Category: Leonardo da Vinci

Ever since Dan Brown’s novel The Da Vinci Code became a bestseller, critics never ceased coming up with a variety of different explanations as to this book’s popularity with the readers.

However, most of them do agree with a suggestion that the key to The Da Vinci Code’s popularity is being concerned with author’s ability to fuse religious and conspirological motifs into a one inseparable compound – thus, presenting readers within nothing less of an ‘intellectual bomb’, which sets off by being exposed to readers’ curiosity.

In his book Key to the Da Vinci Code, Ferris (2005) points out to the fact that The Da Vinci Code’s very format established objective preconditions for this novel to be avidly read: “The book is a complex blend of symbolism, historical theories, secret societies and religion, which separately presented would make for some heavy reading… In the context of a novel, however, a much wider audience is exposed to the ideas in the book” (Ferris 9).

Nevertheless, it appears that the actual secret of Brown novel’s popularity is not being concerned with author possessing a supreme literary talent, as much as it is being concerned with the process of Western societies growing increasingly secularized, which results in these societies’ members becoming naturally inclined to think of religious dogmas from essentially desacralized perspective.

As of today, a clear correlation can be seen between the quality of living in every particular country and the extent of citizens’ sense of religiosity – the higher are the standards of living, the lesser is the chance for those who enjoy these standards to be endowed with strong religious beliefs.

For example, the number of practicing Christians in such countries as Denmark, Sweden and Norway is estimated to account for only 1%-2% of total population. As Durkheim (1954) had rightly noticed in his famous book The Elementary Forms of Religious Life: “Religion no longer thrills us, because many of its aspects have passed into common usage to such a degree that we are no longer conscious of them, or because they do not meet our current aspirations” (Durkheim 30).

At the same time, the conceptual matrix of Christianity continues to be considered by many policy-makers in the West as a source of divinely inspired morality. For example, it never even occurred to the former American President George Bush that there was anything wrong with him making references the to the ‘good book’, while explaining what had prompted him to decide in favour of attacking Iraq.

In its turn, this explains why many intellectually advanced citizens are being subconsciously predisposed to pay a close attention to just about any work of literature or a movie, which is being aimed at desacralizing religion – by doing it, they establish themselves as rationale-driven and therefore, responsible individuals.

Thus, Brown’s novel is best referred to as the intellectual by-product of post-industrial era, the socio-political realities of which point out to people’s sense of irrational religiosity as the ultimate indication of their lessened social value.

This is exactly the reason why The Da Vinci Code is being banned from bookstores in countries where citizens’ lessened biological worth has been allowing Catholic Church to enjoy an undisputed religious and political authority, throughout the course of centuries (Philippines, Mexico, Peru), while contributing to these countries’ economic and geopolitical backwardness more than any other factor.

Apparently, intellectually inflexible individuals simply cannot handle a simple truth that just about any religion is not being divinely inspired, as self-appointed ‘servants of God’ would like us to believe, but man-made. And, once believers are being rid of their illusions, in regards to the essence of religion as nothing but simply a sublimation of people’s death-related anxieties, Church’s religious authority will get to be automatically delegitimized down to nothing.

It goes without saying, of course, that the best way of undermining Catholic Church’s religious authority and revealing its true essence as nothing but one of the most lucrative and most shameless commercial enterprises that world has ever known, would be exposing ‘savior’ as a mortal individual, endowed with sexual urges, just like the rest of people.

As one of novel’s most prominent characters, Sir Teabing had put it: “A child of Jesus would undermine the critical notion of Christ’s divinity and therefore the Christian Church, which declared itself the sole vessel through which humanity could access the divine and gain entrance to the kingdom of heaven” (Brown 216).

Nevertheless, we cannot agree with religiously minded critics of The Da Vinci Code, who often refer to the plot of Brown’s novel as being based upon pseudo-historical speculations, and therefore – not worthy of readers’ attention.

Apparently, it never occurred to Christian critics that, while referring to novel’s affiliation with the literary genre of fiction as the foremost proof to the sheer fallaciousness of the claims, contained in it, they actually contribute to promoting Brown’s cause even further – whatever the improbable it might sound.

The reason for this is simple – while being encouraged to analyze what accounts for fictious motifs in The Da Vinci Code, readers are being simultaneously provoked to analyze what represents fictious motifs in the Bible.

In his book The God Delusion, Dawkings (2006) had made a perfectly good point, while stating: “The only difference between The Da Vinci Code and the gospels is that the gospels are ancient fiction while The Da Vinci Code is modern fiction” (Dawkings 97).

Despite the format of Brown’s novel, it does operate with a variety of historically proven facts, which Christians do not like discussing, simply because these facts leave very little doubt as to the Bible being anything but the actual ‘word of God’.

For example, in his dialogue with the characters of Langdon and Sophie, Sir Teabing provides readers with the insight onto the fact that, before being incorporated into Christianity’s dogma as its integral element, the divinity of Jesus was actually voted upon by attendees of Council of Nicaea (325 A.D.): “At this gathering (Council of Nicaea)… many aspects of Christianity were debated and voted upon – the date of Easter, the role of the bishops, the administration of sacraments, and, of course, the divinity of Jesus” (Brown 199).

As historical accounts indicate, during the course of the Council, its participants would never hesitate resorting to utilization of a naked force, in order to substantiate their pro and contra-divinity arguments.

Here is how Grant (1975) describes the initial stages of the Council: “At the beginning, most of the bishops presented written accusations against selected colleagues. The charges could not have been theological, since the theological question had not yet been stated” (Grant 5).

In other words, the recognition of Jesus’ divinity that had taken place during the course of the Council, was largely incidental – the number of bishops who voted in favor of recognizing Jesus’ divinity simply happened to be slightly larger than the number of bishops who voted against. In all probability, mostly illiterate bishops did not even fully realize what would be the consequence of such their decision.

And yet, Catholic Church never ceased referring to the Council of Nicaea as the birthplace of a so-called ‘holy tradition’, which is still being revered by devout Catholics as something that has been passed down to them by God himself.

Therefore, it is not the historical inaccuracies, contained in The Da Vinci Code, which upset Catholic clergy the most, but the fact that Brown’s novel exposes the inner workings behind the respectful façade of Catholicism.

As it has always been the case, throughout the course of history, Church did not only actively try to slow down the pace of cultural and scientific progress in Europe, but it even strived to withhold the information about what Bible was all about from its own flock. Up until the time of Reformation, translating Bible from Latin into secularly spoken languages used to be considered a major sin, punishable by death.

Apparently, in his novel Brown had succeeded with encouraging people to make critical inquiries about whether Catholic Church even has a right to claim any religious authority, in the first place, given its ‘glorious’ deeds in the past and also in the present.

Why is it that those high-ranking Church’s officials who never get tired of preaching humility to believers, find it appropriate driving around in bulletproof limousines that often cost millions of dollars a piece?

Why is it that, when they get ill, the ‘representatives of Jesus on Earth’ chose in favor of undergoing medicinal treatment in privately owned Swiss clinics, as opposed to relying on the ‘power of God’s miracle’ alone, as they expect ordinary believers to do?

Why is it that the very term ‘Catholic priest’ is now being commonly perceived as synonymous to the term ‘child molester’? Why does Catholic Church continue to refer to the usage of contraceptives as ‘sinful’, hence contributing to the problem of overpopulation in the countries of Third World and ultimately, to the rise of mortality rates in this region of the world?

Dan Brown can only be thankful for the fact that he does not live in time when Catholic Church was at the peak of its power (Dark Ages); because otherwise, Catholic ‘lambs of God’ would deal with the author of The Da Vinci Code rather decisively – tying him up to a pole and setting it on fire.

As Nicolosi (2009) had put it in her article Just Say No to ‘The Da Vinci Code’: “You don’t debate the devil. You do not give evil the authority to question God. ‘The Da Vinci Code’ represents a debate in which the questions start with Satan’s presumptions” (BeliefNet).

Just as it is the case with just about any self-righteous Christian fundamentalist, Nicolosi would do her utmost, while combating what she believe represents evil. Unfortunately, it never occurred to this person, clearly not overburdened with intelligence, that one of the sources of all evil in the world are the uncritical religious beliefs, on the part of steadfast ‘lambs of God’, like herself.

Thus, it would not be much of an exaggeration to suggest that, even though Brown’s novel does contain a fair amount of historical inaccuracies, it nevertheless represents an undeniable literary, historical and above all – educational value.

By reading The Da Vinci Code, people will learn to adopt a critical attitude towards just about any issue, concerning the process of religious ‘wolfs in lamb’s skin’ taking an advantage of citizens’ naivety, while proceeding with the agenda that has always been the foremost trademark of those who professionally work on behalf of an organized religion – the accumulation of material riches.

