Talk:Leonardo da Vinci/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

The name

In italian, the name "Leonardo di ser Piero da Vinci" means Leonardo (di- son of) (ser signor - sir mister) Piero (from) Vinci. In the XV century surname was used but in a small comunity often the family name was the same and, sometimes nowdays too, for identify a person you can use the name and "di" (name of father or mother) or "da- from" the village or the town "colloquial" Assianir (talk) 11:29, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

What's in a name?

Assianir, are you suggesting we change the wording? If so, then what to?

• Leonardo's father was Piero Fruosino di Antonio da Vinci. The question here is: was "da Vinci" being used as a surname in the manner that we understand it? Or was the father's surname Fruosino, and the "di Antonio da Vinci" added to better identify him? Did Piero (and/or Leonardo) use "da Vinci" when at home in Vinci, or did they assume it when living in, or doing business with Florence etc? There was still a good deal of flexibility as to how names were used at that date. What was the grandfather called?
• The way in which a Renaissance person has gone down in history is very flexible. This is due in part to the flexibility with which names were used in the 15th century. As long as a person could be identified, their names were not as fixed as they would be now, unless they belonged to a noble line.
• In the case of Leonardo, his fame was so great that only one name was necessary. Giorgio Vasari introduces him as Leonardo da Vinci. Since then, art historians have frequently referred to him simply as Leonardo, and only more recently as Leonardo da Vinci. It is considered a sign of ignorance to refer to him only as "da Vinci" as Dan Brown does in the The Da Vinci Code. However, nowadays the "da Vinci" bit needs to be tacked on the end, in case some silly person thinks that one is referring to an actor.
• Likewise, Michelangelo has never needed more than a Christian name. His surname, regardless of how distinguished, is entirely superfluous in terms of identifying him. And anyone who habitually refers to him as "Buonarroti" is regarded as a willie wonka. The other great painter who shared his Christian name is referred to by his place of origin.
• Caravaggio is an interesting case in the shift of surnames. His surname was Merisi, and he was from Caravaggio, so "da Caravaggio" (like da Vinci) is a possibility. I don't know whether he is ever referred to in this way in Italy, but he's always just plain Caravaggio in English.
• Fra Angelico managed to lose all his names along the way and has come down by a sort of nickname, even though Vasari wrote his biography as Brother Giovanni from Fiesole. As for Botticelli, although it sounds like a surname, it was probably his baby name, indicating he was as round as a little tub. Amandajm (talk) 01:30, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Amandajm (talk) 00:40, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting anything. Just explaing, who don't know italian, the meaning of "Leonardo di ser Piero da Vinci". Because the "di ser Piero da Vinci" added to better identify him and it isn't a real surname like Buonarroti.Assianir (talk) 11:57, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

It's already written in the article that his name means Leonardo, the son of Mr Piero from Vinci. I thought that you wanted something changed! Cheers! Amandajm (talk) 04:54, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Typesetting bug

Resolved

The caption of the image on the right is truncated.

A recent edit causes a caption to appear truncated on my 1280x800 laptop display with Firefox 3.06 running on Ubuntu (see screenshot). Removing the forced image sizing fixes the bug for me. I won't change it without discussion, due to the inline comment. Thanks, Papa November (talk) 19:41, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I've changed it to an upright. It works on my screen. If it doesn't work on yours, would you please change it to an ordinary thumbnail? Amandajm (talk) 06:13, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

It's fixed now, thanks. I've marked the thread as resolved. Papa November (talk) 09:40, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

we should have more of his sience —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.26.4.93 (talk) 21:54, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

There is a whole article on his science Science and inventions of Leonardo da Vinci. In fact Leonardo was much more influential as a painter than as a scientist. It is only in the last century or so that people have started to take much of an interest in his scientific studies. Amandajm (talk) 05:37, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

More About Leo

Leonardo da Vinci was born in Vinci, but that is in Florence.

There are only ten surviving paintings that experts are sure that Leonardo painted. Some of which are "The Mona Lisa" "Young girl with Ermine" and "Ginerva de' Benci"

Leonardo also he also made plans for helecopter-like machine, an 80foot long crossbow, water shoes, a spring driven car, a bicycle chain, an 8 barrel gun, a scuba suit, and much more. He was very convinced that man would one day fly.

He also had huge plans for making a giant statue of a horse. After working on it for 10 years, he completed a full size model of it. It was 24feet high. He never completed the accual statue though. Michaelangelo later made fun of him for it.

He also disected about 30 bodies. What he learned from them was put down in his notebooks. He believed that in order to draw a person, you had to how they looked and worked in the inside.

With that knowledge, he designed the first robot. He might of even built it too. It was a full size knight in armor. It could sit up, move it's head, and wave it's arms.

kjhTheKnowItAll (3/24/09)

P.S. I wrote the editing that says "Washington Wasn't First President" in the list of presidents article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by KjhTheKnowItAll (talk • contribs) 01:48, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Kjh! I think if you read this article and look at the big box at the bottom which lists Leonardo's works and which will lead you to some different articles, you will find that we have just about all this information well covered on Wikipedia. It sounds as if you have done a lot of reading about Leonardo.

Amandajm (talk) 06:33, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

about leonardo being an artis

he drew out different sketches of brand new inventions that the inventors who invented it might have studied his notebooks and invented it. he drew the ideas nicely and labeled them, but never really tried inventing them, except for a flying machine. he drew the human body and lots more....keep on getting on wikipedia.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.37.189.197 (talk) 09:26, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Links to works

Could we have links to other works by the artist highlighted in a differen color? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.94.236.181 (talk) 22:48, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

At the bottom of the article is a list of all his paintings and some other works. Amandajm (talk) 07:18, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Leonardo Da Vinci lived in Italy more than five hundred years ago.He was one of the smartest men of his time.He was an artist and sculpter.He drew designs for machines to fly in the air and sail on the sea,and he discovered many things about how our body works.This is Leonardo's story. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.28.22.214 (talk) 21:47, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Leonardo's closest personal relationships were with two pupils, Gian Giacomo Caprotti da Oreno, nicknamed Salai or Il Salaino ("The Little Unclean One" i.e., the devil), who entered his household in 1490. After only a year, Leonardo made a list of his misdemeanours, calling him "a thief, a liar, stubborn, and a glutton", after he had made off with money and valuables on at least five occasions, and spent a fortune on clothes.[41] Nevertheless, Leonardo's notebooks during their early years contain many drawings of the student, who remained within Leonardo's household for the next thirty years.[8]Salai executed a number of paintings under the name of Andrea Salai, but although Vasari claims that Leonardo "taught him a great deal about painting",[12] his work is generally considered to be of less artistic merit than others among Leonardo's pupils such as Marco d'Oggione and Boltraffio. In 1515 he painted a nude version of the Mona Lisa, known as Monna Vanna.[42] Salai owned the Mona Lisa at the time of his death in 1525, and in his will it was assessed at 505 lire, an exceptionally high valuation for a small panel portrait.[43] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.103.124.185 (talk) 19:01, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Arabic Origins

This article says that da Vinci might have been an Arab, I think this needs to be reflected here in the article, especially that the article says that his mother Caterina is not a peasant (as mentioned in our article) but a slave from Istanbul with Middle Eastern/Mediterranean origins. --Yamanam (talk) 12:37, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

"Leonardo may have been an Arab"?

Let's look at the article:

Leonardo's mother might have been..... well, what does it say she might have been?

