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)

The importance of drawing/painting from life

The importance of drawing/painting from life

As an art teacher, I have often encountered some students wanting to impress me by showing me the drawings and/or the paintings done from copying the photo images or the images from the magazines.  These are usually done very beautifully, and I have no problem with the practice.  In fact, there is a long tradition of copying of the master pieces (paintings) done by the students/apprentices to further their artistic skills. However, there is a big difference between copying the photo images and copying the paintings/drawings.  The copying of the master pieces is done, so that the students can not only copy the forms and the colors but to also learn how the masters may have created the artworks. In other words, the copying of the master pieces enable the students to learn about the technique used by the masters.

Nevertheless, one of the best excercises to train the students is to let them paint and/or draw from life (i.e.,  still life,  portrait,  figure,  landscape )
Why?  It is much easier for the eyes to copy the images already done in the 2D forms to the 2D pantings/drawings.  On the other hand, it is quite challenging for the eyes that are used to observing the environment n the 3D reality to "translate/transpose" it to the 2D form on the rather flat surfaces.  That is the reason why the art schools usually prefer to view the portfolios made up of the works done from life.  Thus, I have encouraged my high school students in the Portfolio (Building) Class to have as many portfolio samples done from life to show, even if those are the simple sketches.

Of course, not only the skill developments but the enhancing of the imagination is very important.  You may already know about the famous quote from Albert Einstein: "Imagination is more important than knowledge."

The artist would become formidable when the imagination and the skills go hand in hand.  What is the use when the aspiring artist has the great imagination but cannot express/manifest/articulate it well?

I am very glad to have received the training to work from life.  The drawing above was done from life, by observing my own left hand, when I was in the 4th grade.

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.

The Naure of Light

Light is an interesting phenomena, entity, existence... whatever you might call it.
As an artist, it is almost inevitable that one encounters the mystery of light.  The nature of light has been discussed and debated throughout the human history: through Empedocles, Euclid, Lucretius, Ptolemy, Leonardo da Vinci, Newton, Goethe, Farady, Einstein.... etc.

Without going into the deep metaphysical and / or scientific discussion, I can say that the artists tend to encounter and deal with the two forms of light: the natural light and the man made light.
The most powerful natural light is the sunlight. Although there is light by the moon, but it is the reflected light of the sun and not of its own. Light from the stars are too dim to be useful unless, for instance, you are painting or photographing them.
Within the realm of the man made lights, we most often use the tungsten family and the fluorescent family.... of course, there are others (i.e., the candle light). The tungsten lights tend to emit the warm yellow/orange light. The fluorescent lights tend to emit the bluish light.
The nice thing about these man made lights are that they can emit the light constantly and consistently as long as we allow it to happen (i.e.,  not turning off the light)
The sunlight, on the other hand, keeps 'moving.'  I have had an interesting experience (and the realization )during my youth while I was trying to draw a rose under the sunlight. I remember having the difficult time trying to finish it. As I drew, the sun kept moving, and I've had to keep changing the 'shape' of the shadow, etc.
We do observe the nature and its beauty, but it was an eye opening experience for me to know that the natural light do keep changing.  I could understand why the Impressionists had painted the way they did.

I use the natural light to take the portfolio pictures of my paintings. The sunlight between 11AM to1PM are the best light to take the picture, for light tend to be most white. Before 11AM, it is rather bluish, and after 1 PM, it can become rather orange like. Also, it is better to avoid shooting under the direct sunlight. I usually choose the cloudy day, so the light is diffused and saturated well.

I often think about the light at the gallery. Many galleries are using the tungsten based lights, so the entire image becomes warm.  If you are used to painting under the fluorescent light, you can tell the differences right away.

The true meaning of the word, "amateur"

I have been doing art and music, etc., for over 44 years since I was 4 years old.
My creative life began with the strict guidance of my first teacher, my multi-skilled mother.
And yet, my  so called, "training," was rather serious one from the day one... creating like a soldier, doing the drill, the high discipline, the punishment and the rewards ... quite an ordeal.
I also have identified myself with the art-in-itself to the point of suffocating myself with the notion of the perfect art form and the expression... and to fully master the mediums.
as a matter of fact, I have, from time to time, hit the "bottom," although I have kept up with the discipline to produce things. ...trying to keep the professionalism, sort of.

In January of the year 2000,  it finally took the toll, and I was permeated with the feeling of dryness and the numbness as if the creative juice within my was suck dried and had withered!
One of my good friends gave me the "Artist's Way" by Julia Cameron, the writer of the original TV series, the "Miami Vice." ( I have also done the various exercises given by her in the subsequent publications of hers.)

...but as I was regaining the creative fountain within, I came across in her book, "Walk in This World," an important message of being a creative person.
It had to do with the word, "amateur." Julia says on page 85: "We cannot 'improve' ourselves into great artists by doing creative sit-ups. Great artists are actually the great amateurs - from the Latin verb, amare, 'to love.'" (It is also based on the Latin word, "amator.")
That was enlightening, for 1) I love the etymological studies of the words, and 2) I have struggled so hard to separate myself from the people whom I have considered the "amateurs," forgetting the true message underneath the word.
As professionals, we often need to finish many projects, many times in our lives. ...following through is important.
Yet, if it lacks the playful, child-like creativity of what Picasso had reminded us by saying, "We are all born children. The trick is how to remain one" ..., then we may lose the LOVE of creating. It becomes the chore.

It is wonderful when we create because we love to create...and that may be the message of the Divine Creation.  No wonder we are reminded by Yeshwa/Jesus to be like the children n order to enter the kingdom of Heaven - filled with LOVE an Creativity. 

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).