We can say that, by publishing The Da Vinci Code, Brown had driven yet one more nail into the coffin of Christianity, as semi-religious cult of suicidally-minded desert-dwellers, which encourages people to exterminate ‘infidels’ (a particularly godly deed), which teaches them not to marry, not to wash before eating, not to tend crops, not to bury dead (Kingdom of heaven is at hand), and which had unleashed the hell on Earth (Crusades, Inquisition), well before the coming of a hypothetical Antichrist.

Given the fact that, unlike Islam, Christianity had long ago ceased being ‘alive’ religion, one should simply ignore the hysterical reactions of ‘defenders of Christian faith’, in regards to the publishing of The Da Vinci Code – eventually, these people will learn that trying to discourage others from reading Brown’s novel is being just as futile as trying to bite their own elbows.

The historically predetermined process of people coming to realization of the fact that God resides within, as opposed to residing up in clouds, simply cannot be stopped. And, the sooner particularly aggressive believers realize it, the better it will be for them.

References

Brown, Dan. The Da Vinci Code. Sydney: Anchor Books, 2009.

Dawkings, Richard. The God Delusion. Toronto: Bantam Press, 2006.

Durkheim, Emil. The Elementary Forms of Religious Life. New York: The Free Press, 1954.

Ferris, Stewart. Key to the Da Vinci Code. London: Crombie Jardine, 2005.

Grant, Robert “Religion and Politics at the Council at Nicaea”. The Journal of Religion, 55.1 (1975): 1-12.

Nicolosi, Barbara “Just Say No to The Da Vinci Code”. (2009) BeliefNet. 19 Aug. 2009.

The cause of novel’s popularity

Before we get to address the question of whether Dan Brown’s novel The Da Vinci Code would still be relevant by the year 2070, we will need to discuss what caused this novel to win instant favor with readers today. Even though some critics suggest that it was due to novel’s particularly high literary quality, we cannot subscribe to such a point of view.

After all, novel’s plot appears unnecessarily overcomplicated, the situations that characters find themselves dealing with – unrealistic, and the characters – utterly predictable. For example, the character of Leigh Teabing does not only appear but also talks as if he was the incarnation of ‘Englishness’. Nevertheless, as we are all aware of – after having been published, The Da Vinci Code became a bestseller within the matter of few days. How can it be explained?

The reason why Brown’s novel was able to attain such popularity is that the motifs, contained in it, correspond to the unconscious anxieties, on the part of those for whom it was written – the dwellers of Western post-industrial megalopolises. In its turn, these anxieties derive out of the process of urbanites growing increasingly non-religious.

Nowadays, the process of Western countries’ secularization became unstoppable. Even today, the number of native-born Westerners who consider themselves truly religious is best defined as utterly neglectable. The validity of this statement appears self-evident, once we assess the strength of people’s religiosity in countries that feature world’s highest standards of living – Denmark, Sweden and Norway.

According to most recent sociological surveys, only 1% of these countries’ native-born citizens affiliate themselves with any religion, whatsoever. The reason for this is simple – people who enjoy a nice life, do not need some tribal God, with a lot of rules and little mercy, representing an integral part of their worldviews.

One of the most important aspects of post-industrial living is the fact that such living becomes increasingly rationalistic. Nowadays, we are fully aware of the fact that, in order for an individual to attain prosperity, he or she would simply have to obtain good education and start working hard, as opposed to praying to Saint Mary, so that material riches would fall out of the sky, as many people in such ‘culturally rich’ but intellectually backward Catholic countries, as Mexico, Peru and Philippines do.

It is namely Westerners’ tendency to rationalize life’s challenges, which explains why The Da Vinci Code connects with these people’s mode of existence – even before having been exposed to Brown’s novel, they felt that the story of Holy Ghost impregnating Saint Mary was nothing but the fairy tale of the worst kind.

People simply became tired of self-proclaimed ‘servants of God’ popularizing two thousand years old nonsense about talking donkeys, sun standing still in the sky and universe’s creation in six days, as the ‘word of God’. This was the reason why reading of The Da Vinci Code came to them like the breath of a fresh air.

The significance of the novel and its future

In his novel, Brown was able to confirm something that rationalistically minded citizens have been suspecting since long time ago – Jesus was just as sexual and mortal as we all are.

As one of novel’s most prominent characters, Sir Teabing had put it: “A child of Jesus would undermine the critical notion of Christ’s divinity and therefore the Christian Church, which declared itself the sole vessel through which humanity could access the divine and gain entrance to the kingdom of heaven” (216). Today’s Christianity is best described as ‘dying’ religion, as opposed to the ‘alive’ religion of Islam, for example.

What Brown achieved by publishing his novel, is depriving Christianity of the remains of its theological validity – hence, driving one of the last intellectual nails into this religion’s coffin. Therefore, we cannot agree with Catholic critics of The Da Vinci Code, who often refer to the plot of Brown’s novel as being based upon pseudo-historical speculations, and therefore – not worthy of readers’ attention.

Apparently, it never occurred to Christian critics that, while referring to novel’s affiliation with the literary genre of fiction as the foremost proof to the sheer fallaciousness of the claims, contained in it, they actually contribute to promoting Brown’s cause even further – whatever the improbable it might sound. The reason for this is simple – while being encouraged to analyze what accounts for fictious motifs in The Da Vinci Code, readers are being simultaneously provoked to analyze what represents fictious motifs in the Bible.

In his book, Dawkings (2006) had made a perfectly good point, while stating: “The only difference between The Da Vinci Code and the gospels is that the gospels are ancient fiction while The Da Vinci Code is modern fiction” (97). Despite the format of Brown’s novel, it does operate with a variety of historically proven facts, which Christians do not like discussing, simply because these facts leave very little doubt as to the Bible being anything but the actual ‘word of God’.

For example, in his dialogue with the characters of Langdon and Sophie, Sir Teabing provides readers with the insight onto the fact that, before being incorporated into Christianity’s dogma, the divinity of Jesus was actually voted upon by attendees of Council of Nicaea (325 A.D.): “At this gathering (Council of Nicaea)… many aspects of Christianity were debated and voted upon – the date of Easter, the role of the bishops, the administration of sacraments, and, of course, the divinity of Jesus” (199). In other words, Brown’s novel is in fact utterly effective, for as long as dismantling Christian myth is being concerned.

Thus, the significance of The Da Vinci Code should be discussed within the context of an overall process of Christianity’s desacralization. And, there are good reasons to believe that by the year 2070, this process will result in the status of Christianity being reduced from that of one of world’s most influential religions, to two thousand years old folklore of Jewish sheep herders. In very near future, science will become people’s ‘religion’, at least in Western countries.

When this happens, Brown’s novel will be deprived of its actuality. After all, if someone today wrote a novel, aimed to expose ancient Greek god Zeus as such that never existed, it would be very unlikely for this novel to become a bestseller – people already know that. In a similar manner, since by the year 2070 just about everybody is going to be fully aware of the imaginary essence of Christian fables, this will result in Brown’s novel being deprived of its controversial appeal.

Therefore, it would only be logical to hypothesize that by the year 2070, The Da Vinci Code will no longer be considered relevant, simply because by that time, the foremost idea contained in it (namely, Jesus being mortal and sexual man), would be recognized as self-evident.

References

Brown, Dan. The Da Vinci Code. Sydney: Anchor Books, 2009. Print.

Dawkings, Richard. The God Delusion. Toronto: Bantam Press, 2006. Print.

Introduction

The three works chosen in regard to researching the fiction stories of Dan Brown are The Da Vinci Code, Angels and Demons and Deception Point. The research will concentrate on the literary elements in the stories to come out with a literary analysis of the author’s works in the context of the three works as cited.

Main body

When one reminisces about Dan Brown we may think of theories of conspiracy, but the author of several best selling books is very well known for writing on religious fictions and he has primarily focused his novels on the Catholic religion in probing the secrets and conspiracies associated with the church. All his books invariably deal with plots in the nature of conspiracies in one way or the other and in this regard, his two novels, The Da Vinci Code and Angels and Demons are very well known in having focused on the theories of conspiracies in relation to the Catholic Church. Notably the two novels are based on one single character named Robert Langdon who works as a professor of Religious Symbology at Harvard University. By way of sheer chance circumstances and his sharp wits, Langdon is able to reveal the ancient mystery and gets access to the most revered and religious areas of the world. Dan Brown in general is thought to be patronizing anti Christian beliefs, but upon reading his books one will doubt such allegations to be truthful. His ideas may be controversial and biased with the belief that the Catholic Church is abound with hidden agendas and secrets that are kept strictly, but several Catholics will vouch for the fact that these allegations about him are not totally far fetched. Dan Brown was baptized as a Catholic but he chose to pursue a different path in following spirituality. His fiction books on religion are very interesting, and putting it from a critical point of view, the force behind his novels is intense and thought provoking.