It says she might have been "Oriental". In Britain "Oriental" is the term usually used for a "Far Eastern" person, not a "Middle Eastern" person ie Chinese, not Arabic. But never mind... the paper is quoting an Italian expert who might use the term differently.

The same expert says "or at least, from the Mediterranean". Well, there's an awful lot of people live around the Mediterranean that are not Arabic. In fact a great many of them are Italian.

It says she was not a peasant but a slave. Well, she might have started out as a slave, but she lived as a peasant, married to a peasant farmer and living in a cottage, surrounded by vineyards that belonged (as far as I know) to Leonardo's father, not the man she married.

The article gives no clue as to why "Istanbul" is hit upon as her place of origin.

Indeed, there are people of Arabic background in Istanbul, but Turkish people generally say they are not Arabs.

We are informed by one of the experts that a particular whorl is found on 60% os Middle Eastern people, but at no time have I been able to ascertain if and how frequently this same whorl is found on the hands of Italians who are not known to have Middle Eastern origins.

The scientists really have no idea whether the fingerprint is Leonardo's or not. The particular painting in which they claim to have got a clear print (in the background) is one of those that not all scholars agree about. And one thing that is agreed is that its background has been entirely repainted. So any genuine prints are under a later layer of black paint.

The whole case for Leonardo being an Arab, based on the prints and on the Telegraph article is not very convincing. Until recently the article stated that Leonardo's mother may have been from the Middle East. (This is not the same as saying that Leonardo was an Arab). This was deleted because another editor considered it speculative. There is an article on Leonardo's personal life. I think it is dealt with in more detail there.

Amandajm (talk) 14:09, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

My finger is itching... Restraint, restraint! By the way, what's this? Leo "lived in the household of his father, grandparents and uncle, Francesco... Frank was simultaneously Len's dad, grandad (and gran), and uncle? Sounds like Tasmania. (As in, "In Tasmania, a virgin is a girl who can run faster than her uncle.") PiCo (talk)

Leonardo's closest personal relationships were with two pupils, Gian Giacomo Caprotti da Oreno, nicknamed Salai or Il Salaino ("The Little Unclean One" i.e., the devil), who entered his household in 1490. After only a year, Leonardo made a list of his misdemeanours, calling him "a thief, a liar, stubborn, and a glutton", after he had made off with money and valuables on at least five occasions, and spent a fortune on clothes.[41] Nevertheless, Leonardo's notebooks during their early years contain many drawings of the student, who remained within Leonardo's household for the next thirty years.[8]Salai executed a number of paintings under the name of Andrea Salai, but although Vasari claims that Leonardo "taught him a great deal about painting",[12] his work is generally considered to be of less artistic merit than others among Leonardo's pupils such as Marco d'Oggione and Boltraffio. In 1515 he painted a nude version of the Mona Lisa, known as Monna Vanna.[42] Salai owned the Mona Lisa at the time of his death in 1525, and in his will it was assessed at 505 lire, an exceptionally high valuation for a small panel portrait.[43]

These claims about leonardo's supposed Arabic ancestry are so speculative and lacking in evidence they really should be heavily qualified. How about something like: "it has been claimed by [insert name] that leonardo might have had an oriental ancestry on his mother's side but…" and then give some of the reasons for being sceptical about this claim. Ad it stands this is just the type of nonsense that is likely to become an oft-repeated piece of folklore. After all, there is NOTHING in leonardo's appearance that suggests Middle eastern, Chinese, Arabic or anything else other than Italian. Leaving the claim as it is a serious misrepresentation of the slender facts. ---- Eluard 16th September 2009

I suggest the following emendation. (i see that the page has been locked by the editors.)

Leonardo was born on April 15, 1452, "at the third hour of the night" in the Tuscan hill town of Vinci, in the lower valley of the Arno River in the territory of Florence. He was the illegitimate son of Messer Piero Fruosino di Antonio da Vinci, a Florentine notary, and Caterina, a peasant who may have been a slave from the mediteranean region. According to Alessandro Vezzosi, Head of the Leonardo Museum in Vinci, there is evidence that Piero owned a slave called Caterina, who was bought in Constantinople, who gave birth to a boy called Leonardo. This has lead to somewhat dubious claims that Leonardo had Middle Eastern ancestry based on a fingerprint found on a painting that may be his — but equally, may not be as well. And whether it is or not the evidence is not strong. "Experts Reconstruct Leonardo Fingerprint" December 12, 2001</ref> Leonardo had no surname in the modern sense, "da Vinci" simply meaning "of Vinci": his full birth name was "Leonardo di ser Piero da Vinci", meaning "Leonardo, (son) of (Mes)ser Piero from Vinci".

Does this not more accurately reflect the facts? BTW leonardo was born the year before Constantinople fell to Mehmet II. So if the Caterina that leonardo's father supposedly bought was leonardo's mother then it would have been in Constantinople, not Istambul. But the name Caterina in fact suggests a girl of Greek/Byzantine origin.

So I propse the above emenadation to the editors. Maybe we can fiddle with the wording a little to produce something that would satisfy everyone. --- Eluard 16th September, 2009.

I just answered you on your talk page, but have transferred it here as well, having seen this edit.

I've just reverted your edit re the fingerprint and Middle Eastern background. The problem is that the information that is stated there is referenced. Your addition of "Mediterranean" and "weakly" were not referenced and so were statements of your personal opinion. You can't revert to personal opinion or personal research on Wiki. Thoses are the rules.

With regards to the fingerprint and its whorls, a statement has been made that the fingerprint has a characteristic that is found in Middle Eastern fingerprints. But I have never been able to get an answer to the question as to whether that characteristic is also found in Italian fingerprints, or whether it is found in other 15th century Florentine fingerprints specifically. There is no way of assessing the validity of the statement that the fingerprint nbelongs to someone of Middle Eastern origin unless this fact is forthcoming. Even if the characterisic was only found in a relatively small number of Italians, then it negates the assertion. None of the information presented to the public on this matter has been detailed or scientific.

Despite this, I cannot offer my opinions, in the context of a Wikipedia article. Amandajm (talk) 13:24, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Amandajm. your remarks are rather disingenuous — YOU YOURSELF point out that the expert said "or from the Meditteranean region". So the claim is referenced in the same report that makes the claim for Middle Eastern origins — and you yourself have noted that. To leave the statement as it is is effectively to use Wikipedia to spread a distorted, politically charged view. It has nothing to do with my opinion, or yours. It has to do with what the original claim was. FWIW I think we agree on the merit of the original claim, but we disagree on how this issue should be represented in an encyclopedia. I agree that my addition of the word 'weakly' is my own assessment of the merit of the claim (and probably yours) but I don't see how it is less accurate, or even more opinionated than saying that "it is supported by". Where are the scientific articles here that the public can access? — or even an academic, since that is what I am (I mean seriously, an article from the aap news service!) How credible does this make Wikipedia? I have now re-edited the page, putting in the reference that you ask for and making it considerably more balanced than it was. If you revert the changes then I think the matter should go to Wikipedia moderation. Eluard 28th September 2009.

• "from the Mediterranean region". Did I point out that an expert said that? Italy is a narrow country. Almost every person in it lives fairly close to the Mediterranean. It seems like a ridiculous statement.

*Your additions of refutation of the statement are clumsy and out of place in an already over-long article. When I first started editting this article, the bulk of biographical material pertained to the question of whether he was or wasn't homosexual, and in particular, pederast. The article still retains reference to his close association with two student/companions, but there is now room for information about what he is famous for, painting. That is because a new article on his Personal Life was created.

