ratio would have suggested that. There are also trends towards sexuality in the digits as well that I wouldn’t know how to expand upon but might be relevant. Also look at the markings in the sleeve next to the hand. They seem to mirror or look as if the hands were there as well. Like they are creased by the hands – this creates additional movement. When viewed correctly it looks like the hand moves and the sleeve is a visual trail of the hand.
You might also notice that the Mona Lisa doesn’t have any eye brows. This was fairly common back in that time but is also for the sfumato (smoke) effect to be more effective. It would have been difficult to create and take away from the painting. You can also tell from the image I’ve created above that eye brows take away from her femininity. Try to imagine a man without eye brows, vs a woman with them painted on. It’s a very masculine feature. The lack of eye brows adds to the mystery and intrigue of the painting. It’s something rarely noticed, but something significant to change the mystique of the original.
Why did this take so long for someone to figure out? Or notice?
It’s very unlikely anyone would even fathom this, let alone it being possible without today’s technology. No one would even think to put a painting from an unknown artist over the Mona Lisa’s and expect them to match up. Not only that but they would have to know how and computers are still very new and pretty unknown to most art historians. Especially to older people in general, or those actually interested in Renaissance art. Most people don’t even know how to resize images let alone superimpose and adjust the various settings.
Without digital media it would be almost impossible to see these images. This is also very far fetched and a thought that wouldn’t even cross most people’s minds. Especially those who are capable of using new technology the way I have. I didn’t know anything about art or paintings but I did know about digital photography and I have a very visual mind. Before I started this I didn’t even know who Salai was!. Thankfully, I’m very open minded. It was also the next step after considering it was a daughter. But I have to admit I would have never thought to do this unless I saw a child/ morph photo.
-
“Therefore make the hair on the head play in the wind around youthful faces and gracefully adorn thy many cascades of curls.”
What does that mean? I always thought this quote of his was very interesting, I didn’t understand who he meant by “youthful faceS” – Da Vinci’s self portrait wasn’t very “youthful” so who was the other face? – That’s what gives even more credit to this discovery, Da Vinci’s own words. That I understood to be instructions.
“Many cascades of curls” Look at Salai’s painting..
This looks very much like “many cascades of curls” wouldn’t you say? On the next page is a composite image of all three images together. The painting of Salai, Mona Lisa, and Da Vinci’s self portrait. I haven’t added anything to this, meaning; unlike the image of Mona Lisa where I added eye brows, the image on the next page is the three images placed over each other and only the settings have been changed. Contrast, hue, levels, color etc. Things that could be done with tinted mirrors, various lighting techniques, and the human mind. Think about how amazing it would be for three images to not only align, combine, and appear to be designed to do so. But to actually be able to create an image like this.
Da Vinci, Salai, Mona – Combined. Coincidence? Or Genius Design?
Da Vinci’s self portrait mirrored on the whole Mona Lisa (also mirrored on itself), not just her face.
Animation:
Da Vinci used the idea of an animation in his drawings. He obviously understood the method behind movement. An animation is simply one single image after another. If Da Vinci used the idea of animation in the Mona Lisa it would be like having each layer as a different sequential frame.
If you’ll remember how I described looking out a hotel window and not just focusing on what you can see, but the air and atmosphere in between then you’ll also understand how to see the Movement trapped inside the Mona Lisa. When your eyes dilate they are actually focusing on a specific distance from your eye. Just like a camera’s lens. Although it’s difficult and takes a lot of practice and training, we can control that dilation. We can prevent and control where and on what our eyes focus.
As you’re reading this you’re focused on a flat surface x many inches from your face, right? If you’re holding this book, or reading this on a screen it is a certain distance from your eyes. If it was 18 inches your eyes are focused 18” away from your pupil. (That’s why people will hold a book further away if they can’t see something up close.)
Now if you were to bring your face closer to this, your eyes would automatically re-adjust, re-focus, and dilate accordingly. BUT, we are also capable of controlling this dilation and distance our eyes are in focus. If you were able to, you could focus on the air in between your eyes and this text. If you were to go slowly from 2in in front of you - to the 18in where the text is then you’d also understand how the Mona Lisa works. The painting is thick and consists of thousands of layers of paint, you could focus on each one individually in a progression from the top coat to the bottom coat. This would require x-ray vision, or possibly not. – Depending on the transparency, remember the clear layers of oil?
Why Did Da Vinci Use Transparent Oils? This explains the use of transparent oils. Like looking through steam or smoke it only impedes a certain amount of your vision. If there is just a little steam in a room you can still see THROUGH IT, right? You could also focus on it and the various distances from your eyes to the end of the room. This is why Da Vinci called his technique SFUMATO, which means smoke. Imagine that the paint on the Mona Lisa is made up of individual specs of smoke filling the painting. Some you can see though, others you can not. Depending on where you look and in what direction and orientation you would be able to see different things.
Think of it this way; imagine holding a book whose pages are made out of glass instead of paper. On each page there is a certain image. This image is slightly transparent so you can see though it. Now imagine this book is made up of thousands of pages of glass with different images placed on it. As you open this book you would be turning your way through the Mona Lisa. Or imagine reading each layer by focusing your eyes on each page. Each page is progressing further away from your eyes, right?
Page 1 would be 18.1in away from you eye. Page 2 - 18 Page 3 – 17.97 ETC
If you could control the dilation of your eyes you could also focus on page 1, then page 2, then page 3 and so on until you saw completely through the entire book. The only thing impeding this would be the previous pages. The further you go - the more smoke there would be making it hard to see through. This is why when you look at the Mona Lisa and stare at it without blinking - it seems to change and move and turn into different images. You’re eyes are searching for things to focus on, recognize, and try to understand what they are seeing. Chances are, if you’re seeing something in the Mona Lisa it’s really there.
In some of the x-rays they’ve seen Mona’s hair up in a bun and her hands in different positions. They thought it was because Da Vinci changed his mind but I believe they are part of the technique. I think she’ll move around and change as you stare at the painting and focus on various layers inside of it. I’ve personally seen it change to show her holding her belly as she would if she’s pregnant and look back behind her as well. (Imagine her with a big belly and it makes sense) Her hair also changes and so does her expression.
This is just like seeing different objects in the clouds. Obviously they couldn’t be a unicorn or giraffe as they might appear but they sure can look like one right? A painting is quite different from a cloud because it was created to look specifically like something. Unlike a photograph or picture, a painting is in complete control of the painter. If he is painting clouds - lets say- if you see a unicorn in those painted clouds it’s probably because he painted it that way. OR you’re just thinking something looks like something. It’s hard to know if what you’re noticing is the artist’s intent or your mind is just making it up. BUT it’s fairly safe to say that if you’re seeing something, it’s for a reason. That’s the purpose of a painting, to be seen. They want you to not only find their waldo - their point - but also as many other waldos they want to put in the painting!
TRY IT!
Close your eyes (well, you can read this whole thing first) now put the Mona Lisa in front of your face again to where you would be able to see the entire painting. Now open your eyes. Look at it and reallllllly examine it, try to remember exactly what it looks like from top to bottom and everywhere in-between. Got it?
Now put the
picture down and put your hands up where you had them holding the
picture before. Close your eyes, slowly pull your hands back to your
face as if you’re pulling the Mona Lisa through your face. Now (This image also demonstrates how the Mona Lisa is like a sculpture -3D. This shows the actual “levels” of the painting as produced in Adobe Photoshop. Meaning that photographically speaking, this painting was built up of many layers, sequentially. This isn’t a representation but the actual layers in the painting. )
What you just did is see the picture how it’s really suppose to be seen. Imagine that as you look through it you’re like Kitty Pryde from the X-men and can see each level. Remember the scene in the movie ghost where Patrick Swayze walks through the door?
In essence you are seeing an animation. Each layer is a different image in a sequence of images that create a cartoon! Like if you were to draw a stick figure inside a book and then change it a little bit each time, then when you turn the pages really fast it looks like its moving. That’s exactly what film and cartoons are and it’s something that wasn’t discovered recently! It’s actually not a difficult concept to understand its how we see. Our eyes are taking picture after picture in succession and our brain puts them together into our conscious vision. If you were to pause a movie and then only go one frame forward every you’d see huge gaps between what they’re doing.