Angels and Demons and The Da Vinci Code are two books that guide people with finding a place in the religious world by addressing the two very important issues of women and science. Angels and Demons deals the relationships by debating on matters relating to science and religion, and in this context Dan Brown concludes that science and God are one, and that there is need for the two to be combined together to understand life better. The Da Vinci Code is an opportunity for women in giving them a role to play in the story related to Jesus, thus giving the indication of a balance between men and women. It is well known and most people are in agreement that organized religions such as the Catholic Church have for long been having a difficult time in co existing and in coping with the developments of science and its implications. Additionally, the advancements by way of women having gained political rights and the fast changing attitudes and lifestyles in this regard in most parts of the world have enabled women to get equality and independence that has not been encouraged and accepted by the Catholic Church. In this context, it is felt that instead of criticizing Dang for his ideas as being against Christianity, more focus should be on enabling religion to be accessible and practiced by everybody. If people are able to get over the crime and conspiracies as understood to have been portrayed in the novels of Dan Brown, there will be meaning seen within his books that provide options about the modern religion that he has vouched for. No doubt that the Catholic Church needs to transform and advance with the changing times and probably not take a rigid and traditional stance in the matters of women’s rights and science.

In Deception Point which was written by Brown in 2001, the plot is entirely different as compared to the other two novels being reviewed and researched in this paper. The aim of the author is to come out with a science fiction thriller and there is strong indication of his ambitions in molding together politics, science, government conspiracies and murder mysteries into a story. In this novel, Brown has been criticized for inflating the issues of arrogance, unilateralism and blatant imperialism and militarism and relating them with the so called American pride as narrated by him. In regard to Da Vinci Code also, the author has been criticized for adding a sense of false suspense throughout the book. They say he has not been able to convincingly handle the mystery created by him nor has he created convincing characters in meeting the outcomes of the plot. Hence his critics argue that the book is just a means of pop entertainment. His writings are easy to read and there is no trouble in understanding what he wants to convey, but the novel cannot be said to have created the right cultural impact. Although the novel’s core mystery can be said to be captivating there is doubt whether it has much literary significance since all mysteries are loved by people out on a mission for getting entertainment. Brown has been accused of discrediting Christianity through the quests of Langdon and Sophie although he provides alternatives by way of another post modern religion. The characters created by him are shown as worshipping the holy feminine, as one character says in the novel, “The quest for the Holy Grail, is literally the quest to kneel before the bones of Mary Magdalene. A journey to pray at the feet of the outcast one, the lost sacred feminine.” Brown has been strongly criticized for bringing the divinity of Jesus to discredit by implying more divinity to Mary Magdalene, supposed to be the wife of Jesus. All his characters speak of the importance of the holy and sacred feminine throughout, and Brown directly advocates that people should turn away from the myth of Christianity and turn instead towards the truth that is the sacred feminine.

Angels and Demons is considered to be a well written mystery novel with a wide spectrum of complicated clues for the reader to decipher and make his conclusions. Brown’s strategy is to engage the reader into thinking about not very well known facts relating to history and religion and then go on with the fiction story that he has created around them. It is said that the three plot points made by him in the novel are in the nature of misrepresenting the teachings of the Catholic Church. His set up in the novel engages the reader into thinking that religion and science are at odds with each other because the Catholic Church literally advocates the belief in Genesis. But that is not true since the Catholics do not believe in following the concept of Creationism. It does accept the theory of evolution and is in agreement that God created the world. Essentially, the schools that advocate the role of Adam and Eve in the creation process of the world, which they say is 5000 years old, are not affected or influenced by the Catholic Church in any way.

Deception Point is in the nature of a shocking scientific discovery as also a brilliant and staggering conspiracy. A NASA satellite comes across a rare and astonishing object that is deeply buried in the Arctic region within the layers of ice. The much struggling space agency makes claims of the long awaited victory that has far reaching consequences for the policies to be pursued by NASA in view of the fast approaching presidential elections. The novel is shrouded with elements of deep rooted conspiracy and shady plots and mistrust. To be sure of the claims of NASA as being authentic, the White House uses the services of the much touted Rachel Sexton who is an intelligence analyst. Sexton teams up with some experts including Michael Tolland, a charismatic scholar, and they travel to the Arctic region where they discover the unimaginable in the form of evidence of scientific deception. The deception has immense potential for putting the entire world into controversy and before the team can take any action in informing the President, they are ambushed by attackers. While fleeing for their lives in the barren and desolate Arctic region, the only possibility for their survival is to find out the people behind this mystery and conspiracy. The truth when learnt is the most deplorable deception that can ever be imagined.

Conclusion

Brown when interviewed on different occasions, while mentioning Christianity and the Church, has primarily referred to the Catholic Church. His works are observed to have a special affinity to the Catholic Church and the Vatican and has not delved into the issues relating to the importance for non Catholic Christians like Protestants and Eastern Orthodox. He claims to be more of a post modern Christian and does not consider himself to be either a Catholic or a former Catholic. Dan Brown is immensely popular and has made a big name for himself in the literary world, but there has been much criticism against him in regard to his claims that his novels are based on facts and that all details and descriptions pertaining to secret rituals, documents, architecture and artwork as mentioned in his works are true and correct. People are not convinced of such claims made by him.

References

Carl E Olson, Cracking the Anti Catholic Code, Envoy Magazine, 2008.

Dan Brown, Angels and Demons, 2006, Washington Square Press.

Dan Brown, Deception Point, 2006, Washington Square Press.

Dan Brown, The Da Vinci Code, 2006, Anchor.

Greenwatch, Deception Point, 2005, Meloseeds.

Josh Hornbeck, Living in Tension, 2006. Web.

Justene Adamec, Critique of Angels and Demons, 2004, BC Blogcritics Magazine.

Sandra Miesel, Dan’s Dreadful Sources, 2006, The Catholic World Report.

Stacie Naczelnic, Religious Fiction-Dan Brown, 2008. Web.

Leonardo da Vinci has been a mysterious and fascinating subject for many generations, ever since he walked as a living man through Italy and France. His painting has often inspired wonder and surprise, awe and admiration, even when their subject matter remained somewhat under question or of a dubious nature. He always seemed to be playing a joke on the rest of humanity, although what that joke was has remained as mysterious as the character of the man himself. Although numerous manuscripts and folios of Leonardo’s have been preserved, the life of this particular artist remains hidden in shadows that few publications have been able to illuminate. Rather than attempting to discover everything there is to know about Leonardo, in the late 1800s, Walter Pater tackled the difficult subject of Leonardo’s vision. In his essay on Leonardo da Vinci, Walter Pater attempts to prove to his audience that Leonardo’s genius, sprung from a close affinity with nature, was of an unusual and highly observant variety. Removed somewhat from the more refined beliefs of his time, heavily laden with Christian overtones and rules of propriety, perhaps springing from his earliest experiences as the illegitimate child of a prosperous member of the gentry, Pater also argues that Leonardo’s work had a touch of the sinister or mocking within it as well as an affinity for the sublimely beautiful, creating a compelling composition that fascinates to the present day. It is a point he makes quite well through his flowing descriptions of Leonardo’s artwork, but an argument that seems ill-organized, thus losing some of its effectiveness.

The article begins by introducing the characterization of da Vinci provided thus far in history primarily as the result of Vasari’s biography of the man and the contradictions therein. It is a characterization not significantly compromised until 1804 by Carlo Amoretti, a mere 65 years before the publication of the article under examination to provide some perspective. With this background established, Pater attempts to discover “the chief elements of Leonardo’s genius” (Pater, 1869, p. 100), through an examination of his activities and artifacts produced during the three primary divisions of his life: “thirty years at Florence, nearly twenty years at Milan, then nineteen years of wandering, till he sinks to rest under the protection of Francis the First at the Chateau de Clou” (100).

Pater uses descriptions of Leonardo’s angel in Verrocchio’s Baptism of the Christ to illustrate the early genius of the boy in Florence who seemed to instinctively resent the superficial miniature perfection of the masters of the old style and strive toward a more accurate representation of the meaning or purpose found within the natural world. Pater then indicates that this fascination with nature was developed through a series of sketches to culminate in the Medusa of the Uffizi, which is again described to illustrate the combined force of natural expression and a sinister mockery that was developing.