• Do you mind arguing this interesting matter out on the other page?
• It remains an undeniable and irrefutable fact that "it has been claimed" he was of Middle Eastern origin, whether the claim is true or otherwise. It might also be claimed that he got his idea for a flying machine straight from a little green man with a pointed head. Take a look at the shape of the so called "tank". Kind of proves it, doesn't it? I would prefer to just remove all reference to this unproven and not-very-well supported theory. However, as soon as it is removed, it will be inserted back into the article.
• As it stands right now, interrupting the biographical details with a statement that someone or other doesn't agree with the theory is inappropriate. Your addition of the refutation should stand, but it must be turned into a properly working footnote. As for the words "at least from the Mediterranean", I think they are superfluous. If Caterina was born a few miles to the West, then she came from the Mediterranean.

Amandajm (talk) 08:26, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

OK, I just looked through the discussions above and found the reference to the Mediterranean. Amandajm (talk) 08:28, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I am happy that all this be removed, as it now has been. The point is that the previous Wikipedia page was actually even less nuanced and objective than the AAP news report — which was already falling far short of an academic citation in a peer reviewed journal. To cite a news report in this way just misleads the public as to the credibility of a particular claim. I don't think that Wikipedia would be happy to play that role. So let us hope that the page will stay as it is and that we can keep it free of these claims until such time as they reach a minimum standard of academic acceptability. --- Eluard 28th September 2009

Amandajm, You'll find here

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9407E3DF163EF932A05751C1A9609C8B63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=2

a discussion by Simon Cole of the fingerprint issue. I think it will reinforce the need for a responsible scepticism with respect to this claim. The claim has, effectively, been refuted. (I've been trying to trace the journal article in Anthropologie, a journal belonging to the Moravian Museum in Brno. It is not online, and the abstract makes NO MENTION OF THE MIDDLE EAST CLAIM.or any other claim about origins. I am also not sure that this journal is peer reviewed — doesn't look like it.) --- Eluard Sept 28th 2009.

New question: what is the basis for the claim that Leonardo's father bought a slave named Caterina who then had a son named Leonardo. I can see the support (slender and unreferenced though it might be) that his father bought a slave named Caterina, but I don't see that ANYONE has said she had a son named leonardo. This little addition makes this slave purchase seem much more relevant than it states in any of the referenced material. If there is no support for this can it be edited out please. --- Eluard Sept 29th 2009

• I have no idea about where the claim that Caterina had a son called Leonardo comes from. It certainly isn't in the document cited. I have wondered about this myself, because if she did indeed have a son called Leonardo, then it is surely the Leonardo in question.
• The process of editting here means that unless one queries and checks every single "fact" that every editor inserts, then unverifeid facts slip in. If someone writes, "He had a slave who had a son Leonardo" and then cites the person who supposedly said it, and references it, then I don't necessarily check it. I don't "own" the article.
• Also, about the line that says "at least from the Mediterranean". I have just realised what is meant by this. He says that "Caterina was "Oriental", at least from the Mediterranean." He is not using "from the Mediterranean" in a general sense. He is using it to define what part of the "Orient" Caterina might come from, in other words, Turkey, Palestine or Lebanon, not China, India or Afghanistan.
• I think the line about her having a son called Leonardo has to go, since it is definitely unreferenced and I don't know how it snuck in.

Amandajm (talk) 12:03, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

leonardo davinci and mirror writing

Leonardo DaVinci and Mirror writing. As a professional involved in diagnosing and treating ADHD (Attentional Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder) for more than 30 years it has always interested me in evaluating past famous people who might have had his condition. Roger Sperry received the Nobel Prize in 1982 for his research on the split brain. Each hemisphere has its own unique talents difficult to analyze in the intact human brain as the two brains functions inter-react. However with the human brain split in two, each hemisphere could easily be evaluated and the individual talents of each brain analyzed and easily understood. This certainly shed enormous light in understanding ADHD as a genetically inherited condition.

Certainly Winston Churchill, Albert Einstein and many more might well have had this inherited condition. Leonardo DaVinci certainly fulfils many of the diagnostic criteria. Most people have a dominant left brain. Each hemisphere supports the opposite side of the body thus making most people right handed. ADHD is predominantly an inherited very talented right brain and to some degree an immature left brain As the visio-spacial dominant brain supports the opposite of the body, being right brained dominant would usually make the person have a tendency to being left handed. Leonardo was left handed. The natural tendency for the majority of people with a dominant left language brain would be to work from the left dominant brain towards the right side making it natural to write from left to right. However if the right brain was dominant as in ADHD, the tendency would be to write from right to left. Leonardo used mirror righting for this reason. Children with ADHD often reverse letters especially the “b” and “d”, and are often left handed and are also often musical and artistic like Leonardo.

The right brain has talent for art, music, creative inventive and practical handy man ability. Leonardo had all of this. The left brain is the language, formal learning, organized, listening brain focusing on the spoken word. Leonardo had no or little formal learning. The right brain is particularly hasty and easily distracted with a poor concept of time. This certainly describes Leonardo if one considers how often he never finished a painting.

With a talented right brain he would also drift from one place to another, never quite settling down. The right brain seems to master mechanical maths very easily and Leonardo was self taught. However story sums (word sums) are done with the left language brain and not easily mastered. The right brain is a very physical brain endowering the person with clear physical abilities and often muscular strength. Leonardo was allegedly a physically strong person.

The ability to use body language from the right brain in preference to the spoken word from the left would allow a right brained person to express him self visually and spatially with great depth and accuracy. This certainly showed in the great depth and detail of his paintings.

ADHD is very often seen in adopted children who are born out of wedlock and given out for adoption. Leonardo was an illegitimate child. It would seem there is more than enough to diagnose ADHD posthumously in the great gifted artist.

When a psychometric evaluation is done on an ADHD person the non verbal IQ (right brain) is invariably higher than the verbal IQ (left brain.) This is hardly surprising. It can be assumed the artist must have had a gifted IQ to have done what he was able to do without any formal learning. He did not need any formal learning for his immature left brain. His creative, artist right brain would allow him to be drawn to art and benefit immensely and enthusiastically from any training he might receive in this field. He certainly did, even outdoing his teachers. Einstein and Churchill both had formal learning thrust on them with limited success. Their Visio-spacial brains excelled. The talented right brain often results in hyperactive behavior problems. Churchill and Einstein had behavior problems and Churchill also showed considerable artistic talent. The badly behaved the visio-special temperamental tennis player, John McEnroe who was also left handed and he certainly able to express himself with is talented right brain using rather body language in preference to verbal. Smashing a tennis racket is certainly good body language. The artistically gifted Michael Angelo was also left handed. So was Mozart and Beethoven.

I as a non diagnosed left handed ADHD person can well remember my problematical early education during the war years when children wrote on slate to save paper. As I wrote across the slate with my left hand I smudged my work as my hand moved across the slate. I did not revert to mirror writing but I certainly confused the letters “b” and “d” (reversals). I received no sympathetic understanding from the ignorant teachers. Luckily my left handed genetically inherited mechanically gifted son was not only recognised but successfully treated. So was the artistically talented Churchill. One wonders what Leonardo might have achieved with correct effective modern medical treatment? Leonardo’s mirror writing was certainly due to a talent many ADHD people have in giving preference to the left hand and easily adapt to using mirror writing. They have a natural talent for reversing the written word. Dr. W.J. Levin. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ethbil (talk • contribs) 08:43, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Burial place

Leonardo was not buried initially at St. Hubert's chapel, as the current text leads to believe. He was buried at the collégiale Saint-Florentin, which was inside the walls of the castle. This building (and some others, including those that served as the appartments of Catherine of Medicis) was dimantled during the XIX century. During later excavation, some human remains which could be those of Leonardo, were exhumated and transferred to the chapel. This appears in one of the notes in the wikipedia entry [1]on the Amboise castle. Should it not appear here too?

