Question about Leonardo Di Vinci?

Question

Everybody says that the Mona Lisa's smile is what makes the painting so captivating and mysterious. But I think her eyes are unappreciated for the over all effect the painting has on the passionate art lover. Without her beautiful dark brown eyes looking straight at you, you don't get the same effect. Leonardo went to a lot of trouble! He searched hi & low for the right combination of pigments to acheive the color in those eyes. The solution was to use Male Cow Dung!!!!! After drying, he broke it up into a fine powder with a mortar and pistol. Then he sifted it over & over through ever finer screens until he reached the perfect consistancy and texture. Through long days of trial and error Di Vinci experimented with different amounts of this powder mixed with mineral oil. Finally he had it. The perfect Brown for his Masterpiece's incredible eyes! Eyes that mesmorize the lucky viewer into almost a hypnotic trance! Well heres my question, was Leonardo Di Vinci the 1st Bullshit Artist?

Answer 1

I think it's Da Vinci and you are a moron or a kid.

Answer 2

Not so fast folks. I am not to sure that American and European students even know his history or art work. Even if his name is known would they know about his specific history, designs, art work, etc.? Another example, in China or India or many areas in Africa have they studied the Italian Renaissance? Some at the University level may have, but what about the "masses?" Many American and European young people may have been introduced to Leonardo da Vinci in such works as "The DaVinci Code". Does that type of work really introduce you to the "real" Leoanardo? Maybe you know great Chinese, Indian, or African historical figures but frankly, I do not. Perhaps I can pull out a few names and describe "kind of" what they did or why they were famous but I don't know how accurate I would be. I have no evidence, or polls, or statistics to back up what I am saying, it's just my opinion.

Answer 3

He may have been the first, but you are another. And your question gave me a very vivid image, though not the one I think you meant, of Leo armed with a pistol and manning a mortar, just to pulverize cow dung. I don't think he needed all that firepower when a "mortar and pestle" would have done the trick.

Answer 4

I think the claimed complete art works of Di Vinci is actually a collection of work of himself and his contemporaries and the scientific work was extrapolated from pre known body of esoteric work.



Similarly the "Complete works of Shakespeare" are, in my opinion, a compilation of work of peers of the time.



Many ancient and modern cultures used bovine feces with success, to plaster the outside of their buildings. But we do not call their residences sh*t houses as we know this means a smaller and more private work house.



While your facts may be true and your eloquence in preamble is poetic, the nature of the remaining question resembles the essence of the material to which you claim was Di Vinci's raw material for his pigmentation.

Answer 5

Possibly. On a related note, Indian Yellow pigment was made from the urine of cows.

Answer 6

The most important in that painting not the eyes, but the smile.

Answer 7

No. Hieroglyphics were sometimes written in Bullshit, Humanshit, etc.



But then again all artists are B.S. artists.

Answer 8

Probably! LOL!!!