The Da Vinci code was a NOVEL; fiction. A real story would be called non fiction.
You poor gullible thing.
2006-10-11 21:00:59
·
answer #1
·
answered by answer annie 5
·
4⤊
0⤋
I'm afraid that if you are hoping for any codes as alluded to in the novel there are none known of, though some tricks used by Di Vinci are mentioned in the book. Painters use many tecqunics to play with the eyes and the mind of their audience, such as color relation and weighting. In the Novel color relations is touched on when Speaking of the last super, how Jesus and the suposed Marie are wearing the same color garments, this is used to make all figures apear to communicate within a painting. if you look at the peice all the other figures and the background use the same colors, so everything appears to be in the same place and time. Or how the Mona Lisa's left side is dominant, i had the pleasure of seeing this painting in the Louvre in the past week and Da Vinci loved to play with lines, while the landscape behind her may appear to be level it is really of set. This is a trick used by many artists and Da Vinci was by no means the first to use it. If you wish to learn more study some of the classic artist and they all had their tricks. Most of the mystery around this paint comes from the belief that it was the artist favorit. As for the holy grail, go pick up a book on gnostic beliefs or the gospel of Marie Magdala, it should give you much better information then a work of fiction.
2006-10-12 06:55:26
·
answer #2
·
answered by nyxtaninja 1
·
0⤊
0⤋
NO NO NO NO NO NO NO !!!!!!!
There is no Da Vinci Code except the fiction book by Dan Brown.
I study Renaissance art and in particular the works of Leonardo da Vinci and they are certainly not coded.
There are many symbols used in Renaissance art and although they are not apparent to people who are not au fait with the interpretation of paintings, they were however very obvious to the Renaissance viewer.
Symbols though are not coded messages. They were simply a way of providing a visual confirmation of an icon's identity to the illiterate masses of the Renaissance.
2006-10-13 09:12:59
·
answer #3
·
answered by samanthajanecaroline 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
No there aren't if you read the Da Vinci Code it clearly says everything is fictional. And in the first chapter when it says the things you are reading are true keep in mind that is the first chapter of the book meaning it's part of the FICTIONAL story.
2006-10-12 12:08:07
·
answer #4
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Miyuki & kyojin has given you the genuine tale in the back of "Holy Blood, Holy Grail" and "The da Vinci Code." not in basic terms became the finished tale with regard to the Priory of Sion an entire fabrication, yet Pierre Plantard became taken to court docket before he died and testified under oath that he made all of it up. The information that have been stumbled on in the French library, the checklist of Grand Masters - all pretend, all created by using Plantard. i prefer to show out another element approximately Da Vinci's paintings. Supporters of "Jesus bloodline" theory factor to the significant factors in diverse paintings as evidence that Jesus did not die, or that Mary Magdalene became his spouse, or that the "secret awareness" handed down orally for hundreds of years became extra precise than the Bible. Take yet another look, people. check out Da Vinci's "The final Supper." What do you notice? Oh, you do not see the loaf of bread or the cup of wine? Ooopsss.... it extremely is a portray. that's not a image. paintings finished 1300 and 1400 years after the form have not any dating to the extremely experience. The paintings is cut loose the objective historic previous. Miyuki & kyojin, thank you to your superb answer.
2016-10-16 02:41:00
·
answer #5
·
answered by ? 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
No, not in the conspiracy kind of was that the book argues. However, DaVinci was a bit of a prankster, and not really a fan or the Catholic Church. So several of his paintings including The Madonna have hidden meanings which mock the Catholic Church (though he was forced to paint over most). It was not uncommon for artists to do this, and in no way represents some secret message, other than his own tendency towards Paganism.
2006-10-11 21:07:55
·
answer #6
·
answered by good golly! 3
·
3⤊
0⤋
You need beliefs to construe meaning. If you don't believe in anything, nothing means anything. If you believe certain things, certain meanings emerge in, say, Da Vinci's paintings that are not there otherwise. The painting is the same and yet people argue about it like they do about all kinds of things. But how do you argue with somebody who believes things you don't?
Beliefs are weird things. Isn't it strange that the story of this one man, Jesus of Nasareth, still captivates people like it does? For some people it's a myth and a boring one at that. But for some people it's real. It sparks their imagination and makes them see the whole world differently. I Think what Dan Brown was doing was revamping the myth in such a way that it would feel compelling for our time. Making you plunge into it in a way that it's very hard to do just by perusing the bible and going "what if this was real?"
Just to make people get this sense of awe and mystery is in my view a worthwhile thing to do. Making it seem "intellectual" or somehow scientifically accurate was what he had to do to ahcieve the effect. That's the way people think and believe these days. Whether it was an honest or respectable thing to do I cannot say. Of course you can't embrace gnosticism and the modern skeptical attitude at the same time. But the thing is that people really do believe such things, perhaps not on intellectual grounds, but because it makes for a better story. Just like Jesus with an heir seems more.. palatable than Jesus with no heir.
I'd like to pretend that I'm sensible enough not to believe in fairy tales of any kind. But what the DVC made me think of was that maybe i'm not. Maybe I believe in all kinds of fairy-tales and am not even aware of it.
2006-10-11 21:38:43
·
answer #7
·
answered by Topi M 5
·
2⤊
2⤋
first of all "the da vinci code" is bullshit.
second of all, there are no KNOWN codes in the da vinci paintings. but if you can find some we'll listen.
2006-10-11 20:57:18
·
answer #8
·
answered by ilya 4
·
4⤊
0⤋
doesn't any body read the first page any more lol brown clearly says that all the charters and theory's in this book are fiction lol
2006-10-11 21:58:22
·
answer #9
·
answered by ryan s 5
·
1⤊
0⤋
Where's Waldo???
2006-10-11 20:54:17
·
answer #10
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
2⤋