Page 6 of 6 FirstFirst ... 456
Results 151 to 158 of 158

Thread: Constellations in the art of Leonardo da Vinci

  1. #151
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    4,332
    Quote Originally Posted by Robert Tulip View Post
    Comparing Warren’s depiction to mine, I specifically show how the hands of all thirteen figures, and six of the heads, match directly to the constellation shapes, with the precise positions of the stars forming the detail of the stance of the figures. This is simply not the case with Warren’s drawing, which he freely described as ‘a dealer’s choice’.
    This is totally disingenuous. I did not describe my "drawing" as a "dealer's choice". As you are well aware, the choice refers to whether Judas or Peter should be considered first in order. Also, the hands of all 13 figures do NOT match directly with your constellation "shapes". Eg., your Pisces does not match both hands (and it's apparently flipped besides), your "Taurus" (I'm assuming) only includes one hand. Same with your Virgo. Granted, all your star positions are precise--except for all the ones that don't match at all, and the ones that got flipped, squashed, stretched, and otherwise rearranged and shoehorned.... And as long as we're counting heads, mine has includes the heads on 11 or 12 of the 13 figures.

  2. #152
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    4,332
    Quote Originally Posted by Robert
    Quote Originally Posted by Warren
    There was never a consensus among the "ancients" about which zodiak [sic] sign belongs to which apostle.
    That is not relevant to this thread. The apostles and Christ are drawn using the stars as an empirical template. I am not aware of any symbolic meaning linking the individual apostles to theories about their corresponding constellation. There is a widely known theory linking Christ to Pisces based on precession of the equinox, for
    This is a good example of your reasoning style: moving goal posts at your whim, while managing to contradict yourself in single paragraph. You were the one who said "Judas lore" associates Judas with Scorpio; now it's not relevant; medieval stained glass associations of certain apostles with other signs is relevant; yet now it's not relevant; yet it is relevant when it comes to Jesus qua Pisces; yet centuries long association of Jesus with Ophiuchus is not relevant.

    I notice you haven't posted your side-by-side comparison of both of our interpretations on any of the New Age sites you frequent. Why is that? True, six out of seven people on this thread prefer mine (you being the sole vote for your interpretation); but I guess that could be explained by skeptical prejudice on the part of the typical poster on this forum; people on New Age/religious sites would be less biased, and able to render a more impartial judgement to prove that you are right.

  3. #153
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Canberra
    Posts
    2,174
    Apologies if I misunderstood the "dealer's choice" comment, I was just reading it in the context of my impression that Warren's drawing was just a jumble designed to cast aspersions on my findings here by suggesting that it is arbitrary pareidolia.

    I don't think Warren reads my posts very carefully. If he did he would see that his comments about Pisces and Taurus are wrong. I have explained that Pisces closely matches the two fish of the constellation to the two hands of both Christ and Bartholomew, and the knot to Bart's shoulder knot and the head of Christ. Taurus includes both of Thaddeus's hands very precisely as the prominent asterisms of the Hyades and Pleiades. As for Virgo, we see that the Leo figure (James) has his hands at full stretch, and yet Warren wants us to believe the Virgo figure (Thomas) who is behind James has his left hand on the table, considerably further from his head than James' hand is from James' head. This is physically impossible, and so runs counter to Leonardo's exact naturalism, leaving aside whether the 'hand' is actually a loaf of bread.

    I will leave off comment on the other matters that Warren repeats as I have addressed them in previous posts.

  4. #154
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    a long way away
    Posts
    10,797
    Quote Originally Posted by Robert Tulip View Post
    Apologies if I misunderstood the "dealer's choice" comment, I was just reading it in the context of my impression that Warren's drawing was just a jumble designed to cast aspersions on my findings here by suggesting that it is arbitrary pareidolia.
    To quote R. Tulip on this subject: I think you are not really looking.

  5. #155
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Canberra
    Posts
    2,174
    Quote Originally Posted by Warren Platts View Post
    You were the one who said "Judas lore" associates Judas with Scorpio; now it's not relevant; medieval stained glass associations of certain apostles with other signs is relevant; yet now it's not relevant; yet it is relevant when it comes to Jesus qua Pisces; yet centuries long association of Jesus with Ophiuchus is not relevant.
    What I meant regarding Judas was that his name 'Iscariot' has been interpreted as meaning that he was a member of a dagger wielding zealot group. This is part of what initially confused me between Peter and Judas, and because another site that I looked at wrongly mixed them up. While yes I did quote material about that early on, I have explained several times that I do not see evidence for such symbolism in The Last Supper. This discussion is iterative, so I am happy to admit mistakes and move on from them. I would prefer that respondents not use claims that I have specifically rejected as though I still support them.

    I have not said that stained glass windows associate apostles with specific signs. Where do you get your claim that an association between Jesus and Ophiuchus is ancient?
    I notice you haven't posted your side-by-side comparison of both of our interpretations on any of the New Age sites you frequent. Why is that?
    I would not comment on your views on other sites as response to your input here on BAUT is entirely sufficient.

  6. #156
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    4,332
    Quote Originally Posted by Robert Tulip
    As for Virgo, we see that the Leo figure (James) has his hands at full stretch, and yet Warren wants us to believe the Virgo figure (Thomas) who is behind James has his left hand on the table, considerably further from his head than James' hand is from James' head. This is physically impossible, and so runs counter to Leonardo's exact naturalism, leaving aside whether the 'hand' is actually a loaf of bread.
    Yet another example of your scholarship skills, Mr. Tulip: you willfully (because I've already pointed this out) ignore extant art criticism with respect to "The Last Supper" simply because it doesn't conform to your preconceptions. You must still be looking at the Chinese cartoon version, because in the original and early copies, Thomas's left hand is clearly visible and James arms are clearly bent at the elbows. On the off chance you missed my earlier post on this, here it is again:

    Quote Originally Posted by Warren Platts View Post
    Once again, Robert gets it wrong.... Check out this study of a left hand done by Leonardo. This is in the exact pose as Thomas's left hand is depicted as can be clearly seen in the hi-res photo of the original and the early copies, if not in the Chinese sweat shop copy that Robert continues to use. The thumb appears cut off because the hand is gripping a table. Here is a good discussion of Thomas' left hand, by a real artist. This scholarly book also discusses [Thomas's] left hand (also p.36).
    Really, this is a good opportunity for you to show your willingness to change your mind when confronted with solid evidence, because it doesn't matter anyways: everything else is so inexact, a missing hand here or there isn't a big deal for your project.

  7. #157
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Canberra
    Posts
    2,174
    Quote Originally Posted by Warren Platts View Post
    preconceptions.
    My "preconception" in this case is that all the figures in The Last Supper are in anatomically possible stances. Warren's theory requires that Thomas has a left arm about a yard long, and that a loaf of bread on the table is 'actually' a hand, even though this is anatomically absurd. But really, this is so easy to test for anyone who can get some one to help them (Warren can some one help you here?). Try and stand in the positions of James and Thomas and see if Thomas can reach the table. He cannot. Will others "change your mind when confronted with solid evidence"? Even if Leonardo did consider putting a hand there, he would have changed his mind when the overall structure of the painting made it anatomically impossible.

    Of more material interest, I looked at Warren's thread on Leonardo linked at the bottom of this page where he discusses Leonardo's theory that the Earth is analogous to the human body. My observation that Leonardo sees the course of the year as analogous to Christ and the twelve apostles applies exactly the same principle as the analogy between the body and the earth.

  8. #158
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    The beautiful north coast (Ohio)
    Posts
    49,261
    This thread is closed, at least temporarily, while the moderators discuss it. The tone from certain posters has been entirely too confrontational, and the discussion seems to have reached a point of going around in circles.
    At night the stars put on a show for free (Carole King)

    All moderation in purple - The rules

Similar Threads

  1. Stephen Jay Gould, Leonardo Da Vinci, Teleology, and Rock Glaciers
    By Warren Platts in forum Science and Technology
    Replies: 31
    Last Post: 2009-Sep-06, 06:33 PM
  2. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 2009-Aug-29, 03:38 PM
  3. Leonardo was from Vinci, but this hysteria is pure Bologna!
    By soylentgreen in forum Off-Topic Babbling
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: 2006-May-22, 06:46 PM
  4. Those da Vinci guys
    By BigJim in forum Astronomy
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 2004-Dec-09, 04:08 AM
  5. Was Leonardo Davinci the first time traveller
    By Sticks in forum Against the Mainstream
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: 2004-Jul-21, 08:42 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •