The latest fantasy
A reply to M Domoretsky,
This search for mystic geometry is totally misguided, as, in general, is the search for “codes”. None of the huge body of evidence about the design of Renaissance paintings (Leonardo’s included) provides the slightest encouragement for the imposing of detailed surface geometry (using thick lines on small reproductions) on paintings in this way. The most there may be is an adherence to certain canons of bodily proportion, but none of his drawings for specific works of art contain even this. Renaissance paintings contain allegories and symbolism, but there are no “codes”. The nature of a code is that it’s meaning is as unlike surface appearance as possible. Allegory and symbolism convey deeper meanings that are consistent with the immediate content of the image.
“Da Vinci” is not his name – that’s an ugly Americanism. It’s like calling me “from Woodstock”. It was not a surname.
January 15, 2012 @ 4:58 pm
I have also been harangued by this fellow, among others. Amazingly, it is only since writing aboout Leonardo (La Bella and Salvator Mundi) that such harassment has occurred. Not a peep out of anyone when I usually write about Raphael!
What's most distressing about these so-called researchers are their persistent assumptions that the existing scholarship of centuries is somehow incorrect, and that they have finally unravelled a mystery that undoes all learning that has preceded. It is a remarkably hubristic way of thinking, backed by little substance.
Kind Regards
H
January 17, 2012 @ 12:08 am
Dear Professor Martin Kemp,and H Ziyazi January 16, 2012Response to MK
Thank you for noting the typo, though of course the Ser has also been published as SIR as well….. but we do agree it was a typo and we know full well that this is the case….. but what perplexes us is why would something as trivial as a typo be the only consideration upon which to dwell when there is such an interesting and notable set of findings presented for study and comment…… We are honored to explain and show our findings to anyone open to understanding that Lionardo produced yet another surprise…. previously unrecognized images every bit worthy of his intellect, consistent with his predilections and obvious to anyone taking the time to actually look at the images. We invite you to actually see our findings so that you can participate in bringing this new area of study to light. These images and symbols are far too numerous and obvious to anyone who actually sees them to be dismissed, and they since they are embedded within the structure of each work, will not be going away or be branded anomalies or fabrications. We are serious in this research and are hoping you will consider that perhaps Lionardo created yet another invention that the established art world simply has yet to recognize and embrace. We would sincerely welcome your serious consideration of the hidden images Lionardo created.
Regards
January 17, 2012 @ 1:16 am
This comment has been removed by the author.
January 17, 2012 @ 3:34 am
Something is a fantasy only if it is not true…. And since most of those very scholars who decry even the possibility that there is something in the art that they have missed, have avoided reviewing the findings, and those academics that have seen them have been shaken, it astounds us that they can say with such finality that our very obvious images are a fantasy…
We have never searched for “mystic geometry or codes”. We have simply discovered anomalies that have turned out to be images created by employing methods that Lionardo was known to have used in other endeavors. And the fact that many of the images contain symbolism and allegory as well as religious and fraternal meanings should lead scholars to be first in line to understand what Lionardo intended these images to portray. It saddens us that the “experts” who have spent their lives studying these artworks and who have contributed so much to the field of art, are unwilling to even consider that Lionardo may have created something that they have not yet understood, and are unwilling to entertain the idea that someone, other than scholars and historians, outside the walls of traditional academic thinking might have stumbled across it. Again we offer any scholar who is seriously interested in understanding these findings the opportunity to review both the images and the processes Lionardo used in producing them.
H Niyazi. We do not recognize this scholar and dispute ever having corresponded with this person, no less harangued them….
We make no assumptions that the scholarship of centuries is somehow incorrect. Much of the scholarly work is absolutely correct and well substantiated. If we have unraveled anything, that is for the scholars and those with specific knowledge in the areas of symbolism to complete. We have merely found hundreds of images that Lionardo created. It just amazes us that H Niyazi, a “scholar” would make such a statement, having never had the opportunity to actually see the “substance” … which they assume does not exist. It dumfounds us that those in the academic and scholarly community make such statements without the benefit, or ever having made the effort, to see the images they proclaim so loudly do not exist…..
Again we mean no disrespect to anyone. We recognize it is difficult for established experts to admit or recognize that there may be something they have never seen in their own field. We merely have found something of great value to the art world and historians and encourage them to make an honest effort to understand what we have discovered without preconceived opinions based on traditional teachings and without making unsubstantiated denials of its existence.
Regards,
Michael W. Domoretsky
http://michaelmwd.blogspot.com/2011/12/leonardo-da-vincis-salvator-mundi.html
Lionardo, da Vinci, Research Group
February 2, 2012 @ 11:01 pm
Perhaps the individual who finds one or two anomalies can be considered a “looney” having no basis from which to substantiate their claims. But as even Professor Kemp notes, private researchers who have dedicated many years to intense study, and who have definitive evidence, should be accorded a careful hearing on the merits before being lumped in with the casual observer or conspiracy theorists….. It appears, according to many experts, that nothing new or found by anyone outside the “expert” community is worthy of consideration. Many private researchers have been credited with finding things the “scholars” have missed and have contributed greatly to pushing the knowledge envelope despite, in our opinion, the misguided efforts of established academics to avoid considering something new or different that their community did not discover.
The world is no longer flat, because loonies, contrary to accepted dogma, persisted until the established powers were forced to admit the truth…. The earth is no longer the center of the universe as well thanks to a loonie or two….
It is unfortunate that anyone who is outside the tightly knit group of “degreed experts” is branded a “loonie” especially when the experts in question have not even seen the evidence but instead pass summary judgment automatically relegating anything outside their experience as being from the “ loonie bin”. It strikes us as odd that the experts give more consideration to the differing geographic use of Leonardo da Vinci’s name than to the issue of the actual discoveries made by private researchers unfettered by conventional thinking.
We respect the work done by scholars who concentrate on technical and historic aspects of leonardo’s paintings. However we have definite statistically verifiable proof that the experts have missed a very important area of study, that of Leonardo’s true intent….. We have continually invited the experts to review the hundreds of findings with an open mind. Those experts that have actually done so have not been able to say with honesty that the discoveries were not created by Leonardo….. Again, we invite scholars to judge on the merits without name calling and derision.