Jcgdelgado (talk) 12:37, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Leonardo the fabulist

Leonardo should be in the fabulists category. He wrote many original fables in his notebooks. See The Notebooks of Leonardo da Vinci, compiled and edited by Jean Paul Richter, Dover, volume II, p. 335-346, 373-374. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.84.144.11 (talk) 00:15, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome to add him to any category you think appropriate. PiCo (talk) 01:06, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

dyslexia

Leonardo da Vinci also had dyslexia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.127.127.169 (talk) 01:35, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Dyslexia is very much part and parcel of ADHD. A talented artistic righ brain and an immature left phonic language left brain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.247.100.118 (talk • contribs)

Death

What was the cause of death? I couldn't find any. --Moppaaja (talk) 23:44, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Estimated IQ

He is often regarded as having an estimated IQ of at least 230—probably one of the hightest IQs in history for a famous person. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.232.52.200 (talk) 02:17, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

This is a rough guess. It is probably also a flawed guess, since it is based on the supposition that Leonardo da Vinci was a universal genius. And to derive a high IQ score from such a supposition seems silly. It is true that da Vinci had demonstrated ingenuity in a variety of areas, but these areas may differ from the areas tested on by an IQ test (one such area [tested by an IQ test] probably being natural pattern detection), and if he [or anyone else in history who is claimed by some to have had an extremely high IQ] were to take an actual IQ test, the test result may turn out to be significantly lower than some would expect. There currently seems to be no way to determine what his actual IQ was, and since the estimated IQ is a guess and unfounded, it is not significant enough to include it within this article. --82.31.164.172 (talk) 07:48, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Young Girl in Profile in Renaissance Dress

Could I add Young Girl in Profile in Renaissance Dress to this article? As instructed (talk) 17:02, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you can. Gaud123 (talk) 01:00, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Leonardo Da Vinci’s mother was possibly Azeri?

RFERL (Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty) recently published a new article (see here) by Louis Buff Parry, an Italian-Canadian scholar, in which he argues that Leonardo da Vinci's mother was in fact an Azerbaijani. He says that the mother "Caterina" was a slave from Istanbul who was brought there from Azerbaijan. Its also worth mentioning that Da Vinci himself travelled to Turkey and Azerbaijan to discover his Caucasian roots, according to the article. Although I agree nothing is certain yet and research still continues on this matter, this interesting issue should be reflected in the article. Neftchi (talk) 16:39, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Lol!!! Louis Buff Parry is far from being an uninterested scholar, he is a mouthpiece of Azerbaijan in Canada. He is the director of public relations of Alberta's Azerbaijani Cultural Society and a nice non-Azeri-name proxy. [2] Funny to watch the nationalists after it was suggested he was a slave since it was all the elements they needed to claim him Azerbaijani. In the 15th century, it was Shirvanshahs rules and the population was Perso-Arabic. Besides, the only research tracing such an origin concluded Arabic bloodline. [3] —Preceding unsigned comment added by XrAi (talk • contribs) 22:07, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

• Lol indeed. I am sure this will be the cause of much merriment in certain circles. This almost comes down to the level of the drive-by Catalan patriot who attributed Don Quixote to an unknown Catalan author a while back! Or indeed the "black Cleopatra" Afrocentrist crowd. I mean really.

• Seriously, though. When you have something better than a Radio Free Europe piece by the PR director of Alberta's local Azeri society, let us know, and we will be happy to compare and contrast reliable sources civilly and respectfully. Otherwise, you can hardly censure our mirth. Moreschi (talk) 00:55, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

"The Medici made me and the Medici destroyed me."

The Adoration of the Magi, (1481)—Uffizi. The Medici destroyed this commission.

The page of the codex that bears this particular statement is currently on display at the Bibliotheca Ambrosiana in Milano. The museum's description of the passage states that Leonardo was referring to the medical treatment that he was receiving from the Medici(doctors), not to the politics of patronage, as is suggested by the current article. The curators at the Bibliotheca Ambrosiana evidently understand this statement to mean that the Medidi assisted in his birth, and are now killing him with their treatments. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.22.208.222 (talk) 19:19, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

That is interesting. It is a possible explanation. However, it is not the way in which it is usually interpreted.

• Firstly, it is most unlikely that a doctor was in attendance at Leonardo's birth. Hence no doctor would have had any part in "making " him.
• Secondly, Lorenzo Medici packed Leonardo off to Milan at the time when he had a major commission on the go. It promised to be a truly remarkable painting, but was never completed. If Leonardo felt bitterness towards the Medici, then it is hardly surprising.

Amandajm (talk) 23:29, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

{{editsemiprotected}} This page and the [[4]] page contradict each other. The Da'Vinci page says (in the end of the "Childhood, 1452-1466" part) that "a local peasant requested that Ser Piero ask his talented son to paint a picture on a round plaque" while the Medusa page says that it was a shield, and that the peasant asked Pierro Da'Vinci to paint it and Pierro asked Leonardo to paint it, not the peasant asking Leonardo to paint it. If it makes any difference, I have only read that it was a shield. His-Story (talk) 22:00, 28 December 2009 (UTC)His-Story

Sorry, but other Wikipedia articles cannot be used as sources. If there was a source in the other article stating so, please put that here.  fetchcomms☛ 22:42, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

The source is clear. It's Vasari. The direct quote says "buckler" which is a round shield. However, the peasant didn't ask Piero to paint it. Piero was not a painter. He asked Piero to have it painted for him. I'll fix this. Amandajm (talk) 07:59, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Leonardo da Vinci's Resume

When I visited Leonardo da Vinci's home in France a few years ago I was extremely impressed with his personal resume which was available when touring his home (written in French). After visiting the Leonardo exhibition in NYC this week I remembered it and decided to search for it on the web. I was surprised not to find it on Wikipedia, but I did find a version of it with commentary, translated into English on this page: http://blog.ragan.com/archives/speechblog/2005/10/the_da_vinci_re.html

Here is the resume itself - I'm interested in having this excerpt added to the page on wikipedia. Thanks for your consideration.

Eric Kratzer

Job application that Leonardo submitted to Ludovico Sforza, the ruler of Milan, in 1482

“Most Illustrious Lord: Having now sufficiently seen and considered the proofs of all those who count themselves masters and inventors in the instruments of war, and finding that their invention and use does not differ in any respect from those in common practice, I am emboldened … to put myself in communication with your Excellency, in order to acquaint you with my secrets. I can, construct bridges which are very light and strong and very portable with which to pursue and defeat an enemy … I can also make a kind of cannon, which is light and easy of transport, with which to hurl small stones like hail … I can noiselessly construct to any prescribed point subterranean passages - either straight or winding - passing if necessary under trenches or a river … I can make armored wagons carrying artillery, which can break through the most serried ranks of the enemy. In time of peace, I believe I can give you as complete satisfaction as anyone else in the construction of buildings, both public and private, and in conducting water from one place to another. I can execute sculpture in bronze, marble or clay. Also, in painting, I can do as much as anyone, whoever he may be. If any of the aforesaid things should seem impossible or impractical to anyone, I offer myself as ready to make a trial of them in your park or in whatever place shall please your Excellency, to whom I commend myself with all possible humility." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ericwkratzer (talk • contribs) 17:51, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the suggestion. I have just put it on the page Leonardo da Vinci's personal life Amandajm (talk) 12:29, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Influence

Having just reverted an edit that included Raphael's name among the most influential artists, (Leonardo and Michelangelo) I have to explain why I did this. Raphael was a lot younger than these guys. He was obviously greatly influenced by both of them, by his teacher Perugino and by his contemporary Andrea del Sarto. His work is an amalgamation of influences. He was a great and wonderful painter of Madonnas, but his sources were Perugino, Leonardo and probably Giovanni Bellini. He was a great portrait painter, amalgamating the skills of Leonardo with those of Ghirlandaio, and again probably Bellini. His rich use of colour (using oil paint) have precedents in Venetian painting.

