Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Mother Nature Network)   The 3-Da Vinci Code   ( ) divider line 9
    More: Strange, Mona Lisa, Martin Prado, University of Montreal  
•       •       •

6517 clicks; posted to Main » on 06 May 2014 at 10:59 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»

Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
2014-05-06 12:04:56 PM  
2 votes:
2014-05-06 10:15:47 PM  
1 vote:

mdeesnuts: Aside from it being painted by Da Vinci, I never understood the draw of the Mona Lisa.

Why is it one of the most famous paintings ever?

You know what, that's an exceptionally good question, one that many people never pause to ask.

When it was painted it was a remarkable technical and artistic breakthrough in its subtlety and composition, but those achievements were quickly matched by other masters. For a long time it was considered to be among the great paintings, but by no means the singularly iconic image that modern popular culture has made it. That only really started in the mid- to late-19th C, and at least in part because the romantics of the age chose to project their own interpretations onto that enigmatic expression. It got a big boost early in the 20th C when it was stolen, and the crime became attached to an elaborate failed scam that would have made an awesome mid-60s caper movie with Michael Caine (as well as inspiring an episode of White Collar and probably one of Leverage, if memory serves).

For most people, their reaction on seeing the real thing for the first time is something like "Really? That's it?", closely followed by "Wow, it's much smaller than I expected".
2014-05-06 01:31:16 PM  
1 vote:

TNel: They say 2.7" to the left I would say 2.7" behind since the other person saw more of the background (vases) than the other.

...but only for that one specific area of the crossed hands. In other areas, the separation is more vertical than horizontal.

Hence my theory that either (a) the student is standing behind and slightly left of the master, perhaps on a platform, so that he can see both the model and the master's work; or (b) most likely, somebody copied the original as closely as they were able, resulting in slight variations that in just one area of the picture line up peculiarly and elsewhere don't.

You know what would be interesting? To take a look at other copies from the same period (it was not at all uncommon for masters or students to paint copies of the master's work) and see whether they are equally close and what variations they show. If this degree of variation is commonplace, then it's just a copy. If this degree of similarity is unique, then it's something more interesting.
2014-05-06 12:07:57 PM  
1 vote:
So art class studios with 7 students in a semi-circle all painting the same model are actually experiments in 7D-vision. Cool.

But it is actually an interesting theory, if only a theory. I mean, if it *was* just the result of Da Vinci's students painting the same model, they wouldn't be within-millimeters duplicates. Seems to me that had to be conscious, perhaps an experiment.
2014-05-06 12:05:43 PM  
1 vote:

People_are_Idiots: I think it means they were both in the same studio and painted the same thing.

...or even that the student copied the original painting a little later and never saw the model at all. The variations could easily be the vagaries of human error, especially since they only seem to correspond to stereoscopy in one carefully chosen area.

(If they were both in the studio with the model, the second painter was apparently standing behind and slightly to the left of Da Vinci, possibly on a step, peering over his shoulder. I could imagine master and student setting up this way so that the student can see both the model and the master's work and technique, but I don't know if there's any evidence that anybody ever actually did so. Is there an art historian in the house?)
2014-05-06 11:51:58 AM  
1 vote:
I think it means they were both in the same studio and painted the same thing.
2014-05-06 11:22:43 AM  
1 vote:
the oldest 3-D artwork

Venus of Willendorf unimpressed
/you keep using the term 3-d; i do not think it means what you think it means
2014-05-06 11:03:46 AM  
1 vote:
I don't know. When I do the cross-eyed stereoscopic thing with the side-by side images, the resultant combination does look mildly 3-D, which is impressive considering how different the images look.
2014-05-06 05:15:44 AM  
1 vote:
This is a fake.
Displayed 9 of 9 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter

In Other Media

  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.