Topic: DaVinci

I came across a book of quotes the other day here's one I found from the great Leonardo;

"The poet ranks far below the painter in the representation of visible things.
And far below the musician in that of invisible things."

You'd think such a great artist would have more vision than that, but let's be honest, the only songs they had in those days were opera or folk, which unfortunately tell a story but not in a lyrical way which we have here. So the question is; would Leonardo be such a big artist if he were alive today? I think not as artists don't get famous till they die.

What are your thoughts; is poetry lower than other forms of art?

Phill

Ask not what Chordie can do for you, but what you can do for Chordie.

Re: DaVinci

I don't interpret his quote to say that poetry or music are less than art... as he is specifically referring to the representation of "visible things" and lets face it... poetry and music certainly are more ethereal and a less literal interp of visual things, and in fact most poetry and music is not interpretive of "visual things" at all -- usually more emotive.  Also it is important to remember that at the time DaVinci was active, visual art was intended to be a very realistic interpretation of reality.  If he were alive to see the Impressionist movement and certainly any of the Post Impressionist era, he would most certainly have a different point of view relative to this statement and likely would not have thought very highly of such modern artists.  wink

Re: DaVinci

I certainly agree. Most of the Arts were at a different state of development compared to today. There were no novels ( Cervantes wouldn't be born for another forty years), plays were limited to church miracle plays, and if you had played a flatted 7th you'ld have been chucked out of lute school.

At least you could tell what a painter was getting at.

"What's so funny 'bout peace, love and understandin' ."    Elvis Costello