Leonardo da Vinci and his Notebooks

[Leonardo's notebooks]

I have already mentioned in the earlier blog post that one of the reasons why Leonardo wrote in the mirror imaged manner was due to the fact that it was kinetically natural and convenient for a left handed person as he was.

The notebooks may have been used to sketch out his thoughts with the words and the images, so he can re-read them, in case he has forgotten, so it was not in the finalized form.
Leonardo entrusted the notebooks to Melzi to be possibly edited and published as a sort of an encyclopedia.
The content has not always to do with the "secret" discovery nor the important ideas  for the inventions. It was used as the simple and elaborated memos. It contained the personal accounting information and the complaint about his adopted son, Salai, as well.

I feel that he was not worried about the contents being read, understood, or stolen, for not many had the genius/intelligence/imagination to keep up with his ideas. It was rather that the "misunderstanding" and the "misconception" of the content may have made him weary.

It is true that Leonardo's notebooks contained the images of the new weapons, the architectural renderings, and the engineering ideas. Those were not in the final form. In order for many of these larger projects to be carried out and manifested, he needed the backing from the people like the Duke who can supply the man power and provide the financial support, etc. To ask the Duke for such help, Leonardo needed to convince or persuade the Duke, and it had to be in the Duke's advantage; therefore, the presentation was crucial. The reason why Leonardo kept these notebooks-journals-memos to himself is very simple: the content is not in the final, complete, articulated form.
For someone to have the access to his unpolished, 'premature' writings would possibly be lead to the misunderstanding... especially if the one who is reading lacks the imagination and the intelligence.
Any smart writers would not share the plot of the thriller prematurely.
Not many comedians would tell a unpolished joke. It is normal to keep the ideas from the general public until it can be organized and made presentable. Even with such careful presentation, there are no guarantee that people would not misunderstand it.

{I usually do not show my sketches or my notebooks (There are many!) to the people. It is not because I am secretive or being afraid that some might be inclined to steal my ideas, etc. I just don't want my ideas to be prematurely disclosed and misunderstood.}

He may have hid his notes because it was not written well. Some scholars feel that Leonardo was not necessary gifted with the words. And they feel that ... (to be continued...)

Mona Lisa Smile and sfumato

"Mona Lisa Smile and sfumato"

Most of us have seen Leonardo's masterpiece, a painting known as "Monalisa/Mona-Lisa."
I am sure that some of you may even have heard of the term, "sfumato."   Leonardo has used this technique, and as you can see in his paintings, the effect of sfumato is wonderlous, for this technique allows the painter to blend the paints smoothly to create rather soft surfaces/forms rich in subtle gradation.
"Mona Lisa" is one of the best examples of  a painting where the sfumato technique is applied.

According to one definition, the word, sfumato, is derived from "fumare(to smoke)."
( http://arthistory.about.com/cs/glossaries/g/s_sfumato.htm )

However, do we know for sure what this technique is all about?

Although I have used ( what I have understood as ) the sfumato technique to paint my artworks, I still do not know exactly how Leonardo had used it in his paintings.

What type of brushes did he use? : sable?
What shape was the brushes? : flat? round? filbert?
What were the sizes of the brushes?

How hard/soft did he brushed against the painted surface?  (Had he brushed against the surface too hard, then the tiny fragments of the 'shaved' brushes should be mixed into the paints. Has any researchers found such fragments?)
What was the angle of the brush to the surface? :  30 degrees? 60 degrees?
What was the direction/movement of the brush stroke? :   zigzag? crossed? slanted (as in his sketches)? circular?
What was the speed of the brush stroke? rapid? slow?
Did he only use his left hand to apply sfumato?

etc, etc, etc...

I hope we can obtain the answer in the future.

Was Leonardo religious or not?

Was Leonardo religious or not?

I think he was not religious from the conventional point of view. Nor can I conclude that he was not religious at all.






Some claim that he was not religious based on that fact that he did not use the halo nor place a traditionally accepted sacred object on the Last Supper table, such as a Holy Chalice.


But, to me, Leonardo was more spiritual and perhaps religious than some of the painters of his time. Just because he did not use the halo does not automatically become equal to being non-religious.


He may well have thought and imagined, "What makes a person 'appear' more spiritual? Does putting a halo on the being portrayed makes him/her more spiritual? How can I convey the spirituality of a sacred beings without introducing the rather superficial, blindly traditional elements?


