On Focus: Walter Isaacson's Leonardo Da Vinci
Walter Isaacson’s Leonardo Da Vinci, a biography of Italian renaissance master artist Leonardo Da Vinci, recognizes the ingenuous demur behind Da Vinci's creations, as well as contextually examines the old celebrity we all know today. Throughout the first 4 chapters of the book, Isaacson explores Da Vinci’s childhood and early career life, starting from his humble upbringing in rural Italy, his apprentice stage in Florence, and his standalone career in Milan. Ultimately, Isaacson impacts his readers by decoding and humanizing the legendary Da Vinci, breaking down all of the fame and masterworks, to explore his past and inner personality in the modern age.
Isaacson delves deep into Da Vinci’s persona, starting from illegitimate upbringing due to the implications of his birth, in order to humanize him to the audience. Isaacson solemnly writes, “Being born out of wedlock was more complex than merely being an outside. It created an ambiguity of statutes...Leonardo [Da Vinci] was a member of a middle-class family but separate from it. Like so many writers and artists, he grew up feeling a part of the world but also detached.” (16). This shows that Da Vinci struggled to find his personal identity, whether it be socio-economically or politically, the term for illegitimate children restricted his career choices and heiring of his family, which undoubtedly affected him personally as historians decoded in his future notebooks. This status is important because modern society sees Da Vinci as a global marvel of high prestige and relevance, but Isaacson, also referring to Da Vinci as Leonardo always, stresses the importance to note that Da Vinci struggled socially with an out of marriage birth, bringing humility and empathy towards the artist. Isaacson further elaborates on this idea, sharing, “... in 1464 [his] world was disrupted. His stepmother, Albiera, died in childbirth, along with what would have been her first child. Leonardo’s grandfather Antonio, the head of the Vinci household, also had recently died. So just as Leonardo was reaching the age when he needed to prepare for a trade, his father, living alone and probably lonely, brought him to Florence.” (23). Isaacson's quote implies the personal trauma that Da Vinci was enduring, with two paternal figures in his life passing away, and a fast momentous chapter of his life beginning his relationship to his distant dad. This moment is important because it is important to note of Da Vinci’s two household lifestyle due to his birth parents later marrying, on top of illegitimacy causing no family member to want him after sudden death in his family; Da Vinci went through alot of personal trauma when it came to family matters, something unforeseen coming from this prominent figure in art. Regardless, Isaacson proves that Da Vinci, or as he prefers, Leonardo, went through similar experiences as everyday people are perceived to do, lowering the prestige and awe to his name, which captivated me personally and helped me relate.
Isaacson reveals a personal factor of Da Vinci’s lifestyle and personality: his homosexuality, and the implications that came with it in his early life. To further analyze this subject, Isaacson states,“...A week before [Da Vinci’s] twenty-fourth birthday, Leonardo was accused of engaging in sodomy with a male prostitute...The Officers of the Night… launched an investigation and may have imprisoned Leonardo… for a day or so. The charges could have led to serious criminal penalties.” (68). This excerpt shows one of the multiple incidents that Da Vinci was exposed socially in engaging in homosexual intercourse, which was highly penalized and socially looked down upon by the omniscient role of religion and societal standards. This incident is important because it connects with the audience, no matter what sexuality respectively, to sympathize for the oppressed human we read about, which means that Isaacson’s practice to humanize Da Vinci is successful. This topic is further evaluated when Isaacson writes, “Thirty years later, Leonardo wrote a bitter comment in a notebook: ‘When I made a Christ-child you put me in prison, and now if I show him grown up you will do worse to me’... At the time, Leonardo felt abandoned. ‘As I have told you before, I am without any of my friends...If there is no love, what then?’” (69). Emphasized here, by Da Vinci himself, is a relentless attack on societal norms about homosexuality in general, in which he is referencing his use of men as models, which initially started the suspicious remarks of others against him. This quote is important because Da Vinci has years of built up annoyance against society and his lack of freedom to love who he wants, and once more, makes the readers feel sympathy for him. Most readers of this book will find Da Vinci’s experiences concerning this topic appalling, and would wonder what differences could we see if Da Vinci lived in a different century.
In sum, Isaacson’s interpretation of Da Vinci’s lifestyle focuses on bringing the prestige of Da Vinci down to eye level, which is mainly focused on during the first few chapters. Whether it being his upbringing of illegitimacy or his sexual orientation, one cannot help to sympathize and connect on a personal level to subject, setting up the rest of the book contextually and emotionally.
----
It is no easy task to suddenly want to write a 600 page biography on one of the greatest and most famous artists in the world; nevertheless to actually have a passion for it. Walter Isaacson, a famous writer, historian, journalist, scholar, CEO of the Aspen Institute, past chairman of CNN, and managing editor of “TIME” magazine, has rose to international fame in recent years for his in depth biography analysis of various monumental humans throughout global history. With written biographies of Steve Jobs, Benjamin Franklin, Albert Einstein, Henry Kissinger, and now Leonardo Da Vinci, it is without a doubt that Isaacson is an experienced and intellectual scholar. Walter Isaacson, with a large variety of previous experience, successfully weaves a narrative of Da Vinci’s life, showing his own reasons, talents, previous knowledge, and interests through the immense research and background needed to create this historic book.
Why would someone like Walter Isaacson, a historian with virtually no previous experience in researching or writing about art, have the passion to create such an elaborate book? In the podcast “Art of Manliness”, an interview with Isaacson shares the following: “You know, I realized over the course of my career that I’d met a lot of smart people, but that smart people often don’t amount to much. The question is how do you be innovative? And so I tried to write a book about what is creativity and how do you achieve it?” Isaacson's statement tells us that the subject of the person in topic does not matter, whether it being computers or art, that it is more affected by their source of innovation. This is important because this fascinated Isaacson. When looking at who he has written about, the subjects aren’t related to each other at all. In fact, their drive and innovation inspires him to conduct highly sophisticated research and add in his writing skills to thoroughly created a respectful story worthy of their ingenuous. To further elaborate on his selectiveness and inspirations, Walter Isaacson shares in Leonardo Da Vinci, “I embarked on this book because Leonardo Da Vinci is the ultimate example of the main theme of my previous biographies: how the ability to make connections across disciplines--arts and sciences, humanities and technology-- is key to innovation, imagination, and genius.” (3). Isaacson stresses his source of inspiration for his topics are people who span their genius to multiple fields. This shows his desire to scholarly “dissect” an innovator, and know why and how they reached this popularity.
To be able to write a biography of this caliber, you must have the skills and drive handled by Isaacson. Never has there been a biography of Leonardo Da Vinci that thoroughly tells his life as a straight narrative, while also examining the 7,500 notebook pages he left behind to create ultimatum predictions of his life, to this extent. As a student of history at Oxford University and Harvard University, he was set with the foreground to be able to pull of this massive work of human scholarship. Although Isaacson managed to create a fascinating story with monumental evidence, its important to point out that he is no art historian. Isaacson is currently a history professor at Tulane University with no art history degree or reputation. In New York Times’ article, “Walter Isaacson’s ‘Leonardo da Vinci’ Is the Portrait of a Real Renaissance Man”, journalist Jennifer Senior manages to bring up an interesting point, “I’m not sure the role of art critic suits him. Isaacson’s enthusiasm is admirable, but he hails many of Leonardo’s creations in the same breathless tone with which a teenager might greet a new Apple product...As an art historian, Isaacson falls prey to the excesses of the profession, adopting the oracular tone of a museum docent…” This except critiques Isaacson's lack of art history education or training to know how to thoroughly express a painting. This is highly important because Leonardo Da Vinci, on top of many other things, is mainly an artist, which begs the question: How was Isaacson able to write about such a worldly figure primarily in the art community? The answer to that question is unknown, which further emphasizes the genius behind him, and we can only hope for some historian in the future to write a biography on Isaacson himself.