Most movies are at 32fps, that’s frames per second. That’s because that’s the speed at which our eyes perceive movement. (The speed that a bunch of still images can look like real life movement on a screen). But that’s just one speed, we see images at a rate far – far faster. The old saying “the hand is quicker than the eye” isn’t always true. Just like hands, there are some eyes faster and more trained than others. To see what I mean start waving one hand in front of your face really fast. It’s like a blur right? Now try to follow your hand with your eye by looking back and forth – you’ll see it slow down. The same thing goes for a ceiling fan. It looks like a blur but if you lay underneath it and follow one of the blades with your eyes you can see each blade! It’s really trippy when you do it for the first time, try it with the fan on slow, then see how fast it can go before you can’t do it. I bet if you trained your eyes enough you could start to see things in “Slow Motion” You probably have at some point in your life, especially when something dangerous or exciting happens. It either seems like eternity or a blink of the eye..
Any picture you see of The Mona Lisa has either been scanned or photographed. Every time that’s been done a camera has recorded the light that’s been reflected off of the painting. When it does this it’s also recording the time it takes the light to bounce off each color and layer and the time it takes to get to the camera. It’s recording a 3d image into a 2d one. A normal picture is only 2d but a painting with thousands of layers and other paintings inside it isn’t just 2d it’s more than that.
This is why I believe it is possible for photographs of the Mona Lisa to demonstrate these abilities. The painting itself would be needed for a more thorough representation. A photograph would only show as many levels as the light that could be reflected off the surface of the painting.
Imagine you have a can of 3 different colored paints and a piece of paper. Red, green, and blue, Now imagine that you paint an x across the paper with red. Then let it dry and then painted a circle over it in green – let that one dry. Now finally a plus sign + over both of those in blue. Then let that dry. Continue doing that for 10 years and what do you think it would look like? Brown!– but think about it more. It probably would be really thick and really weird looking BUT if you were to take a picture of it and process it you could see
x o + x o + x o + x o + x o + x o + x o + x o + x o + x o + x o
Because they would all be reflected back at different times. If you took each of those pictures and put them together in a reel (like a roll of film) you could see a basic animation of x’s and o’s and +’s. Now take that a couple giant leaps forward and imagine you’re the greatest painter of all time. You knew that you could do this and that that would happen. So you don’t just paint x’s and o’s but the worlds first movies! After all that’s how the first cartoons were created, people drew picture after picture and it made sense to our eyes and brain so we could see it. Da Vinci figured this out a loooooong time before anyone else (that we know of) but instead of drawing animations he painted them. It might sound far fetched but it’s not at all – it’s just something we wouldn’t expect possible from so long ago. We don’t know how they build the pyramids but they did, didn’t they?
Why would he keep this a secret? That’s an even bigger question. If he could do this would he really die without telling anyone how to see it? Of course not! I don’t know if anyone else knows this, I have a feeling a lot of other artists know to some extent - but if you think about it, it can’t be that big of a secret if it’s hidden in plain view. It’s the most famous work of art ever and all the answers are right there! So it’s not like he was trying to keep it a secret- he set it up to eventually be discovered! I bet he never thought it would take this long though! I can’t imagine why anyone would try to keep the rest of the world from something so outstanding, after all it’s just a painting when it comes down to it.
Here’s an example of why I think there are other artist that know what Da Vinci was doing to some extent. They were alive at the same time and had definitely been in contact so I’m sure they shared ideas..
Madonna with the fish by Raphael
I thought this was a really weird title and theme for this painting until I looked at it in a different way. The mirrored way. She looks like a fish her self now, doesn’t she? See the full sized and enhanced version on the next page:
This wasn’t even painted by Leonardo so there is definitely something more too some paintings than meets the eyes.
Why would that guy be holding a fish? Or better yet, why would she look like a mermaid/ fish whose face happens to look like it’s facing forward? Most pictures won’t do that and make another image at the same time.
The more you look and the more you try, you can see other images as well. This also gives you an idea of how this type of thing works. A picture can be surprisingly worth more than a thousand words, but a thousand other pictures too!
You see it too right? How did he do this without a computer? Or is this just a fishy coincidence? hmmm
To create an intricate web of lies to tell the truth? That’s what a good artist does! I give him major props for this.
Raphael, The Miraculous Draught of Fishes, 1515, cartoon, Victoria and Albert Museum, London
Cartoons which were done as commissions by a Pope seem to turn into homo-erotic blasphemy, or clever humor – depending on your perspective. Either way it’s an excellent demonstration that shows how people see what they want to see – not necessarily what the artist had in mind.
These are more easily demonstrated by crossing various figures within the painting with your eyes than by mirroring at 50% opacity. They were designed to be viewed with the naked eye and there are clues and lines that are put in place to help guide you.
When looking at the following consider where and why Raphael placed the figures, where their heads and various other body parts would be in relation to their horizontally aligned counter parts. Basically a technical way of explaining how these are pornographic cartoons that become animated when you use the crossing eye technique. Once you know about this, it’s hard to deny. These artist were homosexuals, who not only hid that from the officials, but from their religious commissioners.
(Notice the two nearly identical poles? They create a stereogram like effect when combined)
In this one it’s very clear that there are horizontally aligned figures, evident in the poles, and spacing. The space between each column creates a new scene when combined with its counterpart.
Keep in mind it takes a well trained eye to be able to control their crossing and diverging enough to see it correctly. But once you can, it changes the painting completely and is impossible to deny (as much as you might want to) I leave them to your own accord, so this book keeps its Pg-13 rating.
If you doubt that this is how they were intended to be viewed. Consider the images above. The two men standing side by side are nearly identical. When you combine them with your eyes (by crossing them together) it makes the second image. You should also notice their hand, like in the Last Supper they allude to being viewed like this. 1 +2? Also notice the lines that appear to go down the middle of the characters. They are there to help guide your eyes, as well as in the design of these immensely detailed cartoons.
In this one it’s even more clear what I mean about the painting needing to be crossed within itself. The arms, the figures, the expressions, all alluding to be moved from one side to the other. (and circular) As the figures cross the painting, psychological, and visual phenomena aid in the animation. Your brain decides which eye dominates which part of the painting and it’s in the differences and going back and forth that it becomes almost alive. Even if you can’t get your eyes to cross to see what I’m talking about, you’ll see the strange placements, horizontal and vertical lines, the symmetry, and intricate ideas that demonstrate that a lot is going on behind the scenes.
In this drawing of Raphael’s you can get an idea of how someone could design something like this. It’s not easy, but very possible. I would assume the three great Renaissance artist shared ideas, even if only through observation. What I’ve discovered may be a technical competition between them – seeing who could top the other with each new painting and design. I believe it’s this very competition that helped to create the Renaissance. Each amazing artist increasing the talent of the other by surpassing not just their own works, but each others’ - painting after painting.
In the following you can see one of Michelangelo’s paintings that shows this same propensity. This is what I would call a “Freudian painting” which perfectly demonstrates the subconscious’s sexual naivety. Meaning, that you might not notice it at first, but once someone points it out... it makes you wonder why you didn’t see it that way the first time you looked at it – some do. Some don’t.
What at first seems like a serene scene of a family at play, soon becomes corrupted by its dirty details. The father figure’s expression of anger towards the son’s gestures. Grabbing the hair of the mother with a devious expression. The Father’s arm appearing to meld into the mothers whose hand appears to grab the child inappropriately. The very colors, red, blue and green symbolically combining between the three. I’ll leave it to the followers of Freud to interpret the details. Even more strange and bizarre is the placement of naked youths in the background, who demonstrate the animation like effects, though inconspicuously. (blur your eyes and cross them slightly)
The arm of the figure to the left, reaching behind the family and mirrored by the figure to the right. Notice how the shading of the naked bodies seem to converge and mingle, making it difficult to tell where one figure starts and the other ends. This creates a horizontal animation when viewed and crossed properly. Not for the squeamish, or easily offended but there none-the-less. Whether holding some deep meaning to the artist, or just immature irony, the implications are far reaching.