Yes, there are no Chalice on the Last Supper table in his painting. But is it not so that if such sacred being as Christ touches, anything can become sac red as the Holy Chalice? If he touched, the object can become sacred. Leonardo did not like the relic.


Instead, he wanted to show the holiness of the being through the gesture, posture, scenes, and facial expression... how to create the sacred atmosphere...


Can human nature express the divine? After all, these sacred beings in the paintings took the human forms to approach us. ...and God created human forms...!

Kite = tobi (Japanese) = milan/milano = nibbio

Leonardo had the memory of a kite (nibbio) flying down to his crib and striking the inside of his mouth/lips with its tail. It is interesting that Leonardo had connected this incident to his "destiny." ...but why? (By the way, Freud had mis-interpreted the word, "nibbio." He thought that it was a vulture, but in reality, it is a kite.)

A kite is a cautious bird. A kite is similar to a hawk, a bird of prey; therefore, for it to come close to Leonardo as an infant and not harming him is surprising.

An Egyptian goddess, Isis, sometimes transformed to a kite.

A kite, as well as a 'good' artist, has the wonderful eyesight.

Kites mate for life, and they help each other for brooding. The male brings the animal/food, and the female tears it apart and feed the chicks.
(This is the opposite of what Leonardo may have experienced in his early household.)

Mother kite uses the sound to warn the young ones when they are in danger (...to appear dead).
(Leonardo was a good singer - a sound maker.)

Most often they eat the already dead meat and remove the dead carcasses.
(Leonardo dissected the dead body.)

Red kite seems to have "the reputation to 'steal' the garments left out to dry." Shakespeare mentions it in his "Winter's Tale."
(Salai, whom Leonardo had adopted as his son, had the stealing habit!)

They glide in the air most of the time and not flapping their wings too often. Their legs are weak.
(The airplanes appear to glide when they are flying, and the man made kites are named after this bird. It is needless to mention about the "obsession" of Leonardo in regards to flying. )

(citation about the kite: http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/トビ
           http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-the-bird-called-a-kite.htm
           http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Kite
           http://www.arkive.org/red-kite/milvus-milvus/biology.html
           http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Kite
           http://hato.de-blog.jp/hatokaku/cat6658626/index.html
           http://www.animalpicturesarchive.com/view.php?tid=3&did=23384 )

Was Leonardo also trying to relate this incident with the fact that he later had lived and worked in Milan?
The pun on the name of kite in French (Milan)and Spanish (Milano) with the name of the city state, where Leonardo lived and worked, Milan (Milano), although the etymology of the name of the city has almost nothing to do with a kite, may indicate such connection.

Obviously Leonardo did not come to the realization back then, when the incident had taken place originally. Leonardo is reflecting and interpreting the incident much later in his life after reflecting about his life. We don't exactly know when this realization had occurred although it was eventually written down.

One thing which stand out in this memory is that Leonardo remembered/recorded what he had observed and not what/how he had felt. In other words, the infant Leonardo seems to have rather objectively observed and remembered the external event as the scientist would while this kite flew down and hit the inside of Leonardo's mouth/lips with its tale. On the other hand, Leonardo seems not to have observed nor recorded the internal feeling and emotion of his as the psychologist. We do not know the true reason for this. (...whether the incident was not the fearful experience, or he was choosing not to disclose the feeling.)
It is also interesting to note that Leonardo decided to record and write about this incident, yet none about his early relation to his mother was written (...or being discovered by the historians).

This kite may symbolize the messenger or a being who anoints, for it did not harm/attack Leonardo but struck the inside of the mouth as if to pass on something and/or to appoint.

Mayer Schapiro in his essay, "Leonardo and Freud: An Art-Historical Study," (one of the essays compiled in the "Renaissance Essays," edited by Paul Oskar Kristeller and Philip P. Wiener / published in 1968 by University of Rochester Press) points to the significance of the legends of some of the great personalities in the human history having the common theme of some type of small creature(s), whether a bird or the ants, entering and/or touching the mouth/lips of such personalities (...often, when they were very young). "In all these classical legends, the omen is located in the mouth, the place of speech and more particularly of the breath or spirit." (p 311) It is interesting to note that one of the personalities he mentions is Saint Ambrose who is the patron saint of the city of Milan.

Search for the missing Mural, "The Battle of Anghiari"

"The Battle of Anghiari"



Is the mural of "The Battle of Anghiari" really lost?


Was it partially ruined or totally ruined?


It has been said that the lower part of the mural was saved but not the upper part; however, it sounds too general and vague.


Leonardo seems to have increased the heat to dry and fix the running paints (from the upper portion of the wall) onto the wall surface. As I have mentioned in the earlier posting, during the "burning in" process of the encaustic painting method, the heat cannot be too high, for it melts the various parts of the painting and the paints would merge with each other, making the mess.


If it weren't for the sketches left by Rubens and the few others, we would have no idea what the mural may have looked like. Fortunately, what seems to be the central portion of the mural as been recorded by the above mentioned painters; however, there are some questions remain to be answered. Did Rubens, for instance, copy the portion of the mural accurately? If so, was that particular portion of the mural intact back then? ...or did Rubens and the others created their own version of it based on what was visible? We know from the record that a part - possibly the central portion - of the mural was visible and kept intact for sometime, and that is the reason why Rubens was able to copy it.


We do not exactly know what part of the mural was ruined/damaged. Where did Leonardo begin painting with the color? Did Leonardo, at least, succeed in painting that central portion? ..or did he not commenced with painting that area yet at the time of the disaster? ...or was it also ruined, but the images were recognizable?


Why did Leonardo not sketch and copy the mural for the record (even if it is ruined...)?


The late Prof. Carlo Pedretti (Leonardo expert) of UCLA, Prof. John F. Asmus of UCSD, and Prof. Maurizio Seracini believe in the existence of the fresco behind the current mural, "Battle of Marciano in Val di Chiana," painted by Vasari. Prof. Seracini is about to commence in the active search of this missing mural by Leonardo. I am very supportive of this project, for I also believe that it is very like that Vasari has preserved at least the famous central part of the mural. Prof. Seracini has discovered the gap between the current wall and the wall behind it. This wall behind should be examined. I wish him and his research team the best of luck!






http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Battle_of_Anghiari_(painting)

Leonardo's "lost" mural, " The Battle of Anghiari" part 1

"The Battle of Anghiari" could have been the largest and the most spectacular mural of Leonrdo da Vinci, had his experiment with the paining method was successful. It is generally accepted as the "lost" masterpiece.

Had Leonardo used the method written by Pliny to do with the technique involving the wax / encaustic and the heat, there maybe the smoke damage on the ceiling directly above the wall where Leonardo had attempted to paint.

Did Leonardo attempt to do the final "Burning-in" for the mural?

This process is crucial, for the reheating of the entire surface enables each layer to bind together, thus preventing the cracking or chipping. However, the temperature should not be too hot or too cold!
Leonardo may have thought that the enormous amount of heat may be required to do the "Burning-in" the paints to such enormous wall. I do not know whether Leonardo had used such method shown in the biographical portrayal of Leonardo in 1972 by the RAI production, but if that much heat was needed, he must have used and burnt a lot of woods causing the large amount of smoke. Of course, had it burnt well with the high heat, there could have been the less smoke. But since the record shows hat the paints began to run down the wall, the temperature may have been too hot, and it is possible that the smoke might have been permeating the room. It will be good to study the current ceiling forensically. If the interior, especially the ceiling, has not been restored since the time of Leonardo, the evidence of the smoke damage may still be there, and that may indicate to the area where the paints were applied. Since he used the heat to fix the already painted area, the location maybe determined below the smoke damage... or so.

Was the plaster surface moist and not completely dry? If so, that may have cause the wax to remain on the surface and not to get soaked into the wall. The soaking-in to the dry plaster could have helped preventing the paints to not run down the surface easily.

The reason behind Pliny's warning against the use of this technique on the wall may have been that the wall is vertical, and the things of weight, such as paints in the large quantity can run down easily and quickly, and there is not enough time to fix it to the vertical surface. Even if Leonardo had experimented and succeeded with the smaller scaled model, to determine the correct amount of the temperature required to "Burning-in" the paints on the much larger surface may not have been easy.

