Dilbert_X wrote:
Uzique The Lesser wrote:
you'd really call da vinci a scientist before an artist? i think dilbert would take offense associating such a long-haired hipster with science.
Da Vinci was easily more scientist than artist, most of his art was exercises in geometry.
false.. that's like saying every renaissance painter was a 'scientist'. proportion was the no.1 formal rule of classical painting. a painter painting to proportion and scale is no more a scientist than a poet who writes to a strict metre a mathematician.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/5ffd2/5ffd2c7c9e30c62fa5626f051222ac59a5cc3392" alt="https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRwK1N2SVd-OElf66u98tyR97JexD-H1ohq1OVkVtZX_vfXz88F"
of course da vinci was a polymath. but his fame around the world today is quite obviously as a canonized painter. you say da vinci, people think of a whole host of paintings - the last supper, for instance - rather than do they think of irrigating renaissance cities.
i guess vermeer was a researcher in dioptrics, to you?
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/06c0e/06c0e4347166a8250edd0d241041ca52a6dda607" alt="https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a2/Vermeer-view-of-delft.jpg/719px-Vermeer-view-of-delft.jpg"
and, ah, yes, seurat... chromatographer
Last edited by Uzique The Lesser (2013-07-15 04:21:19)