Another one of Michelangelo’s – Sometimes it’s so blatant that it’s a wonder the church approved. Other times so complex it’s obvious that these artists knew more about divinity and the human mind than any priest. Either way, ancient art deserves a newer, bolder, and more honest look. All of which show us our own naivety or fear of being a pervert and pointing out the metaphorical elephant in the art. I didn’t paint them! haha
Michelangelo You could only imagine the irony of noticing this hundreds of years later, historically religious and famous art, which turns out to be an elaborate joke. The Vatican being filled with the very thing they seem to despise, and hide the most. Sexuality. It’s a very hypocritical world we live in. For reasons I’m sure I don’t have to mention.
Although they might not be the answers you would have liked, if you even had a preference. The truth doesn’t elude those who seek it forever. After being taught by Da Vinci’s own Journals, I’ve learned to see as never before. To observe, to analyze, and then finally to think like a painter. This has enabled me to see things with unclouded eyes, and from a very unique perspective.
I’ve seen things that no one else has been able to. I didn’t know why. I thought I was crazy. I remember when this all started and looking through my medium 3d gasses. Then training my eyes to slowly cross, to control the dilation of my pupils, to understand multiple meanings and from different angles. It’s been a progressional learning experience, but one in which I never knew its complete course until afterwards.
I can’t help but wonder if I’m right. I can’t help but doubt myself, even after everything that I’ve done. I would actually credit that very insecurity for a lot of my discoveries. It wasn’t the first thought that was the best thought. It wasn’t the second, or the third. It didn’t happen until after a year of misconceptions. But finally, this is the .. no no, these are the answers. The next few Paragraphs are taken from previous versions of this book. They might be a little repetitive, but they paint a picture from different times of writing. The Multiple Climaxes (alternate endings)
“It’s pretty bizzar;. Lets think about it: This genius artist from 500 years ago, in the heart of the renaissance, took in an apprentice/ assistant. He’s a terror and even gets the nick name “Little Satan” but Da Vinci accepts him for his faults and they end up staying together their entire lives. Since being gay wasn’t very kosher, at least publicly. Leonardo decides to leave behind his legacy in the best way possible, through his child. Opps - too afraid to have sex with girls so he does the next and very davinci improvisation long cut - paints her, raises her for 10 years in painting form; All the while laying down the frame work and bread crumbs for someone to be curious enough to try and figure out who she really was - is (actually) Or maybe – A secret, about a secret, about a mystery, about a forbidden love. It’s quite the story. It’s definitely one of those, “reality is more interesting than any fiction.” I have to admit, even if I was making all this up its pretty fascinating. I just was trying to verify a commonly held theory and took it a step further. I didn’t stop and run with one theory and did everything I could to prove it right but analyzed all the theories and picked the one with the most evidence and made the most sense. I’ll admit, I was on a different path – but it lead to the right destination.
Unlike OJ; the glove fits... it does, and makes a lot of sense. I was pretty sure Mona Lisa was a feminine form of Da Vinci and now I know what that fuzzy feeling I had was. It was just a little too simple, and a little too redundant. It made sense to me that it could have been him as a woman, but there were so many clues and work that went into this for it to be pointless. Him as a woman is interesting and original but didn’t have the same point that a child makes.
This is actually a perfect legacy to leave behind. An unparalleled work of art - a daughter who would live in infamy. A statement about love and a tribute to how it truly does conquer all. A perfect picture in an imperfect world - limited only by its ignorance and selfish beliefs.
Mona Lisa is A portrait of love and the creation of a new, everlasting life. An image of a beautiful daughter unrestrained by the limits of the natural world and brought together by the merging of two paintings. A love that was unknown and unaccepted, realized perfectly through art and divine imagination. A little girl, a certain Mona Lisa Da Vinci who mesmerized a world that didn’t even know who she really was.
Put more simply – Da Vinci couldn’t have a child with another man so he painted her instead. Leonardo wasn’t just a painter tho – he was a philosopher, an architect, an all around genius capable of anything. But yes – a gay guy. He lived in a day when he couldn’t openly be who he was so he had to hide his “secrets” in his art work. He left behind the clues: it’s time to follow them.
This is getting like the ending of the third Lord of the Rings! But wait, we’re almost done. Just a couple more chapters to go!
|