Raphael did not drive art in a new direction. Leonardo did this, and so did Michelangelo. Amandajm (talk) 07:31, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

He predicted world would end in 4006

According to The Times, "Da Vinci 'predicted world would end in 4006' says Vatican researcher" and clues were to be found in The Last Supper. Should it be mentioned in this article or The Last Supper (Leonardo da Vinci)? --Quest for Truth (talk) 12:46, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Probably not. PiCo (talk) 11:05, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

There are so many theories about Leonardo that it is impossible to cover them all in this article. Amandajm (talk) 21:20, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

printable resolution da vinci originals

This seemed to be the only download-able true print resolution copy of any da Vinci I could find, Judas from the Last Supper 46" x 92" at 500dpi. Popped up on a torrent site. The release says to be from zoomready.com, the picture appears to be the restored painting as taken by italian company haltadefinizione. The torrent itself can be found on thepiratebay.org search "da vinci". Available via torrent download, it's 3gb and a legit copy, and according to the site and a wikimedia statement it's public domain. A few other pieces touching the Judas piece are available, the knife 15"x15" and the window 30"x30". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kyleontap (talk • contribs) 11:57, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

leonardo da vinci

He was the best artist in his generation. I was fascinated to learn about him in my art class on friday.I want to continue to learn about Leonardo Da Vinci alyah yardan --75.110.114.58 (talk) 14:12, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Alyah, if you click here Italian Renaissance painting, you can find out more about how Leonardo fitted in with other painters of his generation. Amandajm (talk) 14:57, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Any further news regarding this painting?

This dude was awesome! xD —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.211.69.178 (talk) 15:08, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure many of you have heard about this (self?) portrait, descovered earlier this year. So does anybody here know, if art experts have already found out whether it's authentic or not (both regarding timeframe and authorship?) [5] Fulcher (talk) 04:29, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

It very closely resembles the portrait in the Ufizzi by Cristofano dell’Altissimo. It is not a separate, individual work. It is either a copy of or a study for the Cristofano painting. I would go for the latter. My reasons for this is that the anatomy in this painting appears rather weak.

The general opinion of experts who have examined it is that it is not by Leonardo himself. Alessandro Vezzosi, director of the Museo Ideale Leonardo da Vinci at Vinci, has indicated that he thinks that it might be by Cristofano. I haven't heard results of later analysis. Amandajm (talk) 05:26, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Heart valve repair

This paragraph has been removed to Science and inventions of Leonardo da Vinci. Amandajm (talk) 13:18, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

leonardo da vinci was fat —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.253.29.37 (talk) 08:54, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Leonardo was tall, strong and athletic. He could bend horseshoes with his bare hands and jump out of a barrel without touching the sides. If Leonardo da Vinci was alive today he would kick Chuck Norris's butt.Amandajm (talk) 10:33, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

If Leonardo da Vinci was alive today he'd be sort of old. PiCo (talk) 12:08, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Gee whizz, Pip, you're right! I reckon that if Leonardo was alive today, he would probably scare the daylights out of not only Chuck Norris but also Mr T. Easily. Amandajm (talk) 07:09, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Simply the best. --Davide41 (talk) 09:39, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Non-Watermarked version of Last Supper

{{edit semi-protected}} Not sure if I'm doing this correctly, but I propose an edit to the Leonardo da Vinci page, by changing the reference pointer for the image of the Last Supper. Currently, the image contains numerous watermark sub-images. These are so intrusive that I feel they constitute digital vandalism. Consequently, I took the original image, and manually removed the watermarks, and have uploaded a revised high-resolution image of the Last Supper into the Wiki Commons. The link to the non-watermarked version of this Public Domain artwork is:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/77/DaVinci_LastSupper_high_res_2_nowatmrk.jpg

and I propose that the DaVinci page be edited so that the image of the Last Supper refers to this watermark-free high-resolution JPEG file. Thank-you. Rusfuture (talk) 18:30, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Done! Thankyou. Amandajm (talk) 08:05, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

This article is biased

Reading through this, I came upon a sentence that said "One such aspect is his respect for life evidenced by his vegetarianism" Just because one is an omnivore does not imply a disrespect for life. Please edit this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.5.69.0 (talk) 12:49, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Regardless of your own personal choices, wouldn't you say that not killing animals is a pretty basic requirement of "respect for life"? Seems like a pretty logical statement to me. Seanmercy (talk) 15:42, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Lucan self-portrait

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Murray menzies (talk • contribs) 15:31, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

I wish to exchange Wiki's so-called self-portrait of Leonardo, which heads up his section, for another which the experts are now unnamimous in recognising as real - as opposed to the red chalk picture which is self-evidently NOT his self-portrait - He didn't live to an old age, as in the drawing, and the likeness is not that of Leonardo. Anyone with a working knowledge of Leonardo knows this, and Wiki needs to be up-dated.

At the moment I've asked for help getting .jpg images and text onto the main page, and on my way out yesterday I flicked up this correspondence to see if there was anything new and NOTICED THE NECESSARY INSTRUCTIONS! Coodie, thank you very much!! - work to do when I get home - But alas, 'twas not to be, coz they were gone when I got back, and now I have to ask again - sorry, sorry, I will try to do better in future!Murray menzies (talk) 12:56, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

