If the shroud of Turin is a fake shouldn't it be considered a masterpiece any way?
most think the shourd is a fake but if it is shouldn't it be considered a masterpiece like the Mona Lisa and David and things like that because if it is fake it's a very good one
2007-01-09 07:21:58 · 18 answers · asked by ryan s 5 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
Yes. It is a unbelievably well done fake. If it wasn't for the dating, there would only be a few minor clues.
A lot of experts give Di Vinci the credit. He was probably the only one alive at the time it turned up that might have been able to do such a thing. And the face looks like him which is a trademark of his. Even if it wasn't him, to be mentioned in those terms makes it something special in terms of art.
2007-01-09 07:29:05 · answer #1 · answered by Alex 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Yes! The shroud of Turin was positively dated to the 1300's, so it's entire reason for existence is a fake. Further microscopic analysis revealed the shadow was painted on with a typical paint of the time. Both the Mona Lisa and David are completely honest and verified, and are priceless works of masterpiece art, the shroud is a proven fake and is worthless.
2007-01-09 15:24:41 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 2⤋
Perhaps a scam masterpiece, certainly not an artistic one. It was used to abuse thousands of gullible pilgrims who paid to look at it and sometime touche it if their donation was large enough.
False relics making was a prosperous industry during the 14th to the 16th century. You can find hundred of meters of "true cross" fragments all over Europe for example.
From an artistic point of view the shroud is really not very interesting.
2007-01-09 15:36:35 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
I think that it's a symbol of what some people will do to remain in power. That and the fact that it's lasted that many centuries means that it should have some significance and value. We should never forget that it is a fake though.
2007-01-09 15:30:30 · answer #4 · answered by FaerieWhings 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Much was made of the fact that the image on the fabric is "three-dimensional", that is, the features are laid out as if the fabric had been wrapped around a body. Could they possibly have smeared a guy with paint and wrapped the fabric around him, then filled in the "wounds" later"?
2007-01-09 15:31:45 · answer #5 · answered by skepsis 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I don't know...I mean, if it really was somebody's shroud, then no way, that's just weird! If it was just painted to look like Jesus, then I guess so. Since we'll probably never know, I think it should be considered unique, and a great mystery.
2007-01-09 15:38:13 · answer #6 · answered by teeney1116 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It should be considered as a shroud with some interesting markings on it-it has no particular significance to science given the lack of concrete evidence on its origins.
2007-01-09 15:25:23 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
Sure. A masterpiece of fake. Put it right up there with the grilled cheese sandwich that is the virgin Mary.
2007-01-09 15:27:06 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
If I can make a fake of a hundred dollar bill is it a masterpiece because its a good fake, I don't think so...
2007-01-09 15:27:11 · answer #9 · answered by fourmorebeers 6 · 0⤊ 2⤋
I don't get where you get "most" think it is a fake. It has undergone numerous tests, all of which authenticate it, at least as far as age, improbability of it being a forgery, etc. Don't question something you haven't been willing to do serious research on. YBIC
2007-01-09 15:29:28 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