While discussing Leonardo’s period in Milan, the second of his three life stages, Pater indicates that “the two elementary forces in Leonardo’s genius; curiosity often in conflict with the desire of beauty, but generating, in union with it, a type of subtle and curious grace” (109). Pater illustrates, again through descriptions of Leonardo’s sketches surviving from this time, the increasing fascination Leonardo held for the strange and the obscure – in nature, personality, and lighting among other things. Another key element of his personality that is characterized in his art of this period is “his restlessness, his endless retouchings, his odd experiments with color” (112). While the third period of his life is characterized by restless wandering, Pater points out that Leonardo’s most ‘authentic’ work was produced during this period, illustrating his point by tracing the features of the Mona Lisa through Leonardo’s lifetime corpus.

It is particularly in the descriptions of Leonardo’s artwork, and how various elements contribute to the emotion of the piece, that makes this article beneficial to the reader. By tracing Leonardo’s developing artistic vision through the paintings and sketches that have survived time, Pater can ‘show’ his reader how depictions of nature when he was a boy spurred Leonardo to find a truer representation of what he grew up loving as well as how the mysterious, partially malevolent smile found in the Mona Lisa developed from an earlier period. Rather than simply analyzing the works discussed in terms of artistic elements such as foreshortening or chiaroscuro, Pater links the art to the artist, illustrating how his life experiences became reflected in his art and how his art reflects the unique vision he took of the world around him. The article moves beyond the strict confines of a biography, in which life events are listed in order and only occasionally linked with psychological effects seen in later years. It also moves beyond the strict confines of art criticism, in which elements such as color, line, stroke, composition, and shading are discussed with some examination into the history of the making of the piece. Instead, Pater makes it clear that the art is the result of the artist and his life experiences and unique viewpoints, as much as the artist is the result of his art, continuously affected by it and his response to what is produced.

It is in these depictions of the artwork provided that I began to understand what the author was attempting to accomplish as he highlighted those elements of Leonardo’s character that distinguished him from other artists. Pater says of this painting, “We all know the face and hands of the figure, set in its marble chair, in that circle of fantastic rocks, as in some faint light under sea … In that inestimable folio of drawing, once in the possession of Vasari, were certain designs by Verrocchio, faces of such impressive beauty that Leonardo in his boyhood copied them many times. It is hard not to connect with these designs of the elder, by-past master, as with its germinal principle, the unfathomable smile, always with a touch of something sinister in it, which plays over all Leonardo’s work” (124). In this quote, it can be seen how Pater can link Leonardo’s personality and individual interests with his development from the young apprentice to an old master and how these interests culminate in the painting widely acknowledged to be his greatest masterpiece. The artist has been shaped by his art as he grew from Verrocchio to Leonardo – this growth, once stimulated, explored numerous means of capturing the enigmatic smile that is eventually created to represent all of his work in the figure of one small and demure yet strangely compelling and enticing woman.

Because of these types of descriptions, I enjoyed the essay and feel it was well worth the time spent reading it. The descriptions immediately forced my mind to move into a more pictorial framework, picturing the various paintings under discussion and occasionally even seeking illustrated examples of the sketches mentioned to have a greater understanding of what was being said. My mind slipped among the remembered images of Leonardo’s paintings for the evidence that Peter was pointing out in the words of his article and began to gain a much deeper understanding of these elements than I had had previously. Although many of the concepts Pater was attempting to bring forward were themselves ambiguous, such as the concept of the sinister, by illustrating how these emerged within the sketches of Leonardo, the idea eventually won out. The approach used, linking the artist’s biography with his development and his produced art was very effective in making many of the concepts under discussion meaningful and clear eventually.

However, because of the flowery language, something we don’t often encounter in the 21^st century of bullet points and blurbs, it was often easy to lose track of the general argument. I would get lost in the imagery painted in my mind’s eye as an imaginary pointer glossed over several concepts within each remembered work and forget what the author was originally trying to say. Only by reading over the article several times, to get the mental images cleared away and focus on the main points of the argument, was the argument clear. I suspect, though, that this is an issue of the time period and societal customs rather than a fault on the part of the author. The reason I suspect this is because once the main argument was finally clear, a final re-reading of the article brought the descriptive language and the argument into cohesion, blending it in my mind and allowing each to accentuate the other, presenting an examination into the genius of da Vinci I had never considered before but am likely never to forget again.

Works Cited

Pater, Walter. “Leonardo da Vinci: Homo Minister et Interpres Naturae.” (1869). Reprinted in Biography and Early Art Criticism of Leonardo da Vinci. Claire Farago (Ed.). New York & London: Garland Publishing, 1999: 266-298.

Introduction

This paper is a personal reflection on the evidence Dan Brown uses in his book, and how he uses the same to support his case. For better understanding of the evidence, the paper contrasts the evidence brown uses to similar materials in the Gospel narratives of John, Mark and Luke. Brown gives special attention to the ‘Gospel of Philip’. However, he treats the gospel in a wide conspiracy theory that generally affects ones appreciation of the Gospel.

In this paper, I look into the dangers of Brown’s undiscriminating use of the Gnostic “Gospel of Phillip’. There are many positive things one can learn from the gospel of Philip leading to better understanding of Jesus’ relationship with women in his inner circle, however, I feel that misrepresentation of the same, as evidenced in Brown’s work, might lead to misunderstanding the gospels altogether.

Thesis Statement

After considering the evidence that Brown uses in the ‘Da Vinci Code’, especially the gospel of Philip, I am of the opinion that although Gnostic gospels rejected by the early church portray Jesus as more emotionally attached to women in his life, these gospels may contribute negatively to the understanding of Jesus’ broader relationship to women.

Brown’s Evidence

It is very interesting that Dan Brown uses Leonardo Da Vinci’s painting depicting ‘The Last Supper’ as conclusive evidence that Mary Magdalene was the most beloved disciple of Jesus. In the book, through dialogue between Leigh and Sophie, we learn that the figure at the right hand of Jesus, in Da Vinci’s painting, is the figure of Mary Magdalene. Additionally, through Leigh, we learn that at the time of Jesus’ crucifixion, Mary Magdalene was pregnant with Jesus’ child.

According to Brown, the absence of a chalice in Leonardo’s painting is a pointer and proof of link between Mary Magdalene and the Holy Grail. Dan Brown builds on this evidence to illustrate that Mary Magdalene was actually pregnant with Jesus’ child. In the book Leigh leads Sophie to accept that Mary Magdalene was the Holy Grail due to ‘V’ shape formed as per the sitting arrangement. The V shape is a symbol from Judaism that refers to feminism in a sacred sense.

Although the theory is consistent, the evidence that Brown uses is not conclusive. For me, brown is using suppositions and circumstantial evidence. For example Brown argues that the apostle John, the beloved one as per bible gospels, is not represented in the Da Vinci Picture. To what extent this was historically true; brown has no other evidence apart from the painting, which he is only but interpreting.

The other evidence brown posits is the color schemes used to portray Jesus and Mary Magdalene in the Da Vinci’s painting. In the painting, Jesus is presented wearing a red blouse and royal blue cap, while John (as per bible gospels) or Mary Magdalene (as per Brown) has a royal blue blouse with a red cap on.

The interchange between the colors of the cap and blouse that Jesus and Mary Magdalene were wearing symbolizes their being one as a result of being joined in marriage. This is an interesting assertion but it left me wondering if that was the original intention of the painter. It appears like brown is making up his own story and interpreting the color schemes in the painting to fit his schema.

Contrast between Brown’s Evidence and Bible Gospel Narratives

For a person who understands the bible gospels, I could not help but notice the contradictions between Browns account and gospel accounts. All evidence presented by Dan Brown contradicts similar narratives in the gospel of Luke, John, Mathew and Mark. According to the Gospel, the Last Supper was the last meal Jesus shared with His disciples.

There is no mention of a woman among them; the exact opposite of what Leonardo’s painting, as interpreted by Brown, depicts. All the four gospels do not mention the presence of Mary Magdalene at the last supper.

They all indicate that the beloved disciple, John, is the one who was seated at the right hand side of Jesus. The fact that the four gospels depict john as having been the beloved disciple, for me, discredit Brown’s claims to a large extent. Further, the gospel of Philip does not help Brown’s case, either, because it does not mention Mary Magdalene as having been a beloved disciple.

Brown alleges that Mary Magdalene was married to Jesus. Bible gospels only report that Mary Magdalene was healed of demons by Jesus. The full narrative of how Jesus met Mary Magdalene and healed her of demons is in the gospel of Luke, chapter eight. The gospels indicate that she was also present at Jesus’ crucifixion and at the tomb early in the morning.

On the morning when Jesus rose from the dead He sent her to go and announce the good news to the apostles. According to the bible account, therefore, Mary Magdalene was a devoted follower of Jesus Christ and not His wife. Apart from his interpretation of the painting and writings in the gospel of Philip, brown does not provide any other convincing evidence to cement his claims.

The Gospel of Philip

Brown uses the painting and the gospel of Philip to portray Jesus as purely human in contrast to what the bible gospels tend to portray. The gospel according to Philip comprises of collection of sayings of Jesus. This gospel is also said to have explored deeply the sacrament of marriage.

The Da Vinci Code presents the Gospel of Philip as the main evidence that Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene. According to me, by treating the content of the Gospel of Philip within the context of a broad conspiracy theory, brown does not do justice to the gospel. It is clear that he tries to interpret the gospel to fit his conspiracy.

Generally, the gospel of Philip is full of parables which are not easy to interpret. There are many metaphorical statements that can easily be construed to mean anything (Smith, 2005, p. 9). It’s very hard to interpret and understand the texts. However, there are passages in the gospel that directly refer to Jesus and Mary Magdalene’s close relationship.

The only reason why Brown uses the Gospel of Philip to claim that Jesus and Mary Magdalene were married is the claim in the gospel that Mary was a companion of Jesus. The gospel does not have in-depth narration that can be used as evidence to this claim (Smith, 2005, p. xiv).

Conclusion

Considering the evidence presented by brown, I am convinced that use of the Gnostic Gospel of Philip and other Gnostic gospels rejected by the early church may contribute both positively and negatively to our understanding of Jesus’ broader relationship with women. Several purported Gnostic Gospels, which were rejected by the church, e.g. the Gospel of Mary Magdalene portray Mary Magdalene as the special disciple of Jesus.

In the Gospel of Thomas, Jesus is reported to have said to Mary Magdalene that He will make her male like his male disciples. This can be interpreted in many ways but I think it basically meant that Mary Magdalene and, by extension, all women are equal to men. This is refreshing and it supports St. Paul’s teaching that before God we are all equal, whether male or female.

Although these gospels, rejected by the early church, portray Jesus as more emotionally attached to women in his life, which is good, on the other hand these gospels may contribute negatively to our understanding of Jesus’ broader relationship to women. When interpreted or used mischievously in conspiracy theories, they are construed to mean very different things.

For example, Browns interpretation or portrayal of the personal relationship between Mary Magdalene and Jesus may raises eyebrows. According to me, the focus of the gospels can’t have been on sexual intimacy but spiritual intimacy.

Therefore, I personally feel that to the extent these gospels affirm gender equality i.e. that all human beings are loving children of one Father or Mother in Heaven, they are welcome. However, to the extent that the writings are somehow confusing and can thus be construed wrongly as prove in conspiracy theories, I think the church leaders were right in rejecting them.

References

Smith, P., A., 2005, the Gospel of Philip Annotated & Explained, Skylight Paths Publishing, Woodstock

Inventor, engineer, artist, sculptor, and scientist, Leonardo da Vinci was one of the greatest figures during the period of the Renaissance. This inimitable master of art and design implemented his outstanding skills in weaponry design, architecture, canal buildings, and military engendering. In some of his inventions, da Vinci resorted to the use of drawings that can be considered outstanding examples of illustrated graphics of those days. Among these inventions were the Machine for Storming Walls, the Automatic Igniting Device for Firearms, the Ornithopter Flying Machine, the Stretching Device for a Barrel, the Flying Machine 1488, the Flying Machine 2, the Armoured Car, the Giant Crossbow, the Eight Barrelled Machine Gun, and the Parachute. The levels of graphical details, observed in those drawings and inventions, are highly distinguished. Below, some of the most remarkable of those drawings and inventions will be addressed in detail.

Da Vinci’s Eight Barrelled Machine Gun is one of his military inventions in which he demonstrates not only his excellent ability to be a practical inventor, but also his great designer talent. Studying the drawing of this object, it is possible to see a few levels of its graphical details including the details of a shaft, trigger, and loader. This piece generally consists of a few major parts having their particular purposes. The main part of the mechanism is aimed at shafting. It consists of wooden details of the same size that can be seen in the drawings. The other important part of the mechanism is a triggering part where we can observe several rods and leverages. Yet another important detail is a loading mechanism. In the drawings, the mechanism is shown with convenient handles aiming to protect the user of this object from any possible harm that may be caused by the explosive materials.

Next, the Machine for Storming Walls by da Vinci is yet another example of his great engendering and designer talent. The drawings of this machine are some of the most detailed drawings by da Vinci that exist nowadays. Examining the project of the machine, it is possible to see all the minor details of its construction including the materials intended for its construction. The machine consists of a major wooden part aiming to carry the joint part of the mechanism which is aimed for strafing the walls of the enemy. This part of a pyramid form has wheels and joint pinches intended for its transportation within rather vast territories.

Finally, da Vinci’s Automatic Igniting Device for Firearms is one more example of his excellent engineering abilities. The device consists of a coil serving as a major part of its mechanism, an axle that is aimed to control the work of the coil, sleeves that join the parts of the device and intensify the effectiveness of the mechanism of igniting, and an expanding mandrel for expanding the holding mechanism of this outstanding piece of da Vinci’s engineering thought. The drawings of this device are fulfilled in a precise way saving the proportions of its mechanisms in an officinal exactness. The main concepts that da Vinci used for inventing this device were actively used by blade smiths in the XVII and XVIII centuries. Some of the brilliant ideas that da Vinci had had in this device were used for igniting mechanisms in the beginning of the XX century.

Leonardo was born on 15^th April 1452 in Vinci, Italy. His father Ser Piero was a notary while his mother was a peasant woman. His father took his custody after his mother left for another marriage shortly after his birth. As he grew up he was well exposed to Vinci’s traditional paintings and this prepared him well for his future career as a great painter of the Italian Renaissance. At the age of 12, his father took him to the workshop of Andrea Del Verrocchio in Florence where he worked from 1469 to 1477 as a trainee (Gibbs 23). It was in this studio that he developed his career as an artist. He observed and made use of various machines which gave him practical knowledge of their design and structure. He developed ideas by understanding how each part of the existing machines worked and he eventually combined them to come up with new improved machines besides inventions that never existed

In 1482 he entered the service of the duke of Milan where he explored himself as a scientist and inventor. He spent 17 years in Milan where he concentrated on his scientific and artistic aspirations (Pedretti 195). He spent most of his time painting and sculpting and also designing court festivals. He expounded his drawing skills in the field of architecture, military engineering, canal building and weapon design. He designed weapons, buildings and machinery while he worked as a military engineer in Milan. During his career, he proposed to create a dry route across the gulf of Istanbul to connect the Golden Horn and the Bosporus with a bridge. This marked his voyage discovery (Gibbs 34). From his interest in gears, he invented the bicycle, helicopter, automobiles and weapons. In his study of water, he came up with devices for measuring humidity, steam-powered cannon and different water wheels. Other water devices included floating snowshoes, breathing devices, webbed gloves, life preservers to remain afloat, devices to attack and sink ships underwater, an unsinkable double-hulled ship and dredges for clearing harbors and channels (Pedretti 200).

Leonardo lived in Rome from 1514 to 1516 where he worked under a Pope patron Giuliano. He built many toys and machines and also completed a great painting of John the Baptist as a young man. Leonardo had a great desire to study human anatomy but the Roman Catholics would not allow him to examine and cut up dead bodies (Pedretti 196). He, therefore, decided to study animal parts obtained from a butcher shop. From these samples, he was able to produce intense models of how the heart works. Leonardo usually wrote in Italian using some special kind of shorthand which made it very difficult for other people to read. He only wrote in the normal way when he intended other people to read his article. This method of writing helped him to protect his ideas from being stolen and also hide his scientific ideas from the powerful Roman Catholics who opposed his observations (Gibbs 58).

He also studied optics and he actually attempted to make giant rounded mirrors in his workshop. Leonardo was also interested in botany and he studied many natural things.

The most famous artwork of Leonardo was the image of, “Mona Lisa” in 1507. The painting is also known as the la Giaconda which was the last name of the model who posed for the painting (Gibbs 72). It is analyzed for it beauty, technique and style. Other great paintings of Leonardo include the painting he did in Milan, “The Last Supper”. In this painting, da Vinci applied his knowledge in physiology, science and mathematics. The “15 *29” painting was an innovation that represented human reactions and emotions.

Another painting was, “The Vitruvian man” painting which related the human body’s proportions to those of the universe and also the material and spiritual dimensions.

