English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

why he was considered as an outcast even though he was multi-talented and well-known.

2006-07-03 02:17:03 · 8 answers · asked by Anonymous in Arts & Humanities Visual Arts Other - Visual Arts

8 answers

He was illegitmate. Birth counted for a lot back then.

2006-07-03 04:43:59 · answer #1 · answered by lcraesharbor 7 · 0 0

Da Vinci was not considered an outcast and was highly respected by his peers in Florence.He often took part in philosophical discussion groups on the subject of Neo-platonic philsophy and was a founding member of the first Academy in the Western world.Because he worked alone and had few assistants or apprentices he may now be considered an out-sider but he was never an "outcast".He did perhaps think that few really understood him,but that is not surprising given the extrordinary places his mind took him.As I famous painter,he completed very few authenticated works,perhaps only 9 or 10,
niether of his sculptural works survive and only a small proportion of his writings and drawings exist but the evidence we do have shows him to have been a phenomina.

2006-07-03 04:12:25 · answer #2 · answered by ken s 2 · 0 0

most artists were/are considered outcast or different since they look at the world from a different perspective than most. Even the most intelligent, well spoken artists are put into a spotlight because of this "different" way of thinking and extravegant lifestyle. As with Leonardo da Vinci, his ingenuity and creativity disproved and challenged many of the theories that existed at that time. Its easy to see that as a form of rebellion and not openly accepted by the massess.

2006-07-03 02:58:28 · answer #3 · answered by tthew 2 · 0 0

Da Vinci was considered "strange" because he never delivered exactly what his patrons expected in commissioned works; there was always something a bit off, such as it not being clear who was John the Baptist or who was Jesus in his "Madonna of the Rocks". He didn't always follow the standards of the time, such as placing halos on divine beings, so it was perplexing to his audience who was accustomed to viewing art a certain way.

Plus, there was the thing about cutting up bodies in order to do anatomical studies. The human body was sacred and cutting into it was considered a desecration. But, he had friends in high places in the Church, so people looked the other way as he was given permission to conduct his studies.

2006-07-05 19:32:24 · answer #4 · answered by Mischa 2 · 0 0

At the time science was not viewed very high up as the reason for certain things, society was ruled by the word of the priests and churches and if you thought otherwise then you were considered an outcast. I think thats the gist of it...

2006-07-03 02:22:49 · answer #5 · answered by Reality 3 · 0 0

Perhaps he was omosexual. The portrait of Mona Lisa may be an auto portrait of himself when dressed like a woman!

2006-07-03 03:39:26 · answer #6 · answered by djason 2 · 1 0

Sorry I don't know about this

2016-08-08 02:53:56 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

He wasn't.

2006-07-03 11:29:14 · answer #8 · answered by subversiveelement 2 · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers