Who was Leonardo da Vinci?

Who was Leonardo da Vinci?

Inspiration is the thing, what is a really interesting thing, and when we are talking about hyper innovative people, we must realize that those people have something, what makes them complete their task. Inspiration is the thing like some kind of flash, that comes in mind, and when researchers have investigated the history of people like Leonardo da Vinci they have faced the fact, that those people have also got very much support for their work. The work of those artists and engineers have changed the world and the thing what those people are done fascinates even long time after their death.

If we are thinking about this man, who painted the portrait, what has insured of two billion Euros, we must first notice one thing. Some of his works might be published after his death. And the name of that family is after village, so did somebody, who wrote the personal history of Leonardo changed that name for protecting some secrets? The family da Vinci was not own the village, and that means that there must be some reason, why they were allowed to use that name.

Sometimes it said that people like Leonardo da Vinci live forever through their work. When people are thinking that it has no matter, how we speak, and what kind of words we are using, that kind of thing has matter. The phrases and words, what inmate is using tell what kind of social environment that inmate lives.

And if we are thinking about clothes and other things, what a person uses, that thing tells something, where that person comes from. But when people like Leonardo da Vinci are under the observation, the observer follows things, how precisely those persons wear their clothes. The thing is that kind of super-geniuses are somehow always little bit outsiders. That means that their style to wear clothes is also unique. When the rulers of the country were meet people like Leonardo, they realize the value of those men and why not women.

Even the nation was very small, the people who make good engineer work would bring bigger friends to the local princes, and that would also give extra-value even for the small countries. In the 15th century, Firenze was a good place to live and grow. The countries or states in Italy were not very large, and those local leaders needed bigger friends. If we think that kind of things very sharply, we must realize that this kind of state, what also Firenze was were a good place to put the person under the protection.

The leaders of dwarf states had not time or force to make the same things what some king of France had. When we are thinking the background of the family da Vinci, and the mysterious mirror writing, could it be possible that Leonardo was Arab? Or somehow else learned to write Arabian style? There were no mentions when the parents of Leonardo came to that village, and then there is one very remarkable thing in the younghood of da Vinci.

That man who came from the village of Vinci studied in the atelier of Verrocchio, and there must be something, what gave the recommendations for great artists, and then we must realize that somebody must confess the father of Leonardo, notary da Vinci, that this man should learn arts. The thing is that this family used the name of their home village, which is a very interesting detail. So was that thing allowed, and who they were?

If we think that some noblemen gave their name to their county, that thing could explain their name. But da Vincis didn't own the village, and they didn't be so high-ranked that they would have own county. And at last, I must ask one question: who was Leonardo da Vinci?

Mona-Lisa parodies part II

(Picture I)

Mona-Lisa parodies part II

There have been also scientific explanations for the Mona-Lisa parodies, and sometimes painters have painted mustaches and beard for that famous painting for finding out, who is the person, who is trapped on this famous portrait. There are tales that the portrait is the Leonardo da Vinci himself, but sometimes the explanation for that person's identity is that she could be sister or mother of Leonardo.

Was Mona-Lisa painted because of anthropologists needed that image for tracking the members of the family of Leonardo da Vinci? This could be one very good explanation for the strange details of that portrait, which is the most expensive painting in the world.

But in fact, there is another very strange myth of the identity of that woman, and that is that the painting was really the self-portrait of Leonardo. And because that man operated with his inventions, the portrait is transformed into the image of a woman for hiding the identity of Leonardo.

And maybe that portrait has been created for anthropologists, who were looking for the family members of Leonardo da Vinci. In that time the genetics was an only theoretical science, but the thing that some deviant gifts like the quality of being artistic were a well-known thing. This was the reason, why the men of the rulers were looking for that kind of persons, who could give them war machines and absolute power for the other people.

Picture I

http://www.freakingnews.com/pictures/16500/Mona-Lisa-is-growing-a-beard--16660.jpg

The story about the men and women, who hide their background

Leonardo's tank (Wikipedia)

The story about the men and women, who hide their background

Below this text is an article, what tells the story of Alma Pihl, woman, who made many pieces of jewelry for the Russian emperor's family. And the interesting thing was that the woman hide her identity when she moved to Finland after the Russian revolution in 1917. That story has brought in my mind that question about the things, that how many artists have hidden their identity during the lifetime. When we are thinking about famous artists like Leonardo da Vinci, we must realize that those men and women might not very well be known during their lifetime.