Leonardo is remembered for other paintings such as the portrait of Ginevra de ‘Benci, Uriel, from The Virgin of the Rocks and the Flying Machine (Pedretti 202)

In conclusion, the described life of Leonardo Da Vinci as an artist, scientist and inventor should give enough confidence to his gracious majesty, Francis I, King of France to issue an invitation to him into the court. Leonardo has displayed a brilliant mind that led him to scientific discoveries although they were not published. He is a role model in the world of art and also in the application of scientific methods.

Work cited

Carlo Pedretti. The Signatures and Original Foliation of Leonardo da Vinci’s Libro F. Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes.London, The Warburg Institute, Vol. 31, (1968), pp. 190-215.

Charles Harvard Gibbs- Smith. Inventions of Leonardo Da Vinci. London, Phaidon P, 1978, 23-78.

Abstract

The Da Vinci Bridge, also known as E18 Highway, is one of the most magnificent bridges designed before The Renaissance. Leonardo Da Vinci designed the bridge in 1502 upon the request of Sultan Bajazet II. However, the project was not implemented until 500 years later because of its complexity and associated costs. In 1996, a Norwegian architect known as Vebjørn Sand became interested in the design and presented a proposal to the Norwegian Public Roads Board. The project was approved, and its construction began soon after. This pedestrian bridge was commissioned in 2001. It maintained the unique design as was proposed by Da Vinci, but the materials used were different from that of the original proposal.

Summary of the Events

Leonardo Da Vinci was an Italian painter, polymath, sculptor, engineer, architect, mathematician, inventor, geologist, and writer born in 1452. Landrus (90) describes Leonardo as a uniquely talented man who had skills in so many fields that have seen him regarded as the most diversely talented person that ever lived. One of his greatest designs architects was the Da Vinci Bridge, a pedestrian bridge that was supposed to be built within Ottoman Empire. Leonardo designed this bridge in 1502 upon the request of Sultan Bajazet II, the then leader of the Ottoman Empire (Garcia 56). The sultan wanted a standard bridge at the Golden Horn to replace the poorly designed bridge that existed in this region during this time. His bridge was 360 meters long and made of stones. When he finished his design, it was unfortunate that it could not be implemented at that time because of the limitation in technology in the era. The builders were unable to comprehend and implement his design for the bridge, and for this reason, the design was kept in one of his archives. 500 years later, the drawing inspired a Norwegian architect, Vebjørn Sand, when he saw it at an exhibition (Beck and Ball 21). He was impressed by the fact that the design demanded an advanced technology that was not in existence during this time. Sand believed that the design could be implemented using modern-day technology. For this reason, he presented it to the Norwegian government for possible implementation in 1996. After a series of consultations, the Norwegian Public Roads Board concluded that the design could be used to construct a footbridge in the town of Ås. The E-18 highway linking Stockholm and Oslo was constructed as per the Da Vinci design, but with some adjustments, which were meant to reduce the overall cost of the project and increase its capacity (Garcia 72).

As shown in the above diagram, contemporary architects had to adjust the original design because of the changes in technology. The bridge was commissioned on October 31, 2001, after a team of architects, engineers, and other technocrats, led by Vebjorn and Architect Selberg, finally completed it. The two architects made an effort to ensure that the original design was maintained. However, some minor adjustments had to be made to reflect the modern culture and advancement in technology in this part of Europe. With the invention of spacecraft and other sophisticated weapons, movable footbridges are no longer effective in defending the boundaries of a region. These changes in the societal structure meant that the two architects had to redefine the purpose of the bridge. Although the design by Da Vinci was taken to be the basis upon which the new E-18 Pedestrian footbridge had to be constructed, the architects realized that they had to redefine its purpose to fit the context of the modern-day Norwegian transport needs (Barker and Aduo 49). Architect Solberg was assigned the task of ensuring the relevance of the bridge from military equipment to a civilian facility. The figure below shows Da Vinci’s sketch of the bridge and the final version that was finally constructed after redefining the purpose and other factors such as the materials needed for the construction.

As shown in the above diagram, the Pedestrian Bridge E18 Highway had fundamental differences from the original design, especially in terms of the materials used, and the height of the bridge as will be discussed in the following sections.

The size of the bridge was changed when the Sand-led team finally developed the right version to fit in the current context. The length was reduced to a modest 100 meters, while the height was adjusted to about 8 meters. This was done not only to reduce the cost of construction but also to make the bridge relevant to the current civilized society in Norway. The region no longer needed a footbridge to act as a watchtower. This meant that the massive height of 30 meters was no longer necessary (Buck 35). Similarly, the length of 360 meters meant to contain unwanted visitors from streaming into the city is also irrelevant at this time. In fact, Barker and Aduo (49) say that the current Pedestrian Bridge E18 Highway is more of a monumental bridge, a complete opposite of the military highway that the sultan had envisioned when he requested the design.

How Da Vinci Bridge Was Built

When analyzing how Da Vinci Bridge was built, it is important to understand the fact that the original design was adjusted to fit into the current context. Leonardo Da Vinci designed the bridge in 1502 under a very different context from what was the case when it was finally implemented. In this section, the researcher will analyze the proposed method and materials that were given in the original plan in 1502, and the actual method and materials used in the construction of the bridge in 2001.

Materials used

Leonardo’s bridge was a massive structure that was beautifully designed to serve its purpose during this time. The bridge was expected to be constructed using stones. During this time, stones had become the fundamental materials used in the construction of houses. Leonardo believed that these stones could be used to construct a permanent bridge to serve the local needs. The stones were to be supported by steel frames to the originally proposed height of 30 meters. The bridge would also require cement to stick the stones together. All these materials were locally available, but the cost of the entire construction was so high that the sultan suspended the project.

The Pedestrian Bridge E18 Highway in Norway used completely different materials from those that were proposed in the plan developed by Da Vinci in 1502. When Vebjorn and Selberg settled down to analyze the proposal given by Leonardo, they realized that using wood was more viable than the stones that had been proposed in the original plan. The contractors used glulam timber because of its unique ability to withstand great pressure and its durability. However, the bridge used steel frames, close to what had been proposed in the original plan. In this final version of the bridge, bolts were used to stick the woods together, and it needed some paint to give it a glamorous look. The foundation of the bridge is a concrete base, which means that cement, stones, sand, and water were very important materials in the construction process. Copper-Coated mild steel alloy was another important material that was used at the edges of the bridge to make the structure acquire a golden color when hit by sun rays. These materials were locally available within this town.

Method of construction

The method of construction that was proposed by Da Vinci is closely related to the method that was eventually used by this firm when constructing the bridge except for the materials that were used and the size of the bridge. The load-carrying the entire system consisted of three aches (MacDonald and Nadel 53). The first support is the vertical arch constructed using steel, which carries the vertical load of the system. It is the main arch, which holds the entire system in place. Two arches, inclined at each side of the bridge, support this arch. The width of the bridge was relatively slender based on its height and the lateral loading. The arches were designed to ensure that the frame was stable, besides giving the bridge a unique image.

The constructors used glued laminated timber in place of the stones that were proposed in the original design by Da Vinci. The bridge’s static system consisted of three non-hinged timber arches that had rounded and triangulated cross-section that was meant to decrease to fit the system together to withstand the forces of nature. It was rather large at the abutments, but it systematically decreased in size towards the apex to lower the force of gravity of the system despite its great height. The abutments were constructed using bonded steel rods to provide the foundation of this system. Given the advanced technology that was available during the time of construction, the wood used in the construction was shaped using a computer-guided grinding machine to enhance accuracy. The surface of the aches was set at 120 by 1150 mm to enhance the ability of the bridge to withstand great weight. The figure below clearly demonstrates how the arches support the weight of the bridge but in an artistic manner.

The method used in constructing the deck of the Pedestrian Bridge E18 Highway in Norway is slightly different from what Da Vinci had proposed, especially in terms of the materials used. The convex-shaped arches ensure that the deck is firmly supported at such great heights. At the sides of the deck is a sag that is supported by a slender pillar made of steel that is meant to enhance the strength of the entire system, especially when subjected to a lot of weight. These beams are curved before they are clamped together, and at their edges are steel frames that help in maintaining the shape. The resulting continuous slab is then mounted on the steel frame to form a footpath that is used by the pedestrians. The stress-laminated beams are used in strengthening the deck and in ensuring that it can withstand wear and tear once it is put into use. The lamination also makes the deck repellant to water, significantly reducing its ability to absorb water. The figure below is the completed bridge, with the laminated deck, vertical and inclined arches, and other decorations to enhance its glamour.

Tools and equipment

The original design of the bridge as envisioned by Da Vinci was meant to use stones. However, the architects who participated in the project made some changes and instead of stones, wood and steel were used. The tools and equipment that were used in this construction were those that are needed in woodwork and metalwork. The tools and equipment used in the construction can generally be classified into metalwork, woodwork, and lifting equipment.

The metalwork tools were needed to shape the metallic materials used in the construction. The welding machine was the most important tool that was needed to join the steel frames at different angles when making the frames. When shaping the steel, an iron vice, an anvil, and a hammer were very important. The grinding and cutting machines were vital in cutting the steel and other metallic materials into standard shapes. Hacksaw played an important role in the cutting of steel into different sizes and shapes. The grinder was also important in washing the metal. Sometimes a wire brush or hand file had to be used to wash the edges after a welding process. Several parts of the bridge frame were held together with very huge bolts. The drill bits were needed to create the necessary holes for the bolts in the steel frames. It also required spanners that were meant to drive the bolts to hold the frames tightly. It was important to have safety gear such as the welding helmet, earplugs, safety glasses, and welding gloves. Firefighting equipment was needed in case of fire breakout within the site.

The tools needed for the woodwork were numerous given the unique shape that they assumed in the construction process. Different types of saws were needed to shape up the wood into different lengths, widths, and shapes. The claw hammer was needed in driving the nails or pulling them out whenever this was necessary, while a nail set was used in cases where it was necessary to drive nails below the wooden surface. In cutting irregular shapes or curves in the wood, a keyhole saw was used. A sawhorse, bar clamp, wood clamp, and quick clamp were used in holding the wood in place when smoothing the wood. Brace and bit were used in drilling holes in the wood, especially in areas where the wood is to be attached to the metal frame using bolts. The screwdrivers are used to slot in screws in the joineries. Measuring tape, architect ruler, surveyor’s tape, and bench ruler were used to get accurate measurements on the wood. Other important tools included chalk line, level, carpenter’s square, combination square, try square and the wood chisel. To ensure that there was safety among the people working at this site, a dust mask, face shield, safety goggles, and safety glasses will be necessary. A helmet was needed for those who were working in an area where there were falling objects.

When putting up the frame into place, lifting equipment was of great importance. Large cranes were needed to lift the heavy frames and put them into position before they can be fixed into place in the concrete foundation. The figures below show how the cranes were used to lift the heavy frames and other bridge components into the right position before they could be tightened into position using large bolts.

Other smaller lifting machines fitted in small vans were necessary when moving small but heavy materials from one place to the other. It is important to note that during the construction process, Public Roads Authority contracted private contractors to address different tasks within the project. These contractors were expected to come with their equipment to facilitate the construction process.

Labor force

The labor force used in this construction can be classified into three categories. There were the skilled technocrats who were involved in designing and interpreting the designs. They included the architects such as Vebjørn Sand and Solberg, engineers, surveyors, among others. The second group included the semi-skilled workers such as the welders and carpenters. They played a major role in implementing the design and coordinating the work of the technocrats and that of the unskilled laborers. The third group includes the unskilled workers such as loaders. These people worked together to ensure that this construction was a success.

How the Bridge Would Have Been Built

As mentioned above, Da Vinci Bridge was designed in 1502, but the actual construction did take place about 500 years later as discussed above. Given the fact that this construction was done in modern society, this section of the paper will focus on how the bridge would have been built in 1502. To understand how the bridge would have been built, it is necessary to review the historic event during this period that inspired the design of the bridge. When Da Vinci designed the bridge in 1502, civilization was just taking place. The Ottoman Empire ruled most parts of Asia and other regions in North Africa and Western Europe. Although civilization was gaining pace rapidly, society during this time relied on simple technology. This explains why the design could not be implemented at that time. The design that Da Vinci had in mind, needed advanced technology and special skills in civil construction that was unavailable during this time.

When Da Vinci developed the design in 1502, the region was undergoing a massive transformation in terms of civilization. The cultural practices in this region were also different from what they are in the current society. Garcia (28) says that when the sultan requested the bridge, what he had in mind was very different from what the bridge is currently meant for in modern-day Norway. At this time, the Sultan was focused on expanding the Ottoman Empire. The bridge was expected to not only act as a pedestrians’ footbridge, but also a watchtower where the spies from this kingdom could monitor the movement of the enemy, especially soldiers from the Kingdom of France. In fact, Herbert (56) notes that Sultan Bajazet II requested Da Vinci to design a movable bridge. This was meant to ensure that the soldiers could withdraw the bridge whenever they detected a possible attack from the enemy camps. By moving the bridge, they would deny the enemy soldiers entry into this kingdom. In the original plan that was developed in 1502, the bridge was expected to be 360 meters in length, and about 40 meters in height (Nichols 73). This was a militaristic design that was very important during this time as civilization was taking shape. The height would make the bridge a perfect watchtower where soldiers could lie in wait for the enemy. The massive length was also meant to slow the rate at which the enemies could stream into this city from the other part of the world. It would take them some time to cross the bridge, and this would enable the soldiers to prepare a counterattack. The figure below shows what the foundation of this bridge would have looked like if it would have been constructed during this period.

According to Buck (28), during this time, wood and stones were the main materials used during the construction process. Based on this fact, we would expect the bridge’s foundation to be a large mass of wood joined artistically to serve its purpose. The figure above shows an attempt to balance the ambiance of the bridge and its capacity to serve its purpose. This explains why the joineries are close together. It is important to determine some of the possible materials that would have been used in the construction were to be implemented in this period. The size of the wood used was also large, as depicted in the diagram above. During this time, steel had not been discovered as one of the most important tools of construction. For this reason, pillars were made of wood. In this bridge, therefore, the architects and the engineers had to find the right sizes of wood to act as the pillars. The bridge would have supported a massive weight given that the wall was to be made of concrete. The wood needed at this stage had to be a special one that does not absorb water and can withstand pressure for a long period. To join the plunks wood as shown in the figure above, large bolts would be needed. The bolts would have to be coated with oil before they are used to ensure that they do not rust. In some parts, large nails would have been used instead of the bolts. According to Phillips and Priwer (88), sand and stones were important materials used in the construction process. If the design were to be implemented during this time, stones would have been used to reinforce the wooden frame. At the base of the bridge would be concrete that can withstand all the environmental forces.

As mentioned above, this bridge was supposed to be the link between the city and Western Europe. This is very different from what it is serving currently. If the bridge would have been constructed then, it would have looked like the one in the figure below.

The bridge would have some distinctive features based on the socio-political factors of this empire. It would be constructed strategically to ensure that any intruders are detected as early as possible. This would help the army to prepare a counterattack as fast as possible to deter the enemy from entering the kingdom. The bridge would be 360 meters long as per the original plan. This length was necessary because of the need to monitor the movement of people using the bridge long enough to determine their intentions. The height of the bridge would help in reducing the possible advantage that the enemy soldiers may have when targeting the bridge in their attack. Instead of running across the road, the bridge would be running across a large canal that links Turkey to Western Europe. This partly explains the reason why the bridge was designed to be very long. The ambiance of the bridge would be different from what was recently constructed in Norway. Technology has transformed how bridges are constructed in the modern-day. However, this bridge would have been constructed as per the level of technology that was available in this period. That particular bridge would not have unique lighting designs that are common in modern bridges. During this time, painting was an important aspect of art, and it was widely used in construction. The sultan would have demanded that a special painting or sculptors be put strategically along the bridge to make it more attractive and act as the flag of this kingdom.

Works Cited

Barker, R M, and Jay A. Puckett. Design of Highway Bridges: An Lrfd Approach. , 2013. Print.

Beck, Haig, Jackie Cooper, and Debbie Ball. Kurilpa Bridge. Mulgrave, Vic: Images Publishing Group, 2012. Print.

Buck, Simon. Crypto Da Vinci: A Peter White Mystery. New York: Cengage, 2009. Print.

Garcia, Lucia. Building Bridges of Understanding: My Personal Quest for Unity and Peace. New York: Xlibris, 2012. Print.

Herbert, Janis. Leonardo Da Vinci for Kids: His Life and Ideas, 21 Activities. Chicago: Chicago Review Press, 1998. Print.

Landrus, Matthew. Leonardo Da Vinci’s Giant Crossbow. New York: Springer, 2010. Print

MacDonald, Donald, and Ira Nadel. Golden Gate Bridge: History and Design of an Icon. San Francisco, Calif: Chronicle Books LLC, 2013. Print.

Nichols, Catherine. Leonardo Da Vinci. New York: PowerKids Press, 2005. Print.

