4

Click here to load reader

Introduction: "Leonardo" and Leonardo da Vinci

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

Page 1: Introduction: "Leonardo" and Leonardo da Vinci

Leonardo

Introduction: "Leonardo" and Leonardo da VinciAuthor(s): David CarrierSource: Leonardo, Vol. 41, No. 1 (2008), pp. 36-38Published by: The MIT PressStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/20206514 .

Accessed: 15/06/2014 20:13

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

The MIT Press and Leonardo are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access toLeonardo.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 91.229.229.212 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 20:13:07 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Page 2: Introduction: "Leonardo" and Leonardo da Vinci

3

Introduction

Leonardo and Leonardo da Vinci

L eonardo da Vinci (1452-1519) is a natural namesake for Leonardo, ajournai devoted to exploring the relationships between art and science. Many visual artists have

taken a casual interest in science. They have been interested in anatomy, color theory and

perspective, those practical techniques for the working artist. Leonardo, however, is the only

major painter who devoted serious prolonged attention to studies dealing with science and

technology. He was interested in anatomy, hydraulics and optics and designed many very

original inventions. These scientific concerns influenced both his paintings and his abortive

sculptural projects. That Leonardo had such varied interests means that no single scholar today is com

petent to evaluate him. "An apology may be needed," Ernst Gombrich wrote in his study of Leonardo's account of fluid mechanics, "from an art historian proposing to approach a

subject, however tentatively, that extends far into the history of science" [1]. Art historians

such as Gombrich and Martin Kemp, who has published a book about Leonardo, hesitate

to judge his scientific materials, while historians of science and technology are not really

qualified to judge his art.

Leonardo has always had a mystique. His younger High Renaissance peers Michelangelo and Raphael also were very great artists; but Leonardo aspired to be something more: a uni

versal genius. Thus it is not surprising that such varied commentators as Giorgio Vasari, Wal

ter Pater, Sigmund Freud and Kenneth Clark have succumbed to his charm. Like many modern scholars, Vasari was fascinated by Leonardo's scientific interests:

He was continually making models and designs to show men how to move mountains with ease... and by means

of levers, windlasses, and screws, he showed the way to raise and draw great weights... and of these ideas and

labours many drawings may be seen... I myself have seen not a few [2].

No other artist described by Vasari combined such diverse interests. As Pater tells the story, when Leonardo

plunged... into the study of nature... he brooded over the hidden virtues of plants and crystals, the lines

traced by the stars as they moved in the sky, over the correspondences which exist between the different orders

of living things, through which, to eyes opened, they interpret each other [3].

Leonardo, he suggests, was a kind of magician. Freud also, in his wonderfully inventive

although not entirely reliable reconstruction of Leonardo's emotional life, speaks of how

constantly following the lead given by the requirements of his painting he was... driven to investigate the

painter's subjects, animals and plants, and the proportions of the human body.... He discovered the general laws of mechanics and divined the history of the stratification and fossilization in the Arno Valley.... His inves

tigations extended to practically every branch of natural science [4].

Freud traces Leonardo's interest in both art and science to a rich fantasy life. Clark, finally, concludes his book on Leonardo with a richly suggestive description of the painter's scien

tific interests.

He learns the vast power of natural forces and he pursues science as a means by which these forces can be

harnessed for human advantage... his studies of hydrodynamics suggest a power of water beyond human con

trol; his studies of geology show that the earth has undergone cataclysmic upheavals... his studies of embryol

ogy point to a central problem of creation apparently insoluble by science [5].

Everyone knows Leonardo's name and has heard of his most famous painting, the Mona

Lisa. Leonardo was famous, also, for his inability to complete his projects. For a long-lived, much appreciated artist, he finished a surprisingly small number of works of art. His Last

36 LEONARDO, Vol. 41, No. 1, pp. 36-38,2008 ?2008ISAST

This content downloaded from 91.229.229.212 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 20:13:07 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Page 3: Introduction: "Leonardo" and Leonardo da Vinci

Supper in Milan was a wreck soon after his death because he experimented with the fresco

technique. As for his gigantic statue of a rearing horse, the Milan Trivulzio Monument, the

models were destroyed and we know of it only by some sketches. His Battle of Anghiari,

painted in rivalry with Michelangelo in the Council Hall in Florence, survives only in some

copies by Rubens and other artists?the original painting has disappeared entirely. A num

ber of Leonardo's visual conceptions survive only in copies by pupils. Even the Mona Lisa, a commissioned portrait, was never delivered finished to its subject. The posthumous evalua

tion of every Renaissance artist depends to some extent upon fickle fate?many great paint

ings and sculptures were damaged, destroyed or lost. However, in his art, as in his scientific

investigations, Leonardo started more than he was able to complete. One senses that he him

self was more interested in the conception than in the completion of works of art. For that

reason, he attracts many present-day artists.

In Leonardo's time, long

One senses that he himself was before cameo and Isaac . , . , . Newton, the ideal of an

more interested in the conception experimental science was ,i ,i ix" ? i not yet established. He is not

than in the completion of works rJy the ancestor of such

of art For that reason, he attracts ~^~ ?f

many present-day artists. contrib;* totherdevelop ** * ment of physics. In astron

omy, he was concerned with

the appearances of heavenly bodies, not the observations of Copernicus and his successors, which created present-day scientific astronomy [6].

