| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
baani_g
Joined: 10 Mar 2006
Posts: 114
|
 Posted: Wed Mar 15, 2006 12:20 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
Also quite similar to the Virgin of the rocks, notice the positioning of the head and the way the eyes are looking down.
_________________
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
BURNside
Joined: 10 Mar 2006
Posts: 619
Location: Front of you.
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 15, 2006 5:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
BAANI..
wow!
Thats the exact same position
of the head in 'the last supper'
painting of either Mary or John.
Craziness!
Was this painting done by Da Vinci?
_________________
"The unexamined life like SPACEY is not a life worth living for a human being."
- BURNside |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
baani_g
Joined: 10 Mar 2006
Posts: 114
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 15, 2006 6:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Yup, there are actually two version, Madonna of the Rocks (showcased in Louvre) and Virgin of the rocks. They've been mentioned in The Da Vinci code.
In the popular novel The Da Vinci Code, it is claimed that the earlier Louvre version contained hidden symbolism which contradicted orthodox Christian belief, notably the fact that Jesus is shown praying to John rather than the other way round (the novel implies that the baby at the left must be Jesus rather than John, because he is with the Madonna). It is also claimed that the Virgin appears to be holding an invisible head and that Uriel appears to be "slicing the neck" with his finger. Allegedly, for this reason the painting was rejected by the Church, and a second, more orthodox, version was painted.
There is no historical evidence to support any of these contentions. The only significant compositional difference between the two versions (excluding the later addition of attributes) is the fact that Uriel no longer points. However this difference may well be explained by the possibility that the distinction between Jesus and John was thought to be insufficiently clear in the earlier picture because John is with the Madonna, and that the pointing gesture directed too much attention to John
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Virgin_of_the_Rocks
Madonna of the rocks:
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
BURNside
Joined: 10 Mar 2006
Posts: 619
Location: Front of you.
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 15, 2006 7:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
SWEET!
I will take a look
into that!
THANKS! ;)
_________________
"The unexamined life like SPACEY is not a life worth living for a human being."
- BURNside |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
baani_g
Joined: 10 Mar 2006
Posts: 114
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 15, 2006 7:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
No worries 
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
MaximumAwesome
Joined: 09 Mar 2006
Posts: 66
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 17, 2006 12:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
yeah i really doubt if jesus would go that long without getting his rocks off, and unless he was sterile, he probably had some children.
_________________
I'm better than you. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
J-Unit
Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 57
Location: The pink room/back bedroom/ Joanna's study/ CLEAN THAT ROOM UP room/ or Pavan's
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 17, 2006 12:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
| MaximumAwesome wrote: |
| yeah i really doubt if jesus would go that long without getting his rocks off, and unless he was sterile, he probably had some children. |
Jesus was too awesome for sex.
_________________
PLEASE DO NOT FEED ME
I AM ON A SPECIAL DIET |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