Likely that the temperature was too hot for the surface and the layers literally merged with each other making the color muddy. Unlike the smaller scaled murals, shire weight of the liquefied paint from the large vertical surface may have caused it to run down rapidly, thus destroying the painting.

Also, had he mixed any other elements to this vehicle made of wax, that may not only increased the weight of the paints but to have interfered with the chemical process for the drying.

FYI:      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Battle_of_Anghiari_(painting)

Saint Jerome painting by Leonardo

"St. Jerome"

The lion in the foreground seems to be too small compared to the saint.
According to the Wikipedia, the head and body length  of the lion (male) is between 170–250 cm (5 ft 7 in – 8 ft 2 in), so it is at least as tall (large) as an average sized human male. (sited: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lion )

An object in the foreground should appear larger than the object in the middle ground even if they are the same size in reality. As I have mentioned above, a lion can be larger than a human to begin with, so in order to place the lion in front of the saint, the lion has to be much larger than what Leonardo has portrayed. But to do so, it may have compromised the composition... i.e., the size of the saint in relation to the lion and the painted surface. In other words, the lion in the foreground would dominate the composition.

Had the painting being done during the Middle Ages, it would have been acceptable, for the painters then had used the non-natural, "hieratic scale." [i.e., painting the saints(an important figure) larger than what they usually appear in life - the actual size] (sited:  http://www.renaissanceconnection.org/lesson_social_humanism.html)

Thus, I feel that Leonardo was struggling within to find the proper expression and the use of the scale and the perspective. Could this be one of the possible reasons why Leonardo had left this painting unfinished?

Leonardo da Vinci and his mirror writing 1

the left - handed writing

It may have been Leonardo's revolt against the learned, academic, high society of his time by not only using his left hand to write and paint, but to write backwards ( "in the manner of Jewish people" )in the mirrored manner.

The word "sinister" is derived from the Lain word, "sinestra", and it means "left."  We can surmise from the connection between "sinister" and "sinistra," that the left handed people were not treated as normal.

It went against the entire 'right handed' tradition to write in the mirrored manner, for the writing was invented and developed by the right handed people for the right handed people! I have taught calligraphy to my high school students. It was painful to watch how the left handed students contorted his/her left hand/wrist to be able to slant the pen in the right angle to match the angle easily created by the right handed students. It appeared very 'un-natural'!
For the left handed ones to write from the left to right, which is the system suited for the right handed majority, is equal to confirming to the society's norm.... confirming to the majority. (... and to the learned ones who 'rules' the people )

Leonardo was possibly ambidextrous, so he could have adopted the "normal" right handed writing skill, but he did not. Whether it was because of his dyslexia or not (curse or blessing as the special skill), he did pursue his left handed life, and he did not "fix" himself to confirm to the society.

Or was he practicing his 'Arabic / Semitic (?)' heritage of writing right to left? (...some claim that Leonardo's mother was an Arabic house slave....)

--------------------

At any rate, I wonder what he was thinking and feeling when he was painting Judas in the Last Supper as a left handed man.

Self portrait of Leonardo da Vinci?

The Turin portrait drawing is generally accepted as the self portrait of Leonardo, but I must agree with the author, Robert Payne ("Leonardo," © 1978 Doubleday & Co. Inc. garden city, NY) that it may be of Leonardo's father's portrait. Leonardo's father had lived to be 80 years old and died on July 9th, 1504. The drawing is thought to be made about 1512. I feel that this was made between 1511 and March of 1513. There is a possibility of Leonardo reminiscing about his deceased father while Leonardo was in Firenze, pursuing the lawsuits against his brothers about the inheritance.  There are some odd elements in his portrait (if this was the self portrait). I know that he was known to appear older than his actual age, but around 1511-1512, Leonardo was about 60 years old, so even after considering the above fact, the man in this drawing appears to be at least 15 to 20 years older than Leonardo. Although it is a quasi-myth/legend, we know that the face of Plato in the "School of Athens" painted by Raphael was based on the portrait of Leonardo. It does somewhat resemble the portrait sketch by Leonardo, but one thing is quit different, and that is the shape of the nose and the nostril.
All the other artworks, whether it is the young figure in the "Adoration" of Leonardo or Verrocchio's "David," the shape of the nose is similar to the one painted by Raphael as Plato. This is also pointed out by Payne as 'curving nose' of he portrait and the straight one in the other drawing(s).