Furthermore, although Leonardo sometimes spoke skeptically about the claims of Scrip ture, his interest in fossils and the Deluge did not actually prepare the way for modern geol ogy and Darwin's theory of natural selection. As for his flying machines, they were not

genuine precursors of the airplanes of the Wright Brothers. Because he lacked suitable

technologies, these machines could not have gotten off the ground. His fascination with

military technology now seems more ominous, but here too there is a great gap between

his claims and his accomplishments. These inventions did not revolutionize warfare.

Leonardo's goal as scientist, to understand the world visually, proved to be essentially un

workable. Leonardo lacked the knowledge of mathematics and the interest in experimenta tion needed for real science. As for his anatomy, it was boldly original but played little role in

the scientific study of the human body, which created modern medicine. In the 17th century, a number of scholars, Tomasso Campanella and Athanasius Kircher for example, developed

extremely ambitious but totally flawed attempts to understand the natural order of things. These men were not precursors of modern scientists but late-medieval natural mystics who

thought that they could deduce the structure of the world by observation. Leonardo has

much more in common with these failed scientists than he does with Copernicus, Galileo

and Newton. "He was almost exclusively concerned with the questions of the bodies' physical appearance rather than with making measured observations of their behavior" [7]. Nor did

Leonardo have any connection to those inventors who developed the steam engine and the

apparatus of industrial culture.

No one can entirely transcend his own time, for the starting point for every artist and

scientist depends upon that person's precursors. Thus it would be unfair to complain about

the limits of Leonardo's scientific investigations or his technical apparatus. In his day, the

experimental study of nature had not yet developed. He was a great artist who also took a

genuine interest in the natural sciences. However, because the myths about Leonardo are

so powerful, it is important to adopt a realistic view of his accomplishments. His paintings remain extremely suggestive, but there is no good reason to think that his accomplishments as a visual artist were supported by sound scientific theories. Leonardo's art is great, but his

studies of science and technology are of interest only to intellectual historians.

3

Introduction: Leonardo and Leonardo da Vinci 37

This content downloaded from 91.229.229.212 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 20:13:07 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Page 4: Introduction: "Leonardo" and Leonardo da Vinci

This story deserves revisiting because it reveals much about the relationship of art and sci

ence in ways that concern Leonardo. In our culture, science and its associated technologies

have enormous prestige. We communicate via e-mail, gain information from the Web and

know a great deal about the structures of the micro- and macrocosm, much of which infor

. mation was unavailable a few

No one can entirely transcend his decades ago. science and .. r ., if ' i r technology advance dramati

own time, for the starting point for cally, and so naturaily our

every artist and scientist depends ~ZZ^, upon that person's precursors. 7eries- yhey

would h?pf 1 ' ' that visual art, too, could be

equally successful. It is not

clear, however, that these hopes are justified. When the history of the late-20th-century West

ern culture is written, Bill Gates will surely play a major role; but will any of our visual artists

be equally important? That question is hard to answer. Just as, in Leonardo's time, painters were involved with the optics of perspective, so do artists today make use of the many novel

computer technologies. The paintings of Masaccio, Piero della Francesca and other figures

depend upon perspective. It is not yet clear, in my opinion, whether any of the novel cre

ations of present-day visual artists are of equivalent interest.

One reason that Leonardo da Vinci deserves attention is that his art and scientific investi

gations are intrinsically fascinating. His drawings and paintings attract our attention, and spe cialist scholars are interested in his studies of experimentation and technology. Another

reason that he deserves attention in Leonardo is that we are interested in how his fascination

with the relationship of art and science can contribute to our present understanding. When

Frank Malina named this publication 40 years ago, he thus anticipated our present concerns.

David Carrier

Case Western Reserve University/Cleveland Institute of Art

E-mail: < david. carrier@cwru. edu >

References

1. Ernst Gombrich, "The Form of Movement in Water and Art," in Ernst Gombrich, The Heritage of Apelles: Studies in the Art of the Re naissance (London: Phaidon, 1976) p. 39.

2. Giorgio Vasari, Lives of the Painters, Sculptors and Architects, Gaston du C. de Ver?, trans. (New York and Toronto: Alfred A. Knopf, 1996) Vol. I, p. 627.

3. Walter Pater, The Renaissance: Studies in Art and Poetry (Berkeley, Los Angeles, and London: University of California Press, 1980) p. 81.

4. Sigmund Freud, Leonardo da Vinci and a Memory of His Childhood, Alan Tyson, trans. (New York: Norton, 1964) p. 26.

5. Kenneth Clark, Leonardo da Vinci (Harmondsworth, U.K.: Penguin Books, 1967) p. 160.

6. Martin Kemp, Leonardo da Vinci: The Marvellous Works of Nature and Man (Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press, 1981) p. 324.

7. Kemp [6] p. 324; see also Martin Kemp, The Science of Art: Optical Themes in Western Art from Brunelleschi to Seurat (New Haven, CT, and London, U.K.: Yale Univ. Press, 1990).

38 Introduction: Leonardo and Leonardo da Vinci

This content downloaded from 91.229.229.212 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 20:13:07 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions