Artwork of The Da Vinci Code: Virgin of the Rocks
Increasing my Capacity for Leadership: I needed to have security
Even leaders have questions about life: Talk with us today
Leonardo da Vinci (1483-1486)
27 Responses to “Artwork of The Da Vinci Code: Virgin of the Rocks”
Leave a Reply
Start a Conversation
Media
Soul Cravings: Seeking
Is it possible that God has been actively seeking you, possibly even for a lifetime?
>Watch
Do you crave destiny? (Part 2)
Destiny? Is this really me? Was I really born for great things?
>Watch
Copyright © 2010 Power to Change Ministries. All Rights Reserved
Is that Gollum from Lord of the Rings on the bottom right? Maybe a little too chubby.
How in the world could you possibly think that. That last supper is recorded and said to be his twelve disciples. That can not be Gollum, because he is a fictional character and he is certainly not one of Jesus’ twelve disciples.
Just wondering which Virgin of the Rocks painting this is? Is it the original one or the second one he painted after his patrons were horrified with the first? (Yes, this part of the book is true, see the Wikipedia entry on this topic.) Are you going to put up the other one later on?
Just curious.
Sorry Nick. Poor attempt at humour. which disciple do you think it is? Don’t forget, I believe it is Jesus as a toddler on the left.
I was offended by TDVC. Now when I was offended by the Danish cartoons, the NYT and NPR wisely banned them. Any chance for similar action?
Silly anon,
It is politically correct (and predicted by Jesus himself) to hate Christians. Therefore, banning of the Davinci Code is likely only within the Vatican.
You know “Freedom of Speech”
Sheldon, the Vatican does not ban books.
I know Gary. I was just commenting about the chances of the NYT or NPR banning DVC.
Claire, went to wikipedia (your link did not work http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virgin_of_the_Rocks)
and the entry there does not support Dan Brown’s interpretation of events at all. If anything, wikipedia suggests Brown’s story is fictional.
“There is no historical evidence to support any of these contentions.”
This is not the version of the Virgin of the Rocks that is in the Louvre (the one pictured here). This is the one in the National Gallery in London.
What annoys me about the Da Vinci Code is that he says in the foreward that “all descriptions of artwork…are accurate” and yet he describes the Louvre Virgin of the Rocks as being five feet tall and painted on canvas. Yeah, hello, it’s almost 78 inches tall (6 1/2 ft) and is oil on wood panel. You can’t bend wood panel (as Sophie does). Sloppy, sloppy.
Hey Serena, thanks so much for setting us all straight! I appreciate your posts because you actually know about Art, contrary to me! Very interesting to see that Brown himself was wrong about this painting…begs the question, how many other things was he wrong about? Of course that brings us back to the fact that this book is Fiction….which is sort of like, the chicken and the egg argument….it’s fiction, which means it isn’t true, and it isn’t true, therefore it’s fiction!! So if the description of the artwork isn’t accurate…then what is the chance that anything else is accurate? Hmmmmm…very interesting!
Serena, you have them mixes up. The MADONNA of the rocks is in the Louvre while the VIRGIN of the rocks is in the National Gallery. The one in the Louvre is pained on canvas, while the one in the National Gallery is on a wood panel. SOPHIE in the book was in the Louvre with the MADONNA not the VIRGIN. And YES it’s correct that she had the right paining on CANVAS.
I couldn’t care less.
to mark….. if you couldnt care less why are you reading this??
Mark,
It sounds like you are one of the many that will not accecpt what they refuse to understand. Clearly you have no business in here discussing FACTS from FICTION.
David is right Serena, while similar, the Madonna and Virgin of the rocks are easy to mix up. TDVC was actually factually correct about the art. The dimensions he mentions are correct too, I rememebr being taller than the painting while looking at it, and I am definetely not 6.5ft!!!
i do agree with david and belive each word came in the DVC, coz it built on logical conclusions.Davinci was realy genious.the history would change if we could understand correctly the davinci art by way that we remove all our experience moment when we look at the paints.
victor, your comment is interesting. When you say you \”belive each word came in the DVC, coz it built on logical conclusions\”, do you mean you believe everything that Brown writes in his novel? If so, perhaps reading these articles might be beneficial:
http://davinci.thelife.com/2006/05/23/did-leonardo-da-vinci-hate-the-bible/
http://davinci.thelife.com/2006/05/20/podcast-opus-dei-and-the-priory-of-sion/
http://davinci.thelife.com/2006/05/26/how-many-gospels/
http://davinci.thelife.com/2006/05/29/was-jesus-considered-merely-a-man/
If an argument is based on a firm foundation, then it may be viable, but if it is based on sloppy research and misrepresenting history, then it is not.
While I do believe that Leonardo Da Vince was a genius, I don’t believe in everthing he said “decoded or not”. Leonardo just like everyone of us was a MAN. How can anyone say that HE is not the one pulling a hoax? Afterall, it’s not like he was present at the “Last Supper” telling all parties to: “Please, smile and stay still” while he paints their portrait. What we have is the “word” of a common man, genuis, famous painter… but also a bitter person that really didn’t like how things were at the time and in the end known as a prankster. Basically, I take this information, for what it’s worth… just informational input. When the time comes, and the Lord is willling, I will know what’s meant for me to know.
A common man like Da Vinci cannot honestly be expected to have thought the outrageous thoughts put out by TDVC whilst painting his stunning artworks. While it was a great read, I beg you all to remember fiction is simply that. During recent court case it was made clear that Brown (and his wife) were out to write a novel based around art works that exist today for an added realistic aspect. This is the hook- we know the artwork and that keeps us intrigued- how they all link together to provide the clues needed to solve the chase is why people found the book so good. Leonardo was a genius and ahead of his time, but the theories Brown puts foward are conspiriacies and he readily admits that.
I am looking at my art book, I am a college freshman and am very much into this whole Jesus had a wife thing. Both Serena and David are right… my book says “Leonardo Da Vinci, Madonna on the Rocks, 1483-85. Oil on wood, TRANSFERRED to canvas..” That is the second one Da Vinci painted. But I was wondering, as I’m looking at the original from my book, isn’t the baby on the right John the Baptist along with his mother Elizabeth? And if thats the case it’s not Jesus’ apostle but his cousin and his aunt.
All of yall are stupid
That’s great eric, thanks for your well thought out comment. We see you’ve put all of your wisdom into it.
regardless whether it was right or not …it was a great book…and i think when david said that the descriptions of the painting were accurate he ment the painting itself not what is what painted on or with.
i meant dan…lol
QUOTE: “All of yall are stupid”
To: Eric
I really enjoyed you choice of words and can clearly say: I have never seen “All” and “Y’all” in the same sentance.
Just remarkable!
Finnaly! People i can relate to. People with comman sense and intelligent comments (with the acception of eric and mark). Im 14 years old and i cant stand my classmates because theyre all so immature. Anyways im doing a report on Leonardo Da Vinci. Hes so fascinating! This happens to be my favorite artwork. But you wonder about Da Vinci. Unable to finish most of his works (not very responsible), and disects people for the perfection of his portraits? However he was the most amazing person. Artist, architect, assistant of a famous mathematician, mechanics, human anatomy!! Pure genius.