Phillips, Cynthia, and Shana Priwer. The Everything Da Vinci Book: Explore the Life and Times of the Ultimate Renaissance Man. Avon: Adams Media, 2006. Print.

Introduction

The Vitruvius man is a drawing that is stored in Gallerie dell’ Accedemia in Venice, Italy. This drawing was created by the re-known artist Leonardo da Vinci in the year 1487. The drawing is in paper and ink; therefore, it is brought on exhibition only once in a while due to the delicate nature of the drawing material.

The description of the Vitruvius man

The drawing depicts the figure of a male human in different positions with the arms apart and the legs astride. The drawing is inscribed in a circle and a square at the same time. It is accompanied by foot notes that are based on the work that had been done and created by the celebrated artist, Leonardo.

This drawing is often referred to as the canon of proportion because it was used as the basis for the correlations of human proportions and the reference to geometry as it is illustrated in the drawing. This has made the drawing created by Leonardo da Vinci to be named canon of proportion in honor of the role it has played in the field of architecture.

The artwork also shows a magical blending of art and science by a mogul of art. This shows the great passion and interest that Leonardo had for proportionality and conceptualization of geometry.

Da Vinci chose to inscribe the figure in a circle and a square to depict magnificent combination of art and science to bring out the proportionality of a human body organ. This drawing had been used as a cornerstone by the Romans in their phenomenal architectural structures in the 15th century.

Another reason that motivated Leonardo in creating the Vitruvius man was his desire to relate humans to nature. He believed that the way the human body functioned symbolized how the universe worked and that everything in it was perfect and proportional. This was because, according to his views, the human body had been designed by nature.

Representations in the Vitruvius Man

This drawing could also be used to represent the virile and physically fit man. When drawing the Vitruvius Man, Leonardo ensured that the physical features of this were dominantly displayed. The dominance in appearance is prominent on the facial features and the strongly built body. These features were meant to represent the virility of this man and also his good health.

The Vitruvius Man as a drawing is a representational art. The drawing has been used to represent the mechanical nature of humans. The art work also represents the “glad day” of humans as well as to represent the physical fitness of a virile man.

The glad day of human, is a popularized 1795 art work by William Blake where the Vitruvius man is set free from the circles and the squares that seems to hold him hostage.

This means freedom brings in unfound joy that comes with the freedom from the constraining restrictions by the square and the circle. To attain this new representation from the Vitruvius man, William Blake takes the diagrammatic figure of the Vitruvius Man and replaces him with a joyful and enthusiastic god of energy posing in a fling.

In this representation of the Vitruvius Man Blake wanted to illustrate the ideal requirement of the incorporating imagination not just observation in creation of epic drawings like the Vitruvius Man (American Medical Association, 2006).

Leonardo who lived in the 15^th century was a painter, an architect and an engineer. These skills that he possessed must have influenced him in creating the Vitruvius man. He must have been fascinated by the science and the knowledge that he had on the human anatomy and this could have made him desire to blend the areas of specialization in such accuracy in his art.

It was during this time that the construction of temples was on the rise and Leonardo had envisioned that the proportions and the measurements of the human body are divinely defined with such perfection that he was of the opinion that a perfectly constructed temple should reflect the proportionality displayed by the human body.

The period was also characterized by major advancement in geometry and this could have motivated Leonardo to represent the image in a proportional manner so as to align his work with the knowledge of geometry.

Thus, he proved that the human body was symmetrical by placing the Vitruvius man in a square inscribed by a circle. This means that the architectural skills could have influenced him when he was drawing the Vitruvius. This information has helped in understanding why Leonardo had opted to draw Vitruvius man the way he did.

In conclusion, it is evident that da Vinci’s work has great influence in various fields. Due to its geometric proportionality, the artwork has major influences in architecture, health and medicine among other fields of specialization. It is also evident that the general knowledge of geometry that had gained preeminence during the time of this artwork greatly influenced the nature of the drawing.

Reference

American Medical Association, (2006) Journal of the American Medical Association, Volume 256, Pages 1077-2288,

Leonardo Da Vinci’s ‘The Last Supper’

One of the main aspects of Renaissance paintings is the fact that most of them can be defined as perceptually realistic. That is, by being exposed to these paintings, observes recognize the three-dimensionality of depicted objects. The validity of this suggestion may be well illustrated in regards to Leonardo Da Vinci’s painting The Last Supper, which depicts Jesus Christ having a supper with his apostles, while knowing that he will be crucified the next day.

What accounts for the earlier mentioned qualitative subtlety of this particular painting is that, while working on it, Da Vinci took a practical advantage of the artistic technique of a linear perspective, which in turn explains the apparent realism of the actual image in question (Sayre 275).

For example, the left and right walls in the room are represented in such a manner, as if spatially extended; they would ‘converge’ at the horizon. This, of course, strengthens the painting’s illusion of a three-dimensional ‘in-depthness’ – hence, contributing to Da Vinci artwork’s life-likeness. The same can be said about the rectangularly shaped carpets (?) that hang on these walls.

The further they are situated from the observer’s viewpoint, the smaller they appear in size. Moreover, the fact that, just as it is being the case with walls, these carpets also seem to be visually receding towards the ‘vanishing point’, also emphasizes the concerned painting’s perceptual integrity.

The painting’s realness is accentuated even further by the fact that the elements of a landscape, seen through the window, also appear thoroughly consistent with the principle of a linear perspective, which stresses out that people always perceive remotely located objects, as being much smaller than the equally sized ones, located in the immediate vicinity (Grossberg 470).

Nevertheless, it would be inappropriate to suggest that the manner, in which Da Vinci went about deploying the earlier mentioned artistic technique, was solely concerned with the artist’s intention to make his painting representationally realistic. This is because; the aspects of this painting’s three-dimensionality also appear to convey a certain semantic message.

For example, it is not a pure coincidence that in the painting, Jesus is situated directly in front of the ‘vanishing point’. Apparently, Da Vinci wanted to make sure that, while exposed to The Last Supper, observers would be subtly prompted to think that, allegorically speaking, ‘all roads lead to Jesus’.

This also explains why Da Vinci made a deliberate point in using the image of a blue sky (seen through the window) as a background for the painting’s main character – by doing it, the artist strived to promote the idea that it is specifically the ‘kingdom of heaven, where Jesus truly belong.

Claude Monet’s ‘Waterlillies’

Even though that the deployment of a linear perspective is commonly justified in the realist/classical paintings that depict action (such as the one, analyzed earlier), the same cannot be said about the paintings that reflect upon the spatially ‘petrified’ surrounding reality through the lenses of what happened to be the artist’s emotional state – the so-called impressionist ones.

While striving to ensure the perceptual soundness of their artworks, impressionists instead resort to the utilization of the technique of an atmospheric perspective. This technique is being usually concerned with artists ‘playing with color’, as the mean of endowing their paintings with the appeal of a life-likeness (Hurwitz 68).

The legitimacy of this suggestion can be shown in relation to Claude Monet’s painting Waterlillies, which depicts waterlillies floating in the water (presumably, the surface of the lake).

Given the fact that there is no horizon to be seen in this particular painting, the artist was spared of an opportunity to ensure the depicted images’ three-dimensionality by the mean of adjusting their visual representation to be suggestive of where the ‘vanishing point’ actually is. Yet, there can be no doubts as to the fact that, while exposed to this painting, observers do perceive it as being representationally realistic.

This is because, as it can be seen in it, the blue color of water in the painting’s lower part appears much darker; as compared to what it is being the case with the color of water in the artwork’s upper part. The reason for this is apparent – according to the laws of physics, the sharper is the angle between the observer’s viewpoint and a particular sun-reflecting surface, the ‘lighter’ this surface would appear to the person in question.

Therefore, while standing in front of Waterlillies and observing it, people intuitively sense that this painting is perceptually adequate. After all, it would prove impossible to find even a single person who had not stood on the shore of a river/lake at least once in his or her life.

Hence, the impressionist realism of Monet’s Waterlillies – people can well relate what is depicted in this painting to their subliminal memories of the past. This, of course, suggests that, even though that the technique of an atmospheric perspective does not quite correlate with the one discussed earlier, it nevertheless is just as capable of ensuring the concerned paintings’ perceptual three-dimensionality.

Works Cited

Grossberg, Stephen. “The Art of Seeing and Painting.” Spatial Vision 21.3-5 (2008): 463-486. Print.

Hurwitz, Laurie. “The Well-Planned Spontaneity of Claude Monet.” American Artist 60.644 (1996): 56-64. Print.

Sayre, Henry. World of Art (6th edition). Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall, 2009. Print.