Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Why would Da Vinci need to use his own image to produce the Mona Lisa? He was an artist, he could create any image he chose to and could choose any model he wanted if he needed one.
Why would Da Vinci need to use his own image to produce the Mona Lisa? He was an artist, he could create any image he chose to and could choose any model he wanted if he needed one.
Not sure you will understand this, but since your at least asking questions, rather than addressing my structure of sentences and grammar... I'll tell you a few things ..of what I think of the painting.
I'd like to start with something else first thou.
Leonardo Da Vinci and Nicolas Poussin, both hid information in they're paintings. This info, is hidden the same way "watermarks" are used...cleverly disguised in the paintings. My personal opinion is, who were these men to be able to have such abilities to hide this...thinking what?...that maybe some day someone like me would come along and find it?..using computers?.. this is the part, that bugs me. From what I found, I just can't get how they were able to pull it off? ..and the other thing... where did they get the "information" to begin with?..I don't know.
Nicolas Poussin paintings can be seen in my other videos at my Youtube channel..watch the bloodline videos to see those paintings... I could go on and on about these paintings, but I think we're in the wrong thread to do that...sorry.
Wow, read up folks! Da Vinci did not copyright anything, and the Shroud of Turin is a known forgery from the olden days. Where do you folks get this stuff???
Apart the absurd comparison, there are also some problems about the time scale:
- The Monna Lisa (also known as "Gioconda") was presumably painted in the years 1503-1506. The auto-portrait used for the comparison was drawn in 1510-1515 instead (the dates are not known precisely). So the Monna Lisa was painted more or less 10 years before Da Vinci drawn that auto-portrait.
- In addition, it is quite certain that the Monna Lisa is a portrait of an existing woman https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lisa_del_Giocondo
- about the Holy Shroud, the situation is even more absurd. First of all, the Shroud was a property of the Savoy family (that's why it is in Turin). Da Vinci traveled a lot, but he never worked in Turin nor for the Savoy family.
- In addition, the first certain historical records about the Holy Shroud date back to the middle of the XIV century (around the year 1350). Da Vinci instead was born in 1451, so practically one century later.
I think that conspiracy theorists should also consider practical means. Canvas to paint on is never free, it's cost has probably decreased in 500 years, would u consider that a painter would reuse a canvas where one could ?
Wow, read up folks! Da Vinci did not copyright anything, and the Shroud of Turin is a known forgery from the olden days. Where do you folks get this stuff???
Mmmm .... I could ask you the same question - where do you that stuff from? I mean about the shroud being a fraud? It does exist, that part is certain. It does contain a mysterious image, that part is also certain. I'm not understanding the fraud part?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Urania93
What the...
Apart the absurd comparison, there are also some problems about the time scale:
- The Monna Lisa (also known as "Gioconda") was presumably painted in the years 1503-1506. The auto-portrait used for the comparison was drawn in 1510-1515 instead (the dates are not known precisely). So the Monna Lisa was painted more or less 10 years before Da Vinci drawn that auto-portrait.
- In addition, it is quite certain that the Monna Lisa is a portrait of an existing woman https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lisa_del_Giocondo
- about the Holy Shroud, the situation is even more absurd. First of all, the Shroud was a property of the Savoy family (that's why it is in Turin). Da Vinci traveled a lot, but he never worked in Turin nor for the Savoy family.
- In addition, the first certain historical records about the Holy Shroud date back to the middle of the XIV century (around the year 1350). Da Vinci instead was born in 1451, so practically one century later.
The 'conspiracy theory' is that Da Vinci created a new and more convincing shroud, not the original, although I suspect that idea was in response to the realization that Da Vinci was born a hundred years after the shroud first appeared in Europe. Your assertion that he never worked for the Savoy's would put that one to bed.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