LUCAN SELF-PORTRAIT
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Leonardo da Vinci c.1505? Murray menzies (talk) 12:49, 24 October 2010 (UTC) INTRODUCTION Leonardo’s Lucan Self-portrait is arguably the masterpiece of all his painted work. It was discovered in 2008 by Nico Barbatelli, Director of Museo Antiche delle Genti di Lucania -Museum of the Ancient People of Lucania - who believes the painting’s provenance stems from Florence’s Segni Family. He relates that it is called “Lucan” because it comes from Basilicata, where it was kept until about 1950. Mr Barbatelli has brushed aside all attempts to de-bunk its authenticity with the results of a coherent and authoritative scientific investigation. For someone who was the best painter of his time, and who was famously protective of his own feelings, it is a matter of huge import for Leonardo to reveal himself in this only known self-portrait. Study of the many copies reveals that none include the white feather in his hat, so we can deduce that the feather is graffiti applied by an unknown person, and confirmation was given when investigations revealed the paint itself to be different to the paint used for the rest of the picture. The original painting shows a dark background with Leonardo’s face highlighted in the centre of the composition, but the bright splash of a contrasting white feather at top left reduces the impact of his face and radically changes his intended motive. Leonardo would be insulted if graffiti was exhibited as his work, and taking all this into account, the painting is presented here with the feather removed to help appreciation of the work. Appreciation of the painting involves understanding a technique used to make it seem more life-like. So far as we know, this technique is a Leonardo invention to make the viewer feel kissed, and has not been used anywhere else, before or since. Leonardo specialised in communicating with a person’s subconscious so he would feel moved without knowing why, and in this case he has added a second ghostly face at a slightly smaller scale directly below the primary face, but this ghost is facing the opposite way, and ‘invisible’ when viewed from the front in the ordinary way. If the painting is viewed from a narrow angle, both mages are condensed along their horizontal axis so that it seems there is the beginning of two faces looking in different directions – but as the angle increases, the bottom face quickly dissolves while the top face resolves into the proper image, giving the impression of movement and life to an image with evocative lips pursed to suggest the invitation of a kiss. To cause the painting to be viewed at a narrow angle without disclosing any reason, Leonardo has written a piece of mysterious script, his “signature”, on the back of the panel where the viewer would be likely to look more than once to resolve the riddle. The script; PINXIT – MEA is written in Leonardo’s right to left writing, and its ironic? meaning is unsettled as yet because complicated issues of gender are raised. It suggests a woman saying ‘my picture’. – a mood-setting riddle perhaps? In this way Leonardo has made his self-portrait seem alive because it moves the viewer to interact by turning the painting to examine the signature on its back, which, as it returns to position, leaves a subconscious impression that Leonardo is kissing the beholder. Given the mutilating marks across the blue eyes, we can speculate that someone was maddened by the recurring tension of the kiss juxtaposed with his cool gaze every time the signature was checked, and that this feeling has provoked them into attacking something they didn’t understand. RESULTS OF TESTS In 2009 the study of the newly-discovered painting was assigned to a team of scholars who carried out an extensive series of investigations aimed at recognition of the dating of the painting and allocation to the hand of Leonardo. Team leaders were; INNOVA, CIRCE, University of Naples, Cybernetics - National Research Council, and University Suor Orsola Benincasa. Prof. Gaetano Di Pasquale of the University of Naples identified the wood body of the painting as Populus, present in all Italian regions, and Radiocarbon dating tests of three fragments gave a range of 1474 to 1517. Raman analysis by Prof. Carlo Camerlingo and Prof. Antonio Sasso of the University of Naples was impossible because of a layer of varnish, and MMS Magnetic scanning at very high 100 microns resolution was carried out by Dr Hector Sarno of INNOVA to check for illegible letters and to compose a magnetic map of the painting. Analysis by X-ray fluorescence by Prof. Giorgio Trojsi Suor Orsola Benincasa University and Prof. John Paternoster of the Department of Physics, University of Naples showed that the feather was painted in a titanium-based pigment not used in other parts of the painting. Forensic graphology specialist Prof. Silvana Iuliano of the University of Urbino found that the characters on the door are represented in an alphabet conceived by Leonardo in the Atlantic Codex, with the writing and the ink being contemporary to those used and recognized in the writings of Leonardo. Prof Felice Festa of the University of Chieti, together with collaborators, made comparative computer analysis of facial soft tissue on the most famous portraits of Leonardo in order to determine the correct facial features. Among the many portraits available, only five, including Francesco Melzi’s chalk drawing, believed to be true by the scientific community, were taken into account along with the face of the Vitruvian Man, The Lucan self-portrait, and the face found in "Codex on the Flight of Birds”. In total, therefore, 8 pictures were reviewed with specialist software (Dolphin Imagings Premium 10.5). The measures suggest that Leonardo's face is slightly elongated in the middle third and bottom, as in the data base of the Arab population, confirming the data shown by prof. Luigi Capasso, who took over on other paintings by Leonardo that have the fingerprint papillary "triradio" fingerprint characteristic of the typical 65% of the Arab population. All these faces have the same proportions derived from the consequence that they are the true face of Leonardo. Even the Vitruvian Man has the same proportions. It is the same person, Leonardo da Vinci. The iconic so-called self-portrait at Turin does not have these proportions. Professor Luigi Capasso of the University of Chieti and Col. Gianfranco De Fulvio, RIS-Racise Command of the Carabinieri led an investigation into all three fingerprints in the paint of the Lucan painting and found one of them to be completely compatible with the left index fingerprint of Leonardo which was found on the ebony beads of his "Lady with an Ermine." LINK to Introduction; MATRIX Subconscious sexual motives; from Angelo Parrasio to Leonardo da Vinci by Murray Menzies Go to; Preview LINK to test results; www.museoleonardiano.altervista.org/informazioni.htm Go to; le Colleziai / Dipinti / Protocollo scientifico attributivo

Murray menzies (talk) 03:17, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Response:

• The painting has been assessed by scientists, and a historian, not art historians
• Art historians haven't come to the party. Only one has been involved, from the US, and not the best known.
• "Alessandro Vezzosi, director of the Museo Ideale Leonardo da Vinci at Vinci, said the painting could be by Cristofano dell’Altissimo who is known to have painted portraits of Leonardo"
• The so-called "Leonardo fingerprint" on which all these other fingerprint assessments are based is not a single clear print, but a reconstruction of a single print from different parts of a painting! Some of this fingerprint analysis has been indicated as sheer fakery. Moreover, the facts themselves are smudged and blurred. While the public has been told in the press that the whorl (or whatever) on the finger indicates "Arab ancestry" because the mark appears on the hands of 65% of Arabic people, there is nothing forthcoming when one asks "Yes but what proportion of non-Arabic people in Italy have a similar mark? Silence! Say it was 10%- would that make Leonardo an Arab? Another statement about the fingerprint was that he was "probably of Mediterranean ancestry". Yeeeess, there is just a chance he was!
• The family that owned this picture considered it "poor quality". It does not appear traditionally to have been believed to be by Leonardo. Family tradition is important in these sorts of things. If they thought it was Leonardo, it would have been on the wall, or in a bamk vault. Remember that this family were not ignorant of paintings; they had a collection.
• The scratch across the eye looks relatively new, and purely accidental, of the sort that frequently occurs when a painting is shoved on a shelf and then has another painting carelessly stacked on top of it with fittings for hanging projecting from its frame.
• The stuff about the facial proportions is nonsense. In the painted portraits (all of them) the figure is wearing a hat, and the upper third cannot be acturately determined. In the majority of portraits the figure is wearing a beard, and the lower proportion cannot be determined. In the 3/4 face drawing, the figure may have lost his upper teeth, and therefore the proportion from nose to chin, and even nose to the opening of the mouth is different to that which it would have been earlier in life.
• Contrary to your opinion, and the opinion of the scientists, what my eyes tell me is that the painted portrait, and the red chalk drawing portray the same person, regardless of who created the images.
• What I mean to imply by this is not that the painting cannot be Leonardo da Vinci, and cannot be by his hand. My opinion is that this painting, regardless of who did it, confirms that the red chalk drawing is the man himself, rather than the other way around. If these scientists mistakenly think that they have to disprove the drawing in order to gain credibility for the painting, then it is nonsense.
• About the age of the man in the drawing: It is a drawing! It isn't a photo, or a painted portrait. Being created using a linear technique, it emphasises lines. Ths means that the artist has registered every furrow on the face. The hair appears to be white, because it is drawn in a completely linear fashion. The technique itself has the effect of aging the subject. Moreover, if we could see him without the hair, beard and long eyebrows, he would look younger.
• Why would Leonardo wear that hat? Was it because he had gone bald on top?

Amandajm (talk) 07:07, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the interest!