Nevertheless, Walter Isaacson has proven to be able to create such a scholarly narrative, and while his process for selecting these topics may be unprecedented, there is no doubt that he is unprepared for these tasks, as he has proven once again with Leonardo Da Vinci that his education, past knowledge, and scholar attitude have triumphed.
----
In his biographical novel, Leonardo Da Vinci (2017), Walter Isaacson successfully seeks to organize the entire history of Da Vinci and his impact, including his masterworks, which are described through unprofessional and juvenile rhetorical appeals and diction; reflected through Isaacson’s background and his description of the Last Supper (Chapter 18). Isaacson expands on this idea with unfamiliarity, as he tried to meticulously and scholarly describe the art works technically, yet fails due to no personal background in art history, as most notably seen in his unprofessional diction and repetition of common words, like “...discrete, self-contained, frozen, delineated, just as no boundary in nature is sharply delineated…” (281), as well as simple or non applicable metaphors and analogies, for instance,”like a stone thrown into a pond, pronouncement causes ripples outwards…(282), when describing the Last Supper; which can take away his credibility to some. Isaacson's purpose of implementing these rhetorical strategies is to connect to the scholarly audience in a lectural manner, yet fails to further elaborate on the technical sides of the painting, as he only spends half a page on technique, and dedicates too much time on contextualization and the historical ties; which can also be rooted to his position as a historian. Overall, Isaacson’s tone assumes a highly educated audience, as no unfamiliar with art would pick up this book, which in turn calls onto a higher criticism of his art analysis techniques that are filled with unsettling, repetitive, and lackluster diction and metaphors.
----
During my recent visit to Paris, France, this last spring break, I found myself wondering down the halls of the Louvre, d’Orsay, l’Orangerie, and more, in complete awe of the masterworks from Leonardo Da Vinci. From Virgin on the Rocks, Angel Gabriel, Death of the Virgin, and even the Mona Lisa, the prestige and mastery surrounding this pieces seemed close to god-like, overwhelming me even with the more miniscule features. While reading Walter Isaacson’s Leonardo Da Vinci, I was able to make the link between the grandiose artist on canvas and the normal human being on paper. Thus, Walter Isaacson manages to humanize Leonardo Da Vinci all throughout the biography, making the read not only relatable, but also giving an in-depth individualistic look at one of the Renaissance masters.
One of Isaacson’s multitudes of years of Da Vinci’s life focuses on his commision of the Battle of Anghiari by Florence’s Council Hall, in which he worked alongside Michelangelo, another Renaissance master new into the Italian-city state of Florence, to create these commissions. Although now painted over, these murals were one of the first times pre-Sistine Chapel Michelangelo and Pre-Mona Lisa Da Vinci met personally in frequent, and went off with a bad start. Isaacson shares, “It is enticing to think of what might have occurred if Michelangelo had treated him as a mentor. But that did not happen...he displayed instead ‘a very great disdain’ toward Leonardo” (357). Michelangelo, although a rookie in fresco mural painting, had a toxic attitude toward Leonardo, and never took the advantage to learn technicality and expressiveness from him. Personally, I found this interesting as a reader and an art history fan to know that these two were familiar personally, and were notorious to treat each other horrible. Isaacson expands on this idea by implementing more historical evidence, with,”...[Leonardo] preferred that Michelangelo’s statue be put in an inconspicuous space...He argued that the statue be installed ‘with decent ornament’” (370-371). Da Vinci was a chair member of Florence’s board to decide where Michelangelo’s new masterpiece, the statue of David, would reside, in which Da Vinci wanted it to be hidden as well as its nude genitals covered. Even though Da Vinci was successful in both of his concerned motions, we know that Da Vinci was not afraid of nudity in his paintings, yet he rather embraced it regularly as a form of art and anatomy. Thus, this movement was a strategic and, for lack of better words, petty attack on Michelangelo due to constant rivalry and disrespect for eachother. Their disdain towards each other is not known in popular media, and is an interesting aspect Isaacson brings into play, ultimately humanizing both of them from their grandiose position in history and down to real and moody humans.
Closer to the end of the novel, Isaacson write thoughly of Da Vinci’s inner thoughts and emotions during his end. Although not at all highlighted on in art history courses worldwide, Da Vinci’s death and the time before it are imperative to understand his personality and individualism, unlike what we are used too from Da Vinci. Isaacson writes, “Then abruptly, almost at the end of hr page, he breaks off his writing with an ‘et cetera’. That is followed by a line...explaining why he is putting down his pen. ‘Pereche la minestra si fredda’ he writes. Because the soup is getting cold.” (511). Isaacson captures Da Vinci’s last moments by examining his last official journal passage, in which he takes off his pen from the parchment abruptly, with text surrounding his last squared-root triangle problems. His allegory of “the soup is getting cold” is not to be taken physically, as Da Vinci was known to play with humor in his personal journals, as well as due to his previous notion of his own death approaching due to sickness. His play on words and attitude towards this dark time makes his character even more relatable and applicable to me personally from the 21st century. Isaacson continues on this topic of his death and his personality shining through it, when he examines his official will and testament, in which Da Vinci commended his “soul to our Lord, Almighty God, and to the glorious Virgin Mary.” (512). Although this may seem Da Vinci a religiously motivated painter, that is just not the case. He leaves this message for not only his own personal humor purposes, but to also make his will and funeral seem official, as well as his life to be respected by the powerful non-secular church during that time. We do know that Da Vinci “proved” scientifically in his own way through anatomical drawings and dissections that the fetus in the womb has no physical soul, as well that the Old-Testament Flood never happened; setting his background of a non-conforming religious individual. Thus, Isaacson succeeds in writing about Da Vinci in a way that shows his inner core, through his humor, grudges, and religious beliefs, that make the reading and the subject more relatable, interesting, and unique.
All-in-all, Walter Isaacson’s Leonardo Da Vinci is a masterwork that can be compared to those hung in grand museums all of the world of Da Vinci. The author manages to define Da Vinci’s societal conflicts, religious beliefs, humor, and individualism, which is not known in popular culture or taught scholarly. With his ultimate goal of humanizing the prestigious individual, this biography compelled me as a reader, traveller, and as an art history fan.
Walter Isaacson’s Leonardo Da Vinci, a biography of Italian renaissance master artist Leonardo Da Vinci, recognizes the ingenuous demur behind Da Vinci's creations, as well as contextually examines the old celebrity we all know today. Throughout the first 4 chapters of the book, Isaacson explores Da Vinci’s childhood and early career life, starting from his humble upbringing in rural Italy, his apprentice stage in Florence, and his standalone career in Milan. Ultimately, Isaacson impacts his readers by decoding and humanizing the legendary Da Vinci, breaking down all of the fame and masterworks, to explore his past and inner personality in the modern age.
Isaacson delves deep into Da Vinci’s persona, starting from illegitimate upbringing due to the implications of his birth, in order to humanize him to the audience. Isaacson solemnly writes, “Being born out of wedlock was more complex than merely being an outside. It created an ambiguity of statutes...Leonardo [Da Vinci] was a member of a middle-class family but separate from it. Like so many writers and artists, he grew up feeling a part of the world but also detached.” (16). This shows that Da Vinci struggled to find his personal identity, whether it be socio-economically or politically, the term for illegitimate children restricted his career choices and heiring of his family, which undoubtedly affected him personally as historians decoded in his future notebooks. This status is important because modern society sees Da Vinci as a global marvel of high prestige and relevance, but Isaacson, also referring to Da Vinci as Leonardo always, stresses the importance to note that Da Vinci struggled socially with an out of marriage birth, bringing humility and empathy towards the artist. Isaacson further elaborates on this idea, sharing, “... in 1464 [his] world was disrupted. His stepmother, Albiera, died in childbirth, along with what would have been her first child. Leonardo’s grandfather Antonio, the head of the Vinci household, also had recently died. So just as Leonardo was reaching the age when he needed to prepare for a trade, his father, living alone and probably lonely, brought him to Florence.” (23). Isaacson's quote implies the personal trauma that Da Vinci was enduring, with two paternal figures in his life passing away, and a fast momentous chapter of his life beginning his relationship to his distant dad. This moment is important because it is important to note of Da Vinci’s two household lifestyle due to his birth parents later marrying, on top of illegitimacy causing no family member to want him after sudden death in his family; Da Vinci went through alot of personal trauma when it came to family matters, something unforeseen coming from this prominent figure in art. Regardless, Isaacson proves that Da Vinci, or as he prefers, Leonardo, went through similar experiences as everyday people are perceived to do, lowering the prestige and awe to his name, which captivated me personally and helped me relate.
Isaacson reveals a personal factor of Da Vinci’s lifestyle and personality: his homosexuality, and the implications that came with it in his early life. To further analyze this subject, Isaacson states,“...A week before [Da Vinci’s] twenty-fourth birthday, Leonardo was accused of engaging in sodomy with a male prostitute...The Officers of the Night… launched an investigation and may have imprisoned Leonardo… for a day or so. The charges could have led to serious criminal penalties.” (68). This excerpt shows one of the multiple incidents that Da Vinci was exposed socially in engaging in homosexual intercourse, which was highly penalized and socially looked down upon by the omniscient role of religion and societal standards. This incident is important because it connects with the audience, no matter what sexuality respectively, to sympathize for the oppressed human we read about, which means that Isaacson’s practice to humanize Da Vinci is successful. This topic is further evaluated when Isaacson writes, “Thirty years later, Leonardo wrote a bitter comment in a notebook: ‘When I made a Christ-child you put me in prison, and now if I show him grown up you will do worse to me’... At the time, Leonardo felt abandoned. ‘As I have told you before, I am without any of my friends...If there is no love, what then?’” (69). Emphasized here, by Da Vinci himself, is a relentless attack on societal norms about homosexuality in general, in which he is referencing his use of men as models, which initially started the suspicious remarks of others against him. This quote is important because Da Vinci has years of built up annoyance against society and his lack of freedom to love who he wants, and once more, makes the readers feel sympathy for him. Most readers of this book will find Da Vinci’s experiences concerning this topic appalling, and would wonder what differences could we see if Da Vinci lived in a different century.
In sum, Isaacson’s interpretation of Da Vinci’s lifestyle focuses on bringing the prestige of Da Vinci down to eye level, which is mainly focused on during the first few chapters. Whether it being his upbringing of illegitimacy or his sexual orientation, one cannot help to sympathize and connect on a personal level to subject, setting up the rest of the book contextually and emotionally.
----
It is no easy task to suddenly want to write a 600 page biography on one of the greatest and most famous artists in the world; nevertheless to actually have a passion for it. Walter Isaacson, a famous writer, historian, journalist, scholar, CEO of the Aspen Institute, past chairman of CNN, and managing editor of “TIME” magazine, has rose to international fame in recent years for his in depth biography analysis of various monumental humans throughout global history. With written biographies of Steve Jobs, Benjamin Franklin, Albert Einstein, Henry Kissinger, and now Leonardo Da Vinci, it is without a doubt that Isaacson is an experienced and intellectual scholar. Walter Isaacson, with a large variety of previous experience, successfully weaves a narrative of Da Vinci’s life, showing his own reasons, talents, previous knowledge, and interests through the immense research and background needed to create this historic book.
Why would someone like Walter Isaacson, a historian with virtually no previous experience in researching or writing about art, have the passion to create such an elaborate book? In the podcast “Art of Manliness”, an interview with Isaacson shares the following: “You know, I realized over the course of my career that I’d met a lot of smart people, but that smart people often don’t amount to much. The question is how do you be innovative? And so I tried to write a book about what is creativity and how do you achieve it?” Isaacson's statement tells us that the subject of the person in topic does not matter, whether it being computers or art, that it is more affected by their source of innovation. This is important because this fascinated Isaacson. When looking at who he has written about, the subjects aren’t related to each other at all. In fact, their drive and innovation inspires him to conduct highly sophisticated research and add in his writing skills to thoroughly created a respectful story worthy of their ingenuous. To further elaborate on his selectiveness and inspirations, Walter Isaacson shares in Leonardo Da Vinci, “I embarked on this book because Leonardo Da Vinci is the ultimate example of the main theme of my previous biographies: how the ability to make connections across disciplines--arts and sciences, humanities and technology-- is key to innovation, imagination, and genius.” (3). Isaacson stresses his source of inspiration for his topics are people who span their genius to multiple fields. This shows his desire to scholarly “dissect” an innovator, and know why and how they reached this popularity.
To be able to write a biography of this caliber, you must have the skills and drive handled by Isaacson. Never has there been a biography of Leonardo Da Vinci that thoroughly tells his life as a straight narrative, while also examining the 7,500 notebook pages he left behind to create ultimatum predictions of his life, to this extent. As a student of history at Oxford University and Harvard University, he was set with the foreground to be able to pull of this massive work of human scholarship. Although Isaacson managed to create a fascinating story with monumental evidence, its important to point out that he is no art historian. Isaacson is currently a history professor at Tulane University with no art history degree or reputation. In New York Times’ article, “Walter Isaacson’s ‘Leonardo da Vinci’ Is the Portrait of a Real Renaissance Man”, journalist Jennifer Senior manages to bring up an interesting point, “I’m not sure the role of art critic suits him. Isaacson’s enthusiasm is admirable, but he hails many of Leonardo’s creations in the same breathless tone with which a teenager might greet a new Apple product...As an art historian, Isaacson falls prey to the excesses of the profession, adopting the oracular tone of a museum docent…” This except critiques Isaacson's lack of art history education or training to know how to thoroughly express a painting. This is highly important because Leonardo Da Vinci, on top of many other things, is mainly an artist, which begs the question: How was Isaacson able to write about such a worldly figure primarily in the art community? The answer to that question is unknown, which further emphasizes the genius behind him, and we can only hope for some historian in the future to write a biography on Isaacson himself.
Nevertheless, Walter Isaacson has proven to be able to create such a scholarly narrative, and while his process for selecting these topics may be unprecedented, there is no doubt that he is unprepared for these tasks, as he has proven once again with Leonardo Da Vinci that his education, past knowledge, and scholar attitude have triumphed.
----
In his biographical novel, Leonardo Da Vinci (2017), Walter Isaacson successfully seeks to organize the entire history of Da Vinci and his impact, including his masterworks, which are described through unprofessional and juvenile rhetorical appeals and diction; reflected through Isaacson’s background and his description of the Last Supper (Chapter 18). Isaacson expands on this idea with unfamiliarity, as he tried to meticulously and scholarly describe the art works technically, yet fails due to no personal background in art history, as most notably seen in his unprofessional diction and repetition of common words, like “...discrete, self-contained, frozen, delineated, just as no boundary in nature is sharply delineated…” (281), as well as simple or non applicable metaphors and analogies, for instance,”like a stone thrown into a pond, pronouncement causes ripples outwards…(282), when describing the Last Supper; which can take away his credibility to some. Isaacson's purpose of implementing these rhetorical strategies is to connect to the scholarly audience in a lectural manner, yet fails to further elaborate on the technical sides of the painting, as he only spends half a page on technique, and dedicates too much time on contextualization and the historical ties; which can also be rooted to his position as a historian. Overall, Isaacson’s tone assumes a highly educated audience, as no unfamiliar with art would pick up this book, which in turn calls onto a higher criticism of his art analysis techniques that are filled with unsettling, repetitive, and lackluster diction and metaphors.
----
During my recent visit to Paris, France, this last spring break, I found myself wondering down the halls of the Louvre, d’Orsay, l’Orangerie, and more, in complete awe of the masterworks from Leonardo Da Vinci. From Virgin on the Rocks, Angel Gabriel, Death of the Virgin, and even the Mona Lisa, the prestige and mastery surrounding this pieces seemed close to god-like, overwhelming me even with the more miniscule features. While reading Walter Isaacson’s Leonardo Da Vinci, I was able to make the link between the grandiose artist on canvas and the normal human being on paper. Thus, Walter Isaacson manages to humanize Leonardo Da Vinci all throughout the biography, making the read not only relatable, but also giving an in-depth individualistic look at one of the Renaissance masters.