There is a possibility that many other artists have been really unknown during their lifetime. And the thing is that Vincent Van Gogh didn't sell a single painting during his lifetime supports that theory. But let's go to think about the most famous artist in the world. Leonardo da Vinci was a professional painter, who painted many masterpieces, and the thing is that this man wrote the texts by using a mirror. This thing would tell one thing about the working of this artist. The thing is that he painted some paintings under the supervision of some other person.

Are some paintings, what Leonardo made, actually the works, what was made for customers?

When we are thinking about the persons like Leonardo they might be a little bit difficult persons, but when somebody ordered the painting from them, those people must be work as the customer servants. That meant that some of those people might give orders about the things, what that master must do in the painting.

And maybe the mirror writing was meant for those people, that they can follow the work of the master from distance. I think that in some paintings like "The Last Supper" there could be somebody, who gave an order of the characters for that painting. But I don't know how much instructions people usually gave Leonardo, who was actually also an engineer. And the machines what Leonardo created were secrets of the state. The artist was good covert work for the weapon developer, who invented things like aircraft and tank.

Actually, Leonardo created other things than paintings. That man invented the tank and aircraft, what was shoot to airborne by using the giant crossbow, and those inventions could revolutionize the warfare. Maybe Leonardo da Vinci created the idea that his aircraft of the glider was shot over some city, and then the crew has dropped the container, what was filled with gunpowder to the city. That idea could be very interesting in the eyes of the noblemen.

https://yle.fi/uutiset/3-10746715

Thoughts about the painting "The Last Supper" by Leonardo da Vinci (1495-1498)

Did Leonardo da Vinci rename that painting after his death?

Did Leonardo da Vinci paint that masterpiece with claiming that he was painting some ordinary painting for the decoration? And then changed that name in his testament? Is the person, who sits in the middle actually meant to portray Jesus? Or witch one of those characters is Jesus because there are two persons, who seem similar?

Are those same looking persons in the middle of the table actually Leonardo's way to remember, that there could be the twin brother of Jesus? The thing is that Leonardo painted that painting, and that means that we cannot ask about this master, what he might think during the creation process? Because this we can only use our imagination to create ideas, what might move in the mind of that master.

Is there the hidden hint of the twin brother of the Jesus? The mysterious "Lucifer-character"? 

Is there a hidden thing or theory about the twin brother of Jesus? The mythic "Lucifer". There is claiming that this character walked also in the middle of the people, but he chose the way of violence for the resistance against Romans. This means that the "Lucifer" was the man, who caused the death of Jesus. This character has been claimed to be the Antichrist, and the thing is that if that person would be worked like the Antichrist, that would cause terrible problems for Jesus.

This theory has supported the persons, who seem something interesting about the case, where Jesus went to the temple for giving the lesson. There he said that there is no need to pay, and then the Pharisees asked money. So was the price of the temple actually paid, but somebody else has used that space. And could that other person be the twin brother of Jesus?  That Is the key element in the twinkles what have been made about this painting, and the second question is that did Leonardo renamed it after his death by using the testament to deliver that message, and did he made that thing to other paintings?

There are many ways, how we might see this painting, and one thing is that the disciples would not seem to notice Jesus Christ, who sits in the middle of them. They are just talking together, and one of those inmates seems to show Jesus, who sits in the middle of those lines. That person seems to blame Jesus or the female character on another side of him, but the thing is that is it possible that the character in the middle of the team is actually portrayed St. Peter. And one of the characters seems to have sunglasses

Those people were sitting in the line behind the table, and if Jesus wants to wash their feet, that would mean that he must rise from the table. The thing is that those people seem to yell and argue together, and that means that there would not able to hear a thing in that room.  This will bring one strange idea in my mind.

Did Leonardo try to hint, that there could be the wrong man, who was arrested, and Jesus was able to flee? 

I now that this feels some kind of ridiculous. But it is possible that Leonardo thought that Jesus could flee, and that made him fear the Inquisition and death?  If that is the thing, what Leonardo thought, and he has discussed that thing with some other people, that thing could cause death. And sometimes I have thought that is it possible, that Leonardo painted that painting with another name, and after his death, that painting was renamed. So did Leonardo mentioned the name, what he wanted to give the paintings his testament? And during life, that man could claim that he painted ordinary paintings.