>Regarding scientists, historians, and art historians, I should point out here that I am a published art historian - eek! - (see the link) and suggest that most of them/us are fantasy driven and don't have a good grasp of reality or a reputation for clear and intelligent thought. Proper scientists and historians are much more valuable in these circumstances.

>Mr Alessandro said the painting could be by dell'Altissimo shortly after it was discovered, and before the testing was done. The comment is out of context.

>Your description of the fingerprint issue seems to conflict with the information at the Test Results link. See there for clarification.

• My comment about the fingerprint referes to the initial finding of a print, on which the indentification of all other prints have been based. The basis upon which these assessments have been made is not secure in the first place.

>The painting was 'poor quality' 500 years after it was painted because it had been altered more than once by overpainting, had a couple of scars from being jabbed, was heavily varnished, and, I think, being used as a coffee table top - or similar.

>There have been a steady trickle of Leonardo discoveries in recent years. Leonardo wasn't reckoned to be a particularly important artist until the last couple of hundred of years or so, and art is quickly forgotten by the following generations.

• Important: contrary to what you are saying here, Leonardo was absolutely renowned as a painter from the time of the completion of the Last Supper. His renown and the fascination with him has never flagged for an instant. He was never forgotten by later generations. His influence extended to Raphael, Caravaggio (and all his Dutch followers), Poussin, Vermeer, Rembrandt, van Dyck, Reynolds, Goya, David, etc.
• Yes, there has been a steady trickle of Leonardo "discoveries". Most of them have been known works where the attribution has been disputed and hes finally consolidated, as in the case of Ginevra de Benci. Everyone wants their painting to be a Leonardo. But most are not at all convincing. We have to remember that he had a whole studio full of imitators, and that some of them were accomplished painters. The chance of a picture being by one of his dozen students and associates is very much higher than the chance of it being by the man himself.

>>Yes, I agree with all that, and my ears are pricking up at the news of some issue with Ginevra .. whats the buzz?

>The scratch across the top is actually two scratches, and they seem to have been inflicted by sharp-pointed prodding which left the surface cut rather than brusied. Being jabbed with a pool cue might leave this sort of damage.

• As I've said, the marks are consistent with having a metal fitting scraped over the surface, one way and then back again as if something was moved into place on top of it. It is the sort of damage that typically occurs to stacked painting. Not that how it happened matters much.

>> typically? when were you last in an Art Gallery's starage area?!

• I'm not referring to paintings that belong to museum collections and are generally kept in suitable storage. I am referring to the rough way that paintings are handled by private owners who don't know their value and have little experience in handling them. Even small galleries stack paintings against the walls in ways that are detrimental to the surface. In most private homes any painting that isn't up on the wall is a painting at risk.

>This is probably a valid criticism, From my own perspective, I can say that I was looking for a true likeness of Leonardo long before the tests were done, and can pick him out of the crowd with a fair degree of accuracy by looking for his thin nose. The so-called self-portrait at Turin does not show this thin nose, and anyway, Leonardo never grew to be that old. His actual image in old age is shown in the indisputable red chalk drawing by Count Melzi. This image is in direct dispute with Turin.

• The Turin image is a drawing of a man who has lost his upper teeth. It is linear. Linearity emphasises wrinkles and the like.

>>so?

• The point that I am making here is that a man of sixty was an oldish man. A man of sixty with his wrinkles defined by the drawing, with a long grey beard, and having lost teeth could look much older than we would expect a modern sixty-year-old in a developed country to look.

>How can the Lucan painting confirm the Turin painting as real when they are so different? Leonardo was often described as a "beautiful" specimen of a man - as Melzi has drawn him - why would he draw himself much older and uglier than he was? Some think Turin could show either his Father or Uncle, but I don't know the evidence.

• As an artist, I would say that the Turin drawing depicts a man who has been very handsome. The nose is the same sort of nose precisely as shown in the Lucan portrait, but with the natural signs of age.

>> Yes, but Leonardo never got that old, so is disqualified as the subject of the portrait. I read somewhere he did the Turin drawing when he was quite young, and if so, it is doubly disqualified from being his self-portrait.

>I think Leonardo is wearing that particular hat to plant a subconscious impression that he has a large, neat and mysterious mind...Murray menzies (talk) 15:19, 23 October 2010 (UTC)Murray menzies (talk) 15:26, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

• Can I put it to you that the Lucan portrait, given its dating, is one of a collection of Leonardoesque paintings by the hand of the same follower which include: Portrait of a Musician and Portrait of a Lady, both in Milan and Bacchus in the Louvre.

>>I didn't realise they were by the same hand - I've never studied them - but I'm perfectly convinced the work is Leonardo's because of the unique way he plays with the subconscious.

• There is no certainty that they are by the same hand. However they have all been attributed to Leonardo in the past, and still are, by some writers. The Bacchus now seems to be universally dismissed as Leonardo's work.

I have very high resolution Gallery quality .jpg photos of the picture, and it seems distinctly Leonardoesque to me, but I'm not an expert on brushwork. One shot is a detail of a scratched eye, and I will put it up here for study when I get it all sussed.Murray menzies (talk) 13:38, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Amandajm (talk) 05:13, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I would very much like to see your high resolution shots. Have you put any images of Wikipedia Commons yet? That is the place to put them, not Wikipedia where they get lost among the documents and are difficult to locate.

I will go to a computer shop tomorrow to learn how to insert stuff into Wikipedia. I have no idea what Wikipedia Commons are, but I will try to put my 5 reference photos there so you will have a better idea of what you are talking about. Murray menzies (talk) 05:35, 26 October 2010 (UTC) Amandajm (talk) 11:59, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Yippie!!

I've got the pictures up at Leonardo/Lucan, and am making progress with the rest ....  !!

mm Murray menzies (talk) 13:16, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Looking at the Lucan portrait

Ive looked long and hard at the pics you have uploaded and I am in no way convinced that this painting is by the hand of Leonardo da Vinci, regardless of the left-handed inscription on the back. By 1481-82 when he was working on the Magi, Leonardo had already developed a dramatic use of light and shade to enhance both form and characterisation. This quality, which appears even in loosely attributed works like the "Musician" is entirely lacking in the Lucan portrait, which is a very staid and conservative portrait of early 16th century appearance. It may be someone elses picture of Leonardo. It may even be the one upon which later portraits including the anonymous one in the Uffizi are based. But whatever it is, it is not convincincingly by the hand of the man himself. In fact, while there is obviously an influence, it doesn't even try very hard to imitate his style.

I am really really not happy about this work being uploaded as a "self-portrait" as if that fact is was set in cement. Could you please rectify this by renaming on Wikimedia Commons? Amandajm (talk) 08:34, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry you don't see Leonardo's hand in the portrait. For myself, I've had a working relationship with Leonardo's paintings for 20 years or so, but no specialist knowledge of brushwork at this highest level of art criticism.

I don't have a problem seeing Leonardo's hand, and accept the verdict of the investigating team.

I can understand your unease if the grubby-looking overpainting isn't compensated for. You have to look at the good bits and imagine what it will look like after restoration. Zoom in on the eyes and compare his left overpainted one with his right original one, which is but scarred. Not pretty, but Leonardo just the same.

I don't think it would be in Wiki's best interests if you overturn the opinion of such an august body of scholars, and could talk about it forever, but in the meantime I'd like to come to some arrangement with you to take over the project in return for a quite substantial bribe = tea and bikkies for two at some famous place?