One of Isaacson’s multitudes of years of Da Vinci’s life focuses on his commision of the Battle of Anghiari by Florence’s Council Hall, in which he worked alongside Michelangelo, another Renaissance master new into the Italian-city state of Florence, to create these commissions. Although now painted over, these murals were one of the first times pre-Sistine Chapel Michelangelo and Pre-Mona Lisa Da Vinci met personally in frequent, and went off with a bad start. Isaacson shares, “It is enticing to think of what might have occurred if Michelangelo had treated him as a mentor. But that did not happen...he displayed instead ‘a very great disdain’ toward Leonardo” (357). Michelangelo, although a rookie in fresco mural painting, had a toxic attitude toward Leonardo, and never took the advantage to learn technicality and expressiveness from him. Personally, I found this interesting as a reader and an art history fan to know that these two were familiar personally, and were notorious to treat each other horrible. Isaacson expands on this idea by implementing more historical evidence, with,”...[Leonardo] preferred that Michelangelo’s statue be put in an inconspicuous space...He argued that the statue be installed ‘with decent ornament’” (370-371). Da Vinci was a chair member of Florence’s board to decide where Michelangelo’s new masterpiece, the statue of David, would reside, in which Da Vinci wanted it to be hidden as well as its nude genitals covered. Even though Da Vinci was successful in both of his concerned motions, we know that Da Vinci was not afraid of nudity in his paintings, yet he rather embraced it regularly as a form of art and anatomy. Thus, this movement was a strategic and, for lack of better words, petty attack on Michelangelo due to constant rivalry and disrespect for eachother. Their disdain towards each other is not known in popular media, and is an interesting aspect Isaacson brings into play, ultimately humanizing both of them from their grandiose position in history and down to real and moody humans.
Closer to the end of the novel, Isaacson write thoughly of Da Vinci’s inner thoughts and emotions during his end. Although not at all highlighted on in art history courses worldwide, Da Vinci’s death and the time before it are imperative to understand his personality and individualism, unlike what we are used too from Da Vinci. Isaacson writes, “Then abruptly, almost at the end of hr page, he breaks off his writing with an ‘et cetera’. That is followed by a line...explaining why he is putting down his pen. ‘Pereche la minestra si fredda’ he writes. Because the soup is getting cold.” (511). Isaacson captures Da Vinci’s last moments by examining his last official journal passage, in which he takes off his pen from the parchment abruptly, with text surrounding his last squared-root triangle problems. His allegory of “the soup is getting cold” is not to be taken physically, as Da Vinci was known to play with humor in his personal journals, as well as due to his previous notion of his own death approaching due to sickness. His play on words and attitude towards this dark time makes his character even more relatable and applicable to me personally from the 21st century. Isaacson continues on this topic of his death and his personality shining through it, when he examines his official will and testament, in which Da Vinci commended his “soul to our Lord, Almighty God, and to the glorious Virgin Mary.” (512). Although this may seem Da Vinci a religiously motivated painter, that is just not the case. He leaves this message for not only his own personal humor purposes, but to also make his will and funeral seem official, as well as his life to be respected by the powerful non-secular church during that time. We do know that Da Vinci “proved” scientifically in his own way through anatomical drawings and dissections that the fetus in the womb has no physical soul, as well that the Old-Testament Flood never happened; setting his background of a non-conforming religious individual. Thus, Isaacson succeeds in writing about Da Vinci in a way that shows his inner core, through his humor, grudges, and religious beliefs, that make the reading and the subject more relatable, interesting, and unique.
All-in-all, Walter Isaacson’s Leonardo Da Vinci is a masterwork that can be compared to those hung in grand museums all of the world of Da Vinci. The author manages to define Da Vinci’s societal conflicts, religious beliefs, humor, and individualism, which is not known in popular culture or taught scholarly. With his ultimate goal of humanizing the prestigious individual, this biography compelled me as a reader, traveller, and as an art history fan.
Comments
Post a Comment