I can't help but notice that you failed to respond to what I wrote. I already agreed that he might be an excellent painter. For the fourth time now, I'm not in a position to judge that, so I'll take your word for it.
> It's cinematic. 500 years before the camera.
I never considered da Vinci to be a particularly realistic painter -- his faces look like they're made of wax and his perspective drawing is off -- I thought that was why people find his paintings special. But thanks for the explanation.
The point is that da Vinci is deified as "renaissance man", that is, a genius in science, engineering and mathematics as well as art, not just as a painter. For this I see no evidence whatsoever. I provided a concrete list of the contributions of Newton. I could do the same for Gauss and Euler and Euclid and Galilei and many others. What are da Vinci's supposed contributions to science, engineering and mathematics that are in any way comparable to those of Newton, Gauss, Galilei, Einstein or Euler? Concrete ones, please.
If you can't, then consider why that is. Why can I give great concrete contributions of all those people, yet you can't do the same for da Vinci? Might the reason be that there are none?
Da Vinci: great painter? Yes. Drew the occasional doubtful machine? Yes. Great mathematician? No. Great scientist? No. Great engineer? No.
Can't see where I didn't respond to what you wrote.
If you mean I didn't break it down into quotes, an anal compulsive check list of points and responses then, yes, I didn't respond to what you wrote. I took what you wrote as a whole and composed a response as a whole. If you are looking for the list, I'm going to disappoint you again.
If you mean, specifically, that I didn't respond to what you wrote about Da Vinci's painting ability, well, you've said both that he was a good artist and that he was mediocre; and then repeated the performance again.
I really don't care whether you appreciate his art or not. The rest of the world seems to have reached a consensus on that.
A discussion of realism, naturalism, and abstraction, and their relative merits and practitioners, while fun, is way more involved than I'm willing to go into for a wildly careening off topic post. But go and actually look at a pre-Da Vinci icon. No, really do it. If you don't I've no more time for you. You tell me what the differences are, or their lack.
Da Vinci defines the term Renaissance Man. He had his nose into everything. He was prior to the likes of Galileo and Newton and a departure from Aristotle and Plato.
This really is covered in most undergraduate history and philosophy courses. If you want a discrete list of Da Vinci's major works and his claim to fame, well, Wikipedia is your friend.
I'm not going to do your homework for you, but here, let me get you started:
You're still not really addressing Jules's main point, which is that Da Vinci made no major contributions to math or science. To compare him to Newton is absurd, as any mathematician or physicist will tell you. A large portion of a first-year engineering curriculum is spent learning things that Newton discovered (that is, calculus and classical mechanics). I read through the wikipedia page you provided, and none of the scientific results even approach the significance Newton's work. I have no problem with his artistic work being appreciated, but I am always confused about why people seem to think his work in any other area was important.
Actually it would never have occurred to me to directly compare Newton and Da Vinci's specific works. If you will look back to the dawn of the thread, I was comparing Da Vinci to Steve Jobs; specifically their achievement in changing the nature of human thought.
(Just for the record, I'd give Da Vinci the edge in that comparison...)
Jules wanted to know why people thought Da Vinci was so great and posited that he was a mediocre artist, and that his science/engineering were bogus. Of course, in the modern sense, Da Vinci wasn't a scientist, and a very different kind of engineer. Galileo, Newton, et al. gave those areas of thought their modern sense.
Kepler wasn't a scientist in the modern sense either, but he was essential for the later astronomers to do what they did. If he hadn't done what he did then someone else would have had to.
You can throw out the Greeks and a most of the Islamic theorists by the same logic as you throw out Da Vinci's achievements. Or for that matter, throw out Newton, as he's clearly been superseded.
What a bunch of amateurs!
I'm not talking about current practice and theory. And I'm not talking about a popularity contest as to who's your favorite intellectual superhero or a video game where players are leveling up to higher planes. I'm talking about the history of human thought and its milestones. People in the past thought very differently than they do today, and I don't just mean that they believed different things. Da Vinci's approach to visualization and observation were singular and in advance of his times.
He was a bellwether of things to come. And that's why people hold him in high regard.
