How is Leonardo Da Vinci supposed to know the truth. Why would he TRY to give us hints, when it was clearly possible and much more easier to tell anything that he THOUGHT. Also, how would he know anything about it? Why would we base facts of belief from this painting, in which Leonardo wasn't personally there, for he was alive way after Jesus' crucifiction. So tell me, what is the point of trying to make up some stupid theory based on "The Last Supper"?
2007-02-01 12:33:58 · 12 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
deception, lies, fraud.
2007-02-01 12:37:12 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 5⤋
First of all I must ask - why do you suppose painting cannot convey thought? Also why do you expect painting to perform the same function as documentary photography? This fresco is not an isolated instance: there is a whole tradition (iconography) of religious themes which can be seen to develop from early Christian art, through Gothic and Rennaisance Art, through to the 17th Century. Painting was an important official vehicle of the Church across Europe, and is less involved with depicting an actual event than communicating an idea/a concept/a set of values to a largely iliterate poplace. The Last Supper exists as a theme so many times over the course of European painting I really don't understand why you single out this one particular example. The question you are asking could equally be applied to other examples and other themes, and my answer in every case would be that the point is to animate and enrich existence. I have long since discounted Christianity as a belief system, but the power of art to say something powerful about the complexities of the human condition remains, and the world is a richer place for it.
2007-02-01 20:56:06 · answer #2 · answered by chartres52 2 · 2⤊ 0⤋
It doesn't. Da Vinci was a genius, ahead of his time and certainly a visionary. However, his painting is just that, a painting; done over a millennium after the event, no pictoral evidence remains of that event. Da Vinci was trying to capture the image he had in his mind of what the scene would have looked like. As for Mary Magdelene being beside Jesus, it was common around that time to give young men slightly feminine features to emphasize that they were young. I'm not sure who would have actually been next to Jesus but it was possibly John who was called The Beloved. Jesus was 33 when he was crucified, it is an almost certainty that some of the apostles would have been younger and when you realise that in Jewish culture, a boy becomes a man at 13 years old, some may have been a lot younger, maybe John was a teenager and Jesus felt protective about him.
2007-02-02 01:31:07 · answer #3 · answered by elflaeda 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Do not believe anything you read in the Da Vinci Code it is a work of fiction but it got you thinking and that is good, read The Magdalene Legacy it will take you a step further and it is not fiction. But, sometimes we are so stuck in the way we were brought up we cannot see further, all I'm saying is be curious and keep an open mind because there are answers out there you just have to look for them.
2007-02-01 20:53:33 · answer #4 · answered by djdundalk 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Paintings often have symbolism, and if you decode the symbols, you decode what the artist meant.
It's not a stupid theory if that's what he meant people to get from the painting. People have been chattering and theorizing about Christ since, well, the time of Christ, and while Leonardo was a brilliant guy, he didn't come up with this idea himself. He portrayed something that other people had been saying for a long time.
Why are you so hostile about symbolism in a painting? He's a PAINTER. He wrote his notebooks backward to keep them secret--he put his ideas in his art. It's all about putting meaning in something beautiful and compelling. Stop being so literal--you'll miss a lot of meaning in art.
2007-02-01 20:43:27 · answer #5 · answered by SlowClap 6 · 4⤊ 1⤋
I don't buy the DaVinci Code either. From what I understand Leonardo was an atheist up until his deathbed conversion, so why would he leave clues about something he didn't really believe in?
2007-02-01 20:42:17 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 3⤋
Because he's not telling you what he KNOWS, but what he BELIEVES about the last supper.
I disagree with Dan Brown's theorys. but there's little doubt that Leonardo was interested in symbolism and hidden meanings, as were many renaissance artists.
2007-02-01 20:40:39 · answer #7 · answered by richy 2 · 5⤊ 2⤋
DUDE that is just a movie.
The Davinci Code was a fictional movie based of a book about fiction. That just shows how gullible you are.
DUH
2007-02-01 20:46:55 · answer #8 · answered by the great 2 · 2⤊ 2⤋
Leo was just a painter, an extraordinary one. He did not con anyone, does not have hidden messages in his paintings. This is all just fictional speculation.
He was just trying to make a living, that's all...
People who get obsessed with objects end up worshiping them as gods subliminally...bad direction!
2007-02-01 20:40:29 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 3⤋
In Islam, Isaa Alayhia Salam did have a wife, and it is true.
Isaa alayhi A Salam is just a prophet of ALLAH SWT.
Hope you understand that he is a man and we are all just servants to ALLAH SWT.
2007-02-01 20:37:34 · answer #10 · answered by Phlow 7 · 0⤊ 3⤋
Let me see if I've got this straight:
Paintings made long after Christ's death = False
Writings made long after Christ's death = True
Did I get it right?
2007-02-01 20:41:18 · answer #11 · answered by Lee Harvey Wallbanger 4 · 3⤊ 2⤋