At the moment I have two lots of pictures loaded. The first lot have short LUCAN filenames and no discription, and the second lot have long filenames and the discription (but not the word 'detail', which would have been better - (I should have read the advice) I've tried to delete the First lot, but couldn't see how.

The problem is that they don't turn up in any search, and I don't really know where they are. What the bribe is to pay for is to make the files google-able, and despite your personal reservations, replace Turin with Lucan so that everyone can have a look at what all the fuss is about. .... Grit your teeth, I realise this will hurt, but it's for the greater good and all that....

Cheers, Murray menzies (talk) 14:53, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Murray, thank you for the offer of tea and bikkies! I would take it up, but at the present time I am probably ten thousand miles away from whatever place you have in mind.

I have just looked at what you had written in Wikipedia Commons. There were serious problems with it:

• You simply cannot assert that some newly-found painting is "arguably the masterpiece of all his painted work". We are writing an encyclopedia here. Who is making that foolish assertion? How can a very standard early 16th century portrait be a greater masterpiece than an extraordinary, ground-breaking painting like the "Madonna and Child with St Anne and John the Baptist" in the Louvre, let alone the Mona Lisa and the Last Supper? This is nonsense!
• The main reason why I doubt that this painting is by Leonardo is the very average and standard nature of the work. It demonstrates none of the originality that Leonardo brought to his paintings and does not demonstrate the features that he urged his students to emply.
• In my assessment, I am not in the least put off by such things as later over-painting (clearly visible in the somewhat raked light of some of the pics.
• The inscriptionn on the back is certainly written backwards. There are two problems with it:

1) It appears to have been written by a right-handed person

2) It does not bear similarity to Leonardo's hand in any way, except that it is back-to-front.

Let me put it to you that the first thing that anyone wishing to forge a Leonardo is going to do is write on it in reverse.

• Who is the loudest voice (other than your own) in claiming that this painting is genuine? Not the family it belonged to. Nico Barbetelli, the person who found it! Of course he is putting forward his case forcefully. To find a genuine Leonardo da Vinci or Michelangelo is the dream of every art curator and historian. The fact that Barbetelli wants it to be genuine does not make it so.
• Please go to the page List of works by Leonardo da Vinci and you will find several other paintings that various people (including the renowned Martin Kemp) dearly want to believe are the real thing. They range from an exquistite portrait by goodness-knows-who (possibly 19th century) to an absolutely typical Giampietrino to a fairly appalling pastiche which, if it isn't a forgery (and Carlo Pedretti doesn't seem to think so) is a work by one of Leonardo's least-impressive 16th century followers.
• With regards the fingerprints: the initial "fingerprint" was created by photgraphing, enlarging, digitally cleaning and assembling a number of small prints found on different parts of a pic, until one image emerged. The process was dodgy.

With regards finding prints on the necklace in "Woman with and Ermine", the assigning of this painting to Leonardo is not at all certain. It is a very beautiful and very appealing picture, but this doesn't mean that it is by the master.

What would be really pertinent would be finding clear prints (I mean clear, not fudgy digitally-assembled prints) on the Mona Lisa, the Magi, "The Madonna and Child with St Anne and St John the Baptist" or the Louvre "Virgin of the Rocks". This would indeed give a certain base to assess all the other works ascribed to Leonardo.

It is not in the interests of the encyclopedia to keep claiming authenticity for a painting that really does not have sufficient acceptance.

Meanwhile, I have created a page on Wikipedia entitled Lucan portrait of Leonardo da Vinci. I transferred what you had placed on Commons (not the right place for presenting your case) and deleted all but the identification of the work. I will go back and tidy up both Commons and the new article. The painting must also be placed in the article List of works by Leonardo da Vinci.

• I forgot to mention that the Lulu site which you used as a reference has been blacklisted by Wikipedia. When I tried to put the link onto the Wikipedia page that I created, my whole page disappeared and I was informed to that effect. I will remove it from your Wikipedia Commons pages ASAP.

Amandajm (talk) 03:11, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

>>I have just had the luxury and pleasure of reading the edited version of my text. Wonderfully well done, congratulations! In future I will restrict myself to comment on artistic devices/motives used by Leonardo to communicate with the subconscious.

Except for my own data published by Lulu there is lack of information available on this subject which forms an essential part of Leonardo's identifiable technique, and which must be taken account of in any critique.

I notice that you've swept aside my contribution of the ghostly face which, with PINXIT MEA, makes the portrait more lifelike. This is one of the main Leonardo identifiers and far more important than considerations of fingerprints, typefaces &c. Are you a bit queasy with this stuff, or do you deny it?

I've written to Lulu about the blacklisting, but it isn't a problem if the whole long line of html text, reduced to the smallest font size, is included for copy/paste to the browser.

Thanks again - I will stay in contact and participate in the editing process Murray menzies (talk) 04:09, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

• My problem with the "ghostly face" is that I don't understand quite what it is. If this face appears only in the raked light, then it is probaly the remains of an image that was previously on the board. If it has been created by tonal areas in the beard or the texture of the paint's surface then it may be entirely accidental, rather than intentional, a bit like patterns in the clouds, or the face of Jesus appearing on a piece of burnt toast.
• Basically, when it come to being "lifelike" and being like a Leonardo da Vinci the painting has to stand up to stylistic scrutiny. If the materials can be dated to the right period (as they have been) then style is by far the best indicator of authenticity, particularly in the case of a master who had many pupils,many assistants, many imitators and many copyists.

I have added a little more to the article drawing attention to the fact that the research appears to be biased in a particular direction and that there appears to be no discussion of style.

The problem is that the painting simply does not match up to stylistic scrutiny. In fact, if you can find a half-reasonable version of the very similar picture owned by the Uffizi, you will see at a glance that the latter is a far more dramatic, arresting and interesting paintng. Moreover it doesn't have the anatomical anomalies that the Lucan painting has and which have been so nicely "explained away" by theorising about looking at a refection close up with alternate eyes.

• The appearance of the proportions of the face are not comfortable. This is explained away by linking the painting to the unproven theory that Leonardo had Middle Eastern/otherwise stated as Arabic/elsewhere stated as Mediterranean blood. The single fingerprint upon which this assesment was made was (as I keep saying) constructed digitally from a number of prints by an American who is renowned for proving that things really are exactly what other people really want them to be. Perhaps, since that date, more comvincing evidence has come to light. However, while it is frequently stated that 65% of Arabic people have this particular whorl, noone has been prepared to state what percentage of people of Italian descent have the same whorl. Is it 10%? 2%? 30%? 0.5%? Tell me someone please! One unproven theory has been used to support and give credence to something that is probably just bad drawing on the part of the real author of the painting.
• I am not convinced, and refuse to be convinced by an analysis of facial proportion that is dependant upon image of which the lower part of the face is screened by a full beard, and the head is disguised by a bulky hat! Regardless of this, the face in the Luca portrait gives the impression of being too long altogether, and I would put this down to the inadequacy of the copyist who has taken the Uffizi portrait as a source. I've pointed out before that face of the red chalk Turin portrait appears to has lost the top teeth, causing a shortening of the lower face which is typical of old age.
• While on the score of the Turin portrait, it needs to be taken into account that sixty was considered "old age" to a greated extent than nowdays, that a long flowing beard is very aging, that the skin of the person was subject to long periods of exposure to cold and was warmed by sitting near a very drying open fire, rather than living in a modern centrally heated interior. We are never really surprised by images of people from poor communities who seem "prematurely aged". Renaissance people need to be viewed in the same way.

Amandajm (talk) 08:17, 6 November 2010 (UTC)