gendanken: "nudes were a common depiction in classical and Renaissance art". durrrrhh. Here's a link: http://www.infopt.demon.co.uk/michela.htm Hidden penises in the Sistine Chapel: Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Bobby: Then to say painting sweet, sweet, cock was the reason for his 'homesexuality' is fucking stupid, Bob. If this was so common. Like, durrrrrrrrrrrhhhhhhhh.
gendanken: I only stated his gayness as a fact and mentioned the massive amount of cocks, as well as young boys in revealing poses, that he painted in the Sistine Chapel. You're just presenting a strawman. Read the link if you like a better explanation of why.
And read "Lust for Life", for a better explanation of why not. You can read any history and depending on whom, you get a differenct perspective. Stone did his little research, and his bias made him a secretive hetero. THat's how I'm acquainted with the Florentine. You read your linky doo. And think him homo.
You're right of course. I read the linky-doo. He just happened to have no interest in the opposite sex, never married, had a weird obsession with the male nude so that even his women looked like men, and painted so many cocks that the Vatican had to censor his paintings. And, he just happened to be made fun of for being a homo in his own lifetime by poets and the like. But his secrecy, and the cover-up that would have occured, certainly makes it easy to think otherwise. I think him homo. btw what the hell is "Lust for life"?
HA!- He, he- see, this is what happens when one attempts to cram the world in one's head. Crosswiring. 'Lust for Life', is a book about an artist by Irving Stone. 'The Agony and the Ecstacy', is a book about an artist by Irving Stone. The first is a biographical depiction of Van Gogh. The second is a biographical depction of Michaelangelo.. I've should have been saying 'The Agony and the Ecstacy', where Michaelangelo is depicted as an obsessive, secretive heterosexual. Damn sexy one, too. I've been a bad girl. Bad Gendanken! Bad girl!!
It's not just the hair, everyone has long hair. Thats why I pointed to the jesus photo as well. As I said, he looks somewhat androgynous but not female. John on the other-hand doesn't look 'kinda male'/'kinda female'. He looks 100% female. If I'd been shown only this close-up without knowing the source, I'd guess it was from a painting of the madonna. It's so obviously female, the question of gender wouldn't even have crossed my mind. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! ... that is a woman.
Buffy: "He looks 100% female" Why do you think 'him' female? Can you say why? His chin is big. His nose isn't petite. Its the eyebrows and fat, round face that does it... but everyone else has that. Christ's face would look similar from the same angle. Not to mention that it gets fucked up by years of restoration.... Its like seeing little bunnies in the clouds....
Bob We're.... going in circles. I have an interest in men. But no one easily knows it since I don't adverstise like all social sluts do. I'll likely never marry. I have weird obsessions. People in my own lifetime think I'm a lesbo- all women like this register as 'lesbian'. And I'm not. You're doing for Michaelangelo what the smallminded do for me. This is about the only thing believable in the conspiracy- that DaVinci's "John" is indeed a woman. (nice closeup) Forget the soft features- look at the pose. This figure is the only one in the image with its head bowed in something like virginal chastity. Like all women depicted in patristic art.
I think the reason there is so much knee jerk debate around the gender of "john" is because many treat this image as holy writ, as if it were as "true" as the bible. I think it's hard to stand back and consider this as just another painting. Whether or not a woman actually attended the last supper (or for that matter, wether there was a last supper at all) has nothing to do with this painting. It's not a photograph of jesus' last meal but people tend to treat it like it is. The last supper is simply an image painted by some guy (granted a particularly talented guy). The true identity of "john" has nothing to with christianity in this case, it's just an interesting academic question. In my opinion, the person depicted is a woman but davinci's painting doesn't reflect the 'reality' of that particular meal anymore than contemporary paintings of atlantis reflect the 'reality' of that lost city.
Da Vinci's painting of "The Last Supper" isn't in the Louvre--it's painted on a wall in a church somewhere, and isn't in very good condition. It's definitely not portable. What you saw was either a reproduction of it, or another painter's version (it was a popular subject with painters, but only Da Vinci's version tends to get promoted), hence the figure to the left of Jesus may look more like a man than in Da Vinci's version, and the lack of the knife.
I've been reading about all these subjects (supposed bloodline of Christ, secret societies to protect the supposed secret, etc.) since 1982 when the book "Holy Blood, Holy Grail" came out, and have been somewhat interested in it since then, to varying degrees. My current stance on its relevance, is that it isn't very relevant, even if its basic premise is true (that Jesus supposedly had a daughter whose ancestors became the Merovingian kings, etc.)--I would bear no obeisance to any relative of Jesus, and not because I have anything against him. The only relevance is in an abstract, historical sense, even an archaic sense, showing different ways that religious and personal worldviews have been expressed in symbolic ways, in previous centuries. A Christian, etc. may think any of this is relevant, but it really isn't beyond that--certainly not as grist for one's own life, beyond what it teaches us about the evolution of human belief systems, and especially since much of it was proven a hoax 30 years ago, devised by a conservative French group that tried to become a political party in the late 50's (the hoax has been common knowledge in France ever since then). I do believe we need to maintain sympathy (or maybe just pity) for the feverish, convoluted nature of many of these belief systems, but one of my general viewpoints is, if it's convoluted, it's probably phony and meant to mess with your head. Anyone can easily look around and see what's really important, and what people "back then" should have considered important too. I do like history, but I try not to let it mess with my head. That's not to say that da Vinci didn't believe in some of this, and put references in some of his paintings, but the evidence for that is rather flimsy and subject to interpretation. Either way, it's not very relevant except in a quaint historical sense.
The back wall of a Dominican Convent. The original is in Milan, Italy- not France- in the dining hall of Sta Maira delle Grazie. And notice that his (Jeusus) feet are missing. Buffys: Precisely. And just as we're used to saying Sermon on the Mount for a famous biblical sermon even though there is absolutely no mention of the "Sermon on the Mount" in any biblical passage. As such, there is no mention of The Last Supper or even Mary Magdalane as a prostitute anywhere in the biblical texts either. All of these are medieval constructs- like Original Sin. I still say the controversy is, well, so controversial because you're talking about Jesus having sex. His own mother was cleaned of sex, and now Jesus, getting laid, is sheer blasphemy. That, and the idea of the Sacred Feminine is tantalizing to the modern. It makes her look like Lilith or an Amazon, where the Virgin mother is ..boring. But not to Mexicans, they've bred Marian Catholicism into a nuisance.