So the theory about this painting is that Leonardo thought that there is a possibility, that the Pharisees were arrested the wrong man during the Eastern evening. And there is a thing, which is very well known for the people, who are known for his personal history. Leonardo played ideas, and in fact, this artist might be thought that kind of things, while he made the paintings, what is marvelous and brought many thoughts in the mind of other people.

One of the most interesting things is the woman, who sits in the middle of those disciples. The thing that there is a woman in the middle of the group of the men is a little bit extraordinary, and maybe Leonardo painted that character to confess, that the people behind that table were not Jesus and his team. If we would think about this situation in the point of view of psychology, that woman would cause a schism between those men, and that would cause that the volume would be very high in that room.

Who those people really were?

There are some other twinkles about that female character, and one of them is that character is Mary Magdalene, but the thing is that Leonardo couldn't see that situation. And the thing is that how he created that image. Was there some kind of documents, what told how those people were sitting during the last supper.

They are all without shoes, and that thing would cause strange ideas in my mind. One of those ideas is that behind that table is sitting only the disciples and the point of view is the thing, how real Jesus has been seen that thing. And maybe Leonardo went a little bit too far in some other painting, and he afraid the inquisition, so he painted only the disciples.

The question in this painting is that the thing, what Leonardo da Vinci claimed that was portrayed, and what it really portrayed could be very far away from each another. Maybe Leonardo portrayed some ordinary group of people, and then there was something, what that painter should not see, and that's why he covered the thing as the religious painting.

The codes in medieval art.

(Wikipedia)

The codes in medieval art.


https://controllingsociety.blogspot.com/

In the medieval art were many codes, and the only artist, who painted so-called cryptographical graphics was not Leonardo da Vinci. Many other artists made the hidden symbols in their paintings. And in that period the king was actually also the religious character. Actually, Leonardo da Vinci was the master of Renaissance art, and here I would write about Medieval art, what was made before Leonardo.

When we are talking about religious art, we are not asking a question, what that term actually means? The term "religious" art means that the painting was not allowed to change. In the medieval period, the only allowed type of art was religious art, and that meant that the character in the art was mentioned as the Jesus or some of the Saints. That would release the artist from the prosecution in the inquisition.

Sometimes we are facing the thing, that in the paintings were hidden some codes, and in some cases, there were instructions, how to recognize the member of the royal families, and also the marks of the other noblemen were hidden in the characters, what the artist was painted in the portrait. The pictures of royal people were also very important, that people would know, who was in charge.

And the second thing was that the portrait of the king was the warning, that somebody would tell that person things, what might cause troubles. sometimes the king or the character of the royal majesty is surrounded by the little birds, and that tells that the little birds would tell the king if somebody would speak about things, what the king should not know. The king was the ruler of the nation, and in the medieval period, that authority would come straight from God. That meant the king was actually one of the religious characters.

The character of the king was not ever very sharp, because some of them were made in the secrecy, and some were inaccurate for protecting some people. The idea was that the person, who uses the image for the recognition would look at the clothes of the man, who stood in front of the ambassador or some other person. Sometimes the king would walk around "incognito", and in those cases, the people should not know that person at all. So the marks in the clothes made the majesty.

The thing is that sometimes in the hand of the king is a small bird, and that bird was an extremely important thing because that tells that the king had the man, who covered his back. And that also meant that the king kept contact with supporters. Also, the image, what looks like steam, tells that the king is reporting to somebody, and that person would defend the king if something would happen.

Those steam-looking lines are seen in the painting of Valdemar IV Atterdag, what is above this text. That means that if somebody thought, that treating the king as a very good way to get benefit in the nation, that would cause a very big disappointment. The small hawk on the hand of the king meant, that this person would use contract killers and that thing was the warning, that everything that was spoken with the king should or bought to the place should leave in the palace.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valdemar_IV_of_Denmark

There were many symbols, what are hidden in those paintings, and one was the man, who ate under the roof. That meant that the noblemen should not tell to ordinary men and women anything about the parties, what was kept in the castle. Those things were kept outside the eye of the normal people, who would not like that kind of things. And that's why those things must be covered in the paintings, that the noblemen remember, what should not ask or talk in the wrong places.