> If you mean, specifically, that I didn't respond to what you wrote about Da Vinci's painting ability, well, you've said both that he was a good artist and that he was mediocre; and then repeated the performance again.
> I really don't care whether you appreciate his art or not. The rest of the world seems to have reached a consensus on that.
I'm sorry if what I said about his painting was confusing. I consider da Vinci to be a great painter when judging from the reputation that he has with people knowledgeable about art. His paintings are simply not to my personal taste, mostly due to the expressionless faces (now Caravaggio, he has some amazing paintings). Whether you agree or not, I think you'll agree that art is a subjective thing (unlike science/math/engineering). The world also seems to have reached consensus that da Vinci was an amazing all round genius. This is demonstrably wrong, drawing into question the judgement of the world (also note the general belief in the existence of a god, and that the world is flat).
> This really is covered in most undergraduate history and philosophy courses. If you want a discrete list of Da Vinci's major works and his claim to fame, well, Wikipedia is your friend.
The list of science and inventions you gave contains nothing of significance except in painting. Whenever it is even remotely about math/science/engineering, it's mostly about his job as an illustrator, plus a couple of bogus inventions that neither got built nor work (though I'm sure you can find something trivial that he drew that actually worked -- if you draw enough things one of them is bound to work).
> Da Vinci defines the term Renaissance Man. He had his nose into everything. He was prior to the likes of Galileo and Newton and a departure from Aristotle and Plato.
If your point is that he came before them, so he had the time against him, then I'll say again: it's about the delta not about the absolute achievement. Also note that there were lots of proper geniuses LONG before him, like Pythagoras (math; ~600BC), Eratosthenes (math, measured the diameter of the Earth; ~250BC -- what's truly astonishing is that humanity not only forgot the diameter of the Earth, it actually believed that the Earth is flat!) and Euclid (math, physics; ~300BC). On a related note: Aristotle is not in that list; his works on physics are basically bogus, why people ascribe some kind of physics genius to him in history lessons is again beyond me. For amazing engineering just look at the pyramids and the Roman empire.
Lets simplify this: name one important contribution to science, math or engineering.
If you are going to measure genius as only pertaining to math, science and engineering, in the modern senses of the word, then sure. In addition to art you are now excluding music, literature, history, politics, warfare, philosophy, finance, economics, ethics, law, and many other important areas of thought that shape our world.
Da Vinci areas of interest and activity were broad and novel. He was part of the milieu that brought about the modern world.
If you insist on one magic achievement, which seems a bit childish and over simplistic to me, call him a visual synthesist. He worked in modeling and visualization. I'll leave pigeonholing him into a modern discipline up to you. He really predated those holes, which are fuzzy and overlapping at best.
He, along with the other artists and thinkers of his time, created the modern concept of a visual representation. Something so basic and fundamental, and so divergent from what went before, that many people today, totally immersed in it, simply can't see it. It's like the air to them. Any time you see a working drawing, a photographic composition, a narrative image, or a pictorial observation, you are looking at a direct descendant of his tradition.
(Caravaggio, by the way, was a direct stylistic descendant of Da Vinci, visually quoting him several times.)
> It's cinematic. 500 years before the camera.
I never considered da Vinci to be a particularly realistic painter -- his faces look like they're made of wax and his perspective drawing is off -- I thought that was why people find his paintings special. But thanks for the explanation.
The point is that da Vinci is deified as "renaissance man", that is, a genius in science, engineering and mathematics as well as art, not just as a painter. For this I see no evidence whatsoever. I provided a concrete list of the contributions of Newton. I could do the same for Gauss and Euler and Euclid and Galilei and many others. What are da Vinci's supposed contributions to science, engineering and mathematics that are in any way comparable to those of Newton, Gauss, Galilei, Einstein or Euler? Concrete ones, please.
If you can't, then consider why that is. Why can I give great concrete contributions of all those people, yet you can't do the same for da Vinci? Might the reason be that there are none?
Da Vinci: great painter? Yes. Drew the occasional doubtful machine? Yes. Great mathematician? No. Great scientist? No. Great engineer? No.