I see it. It is not uncommon for artists to sneak a little joke in here and there. The angles are a bit too tight to completely write off. The are a lot of pagen symbols in a lot of old churches, especially in England, as the artisans thoughts disagreed with the Church’s.
I was the joker in Nard’s pic before reading his comments.
So…people with hooked noses and clouds on their heads are the devil?
Also, that isn’t a smile. Most of us look like that during sex.
Is “The devil” getting some action up there?
His “eyes” are squinting. Is the sun in his eyes? Does he usually smile and close his eyes at the same time?
That must suck for driving.
Well, there is also a clump next to “the Devil”. I wonder who that is.
[quote]roybot wrote:
[quote]overstand wrote:
…I still don’t see it. Someone circle for me plz[/quote]
[/quote]
Looking AWAY from the guy in white right??
When people struggle this hard to see a face despite being told that there is a face in there then we can call this pure nonsense.
Artists did things like this all the time. Remember they were not free to paint what they wanted as they were under instruction from a powerful / influential patron. Therefore hidden meanings were often included in their work or certain people were portrayed in a different guise or in an unflattering way but never in an obvious way as to cause direct offense.
[quote]supa power wrote:
Looking AWAY from the guy in white right??
When people struggle this hard to see a face despite being told that there is a face in there then we can call this pure nonsense.[/quote]
When people struggle this hard to see a face despite being told that there is a face in there, exactly where it is, a big red circle around it and having some take the time to draw arrows pointing to each major feature with labels, and still get it wrong, I don’t think the authenticity of the face is the problem.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Well, there is also a clump next to “the Devil”. I wonder who that is.[/quote]
I see all the Klumps in that clump.
While artists did do things like that, this here is a stretch. We have no reason to believe that in this case…and that doesn’t look like the “iconic” devil. That looks like how bad artists used to draw villains back in the 1940’s.
"The figure is difficult to see from the floor of the basilica but emerges clearly in close-up photography.
Sergio Fusetti, the chief restorer of the basilica, said Giotto probably never wanted the image of the devil to be a main part of the fresco and may have painted it in among the clouds “to have a bit of fun.” "
I think I will side with this guy over bro-science.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
While artists did do things like that, this here is a stretch. We have no reason to believe that in this case…and that doesn’t look like the “iconic” devil. That looks like how bad artists used to draw villains back in the 1940’s.[/quote]
Images of the devil have changed over the centuries. The most common ones are caricatures of Jewish and Arabic features.
Kinda like our white anglo-saxon Jesus.
[quote]roybot wrote:
[quote]supa power wrote:
Looking AWAY from the guy in white right??
When people struggle this hard to see a face despite being told that there is a face in there then we can call this pure nonsense.[/quote]
When people struggle this hard to see a face despite being told that there is a face in there, exactly where it is, a big red circle around it and having some take the time to draw arrows pointing to each major feature with labels, and still get it wrong, I don’t think the authenticity of the face is the problem.[/quote]
Did you ever stop and think that maybe I was typing my post before your post showed up??? Clown.
Edit: Meant SLAINGEs post, not yours.
[quote]SkyzykS wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
While artists did do things like that, this here is a stretch. We have no reason to believe that in this case…and that doesn’t look like the “iconic” devil. That looks like how bad artists used to draw villains back in the 1940’s.[/quote]
Images of the devil have changed over the centuries. The most common ones are caricatures of Jewish and Arabic features.
Kinda like our white anglo-saxon Jesus.
[/quote]
Thanks Slainge/Roybot, I see it.
[quote]Tex Ag wrote:
[quote]SkyzykS wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
While artists did do things like that, this here is a stretch. We have no reason to believe that in this case…and that doesn’t look like the “iconic” devil. That looks like how bad artists used to draw villains back in the 1940’s.[/quote]
Images of the devil have changed over the centuries. The most common ones are caricatures of Jewish and Arabic features.
Kinda like our white anglo-saxon Jesus.
[/quote]
[/quote]
Have you seen the images that the Mormons pass out with their books?
Looks like a young Robert Redford with hippy hair.
13th century devils as depicted by Giotto - looks awful like Green Goblin
[quote]Professor X wrote:
We have no reason to believe that in this case…and that doesn’t look like the “iconic” devil. That looks like how bad artists used to draw villains back in the 1940’s.[/quote]
Ever wonder what influenced bad artists in the 40’s?
Satans depiction in art has changed over the centuries. He often had the heads of wild animals. He was also depicted not so much as a physical being but as a less well defined, ghostly, “spirit” being.
This is indication that visual depictions of the devil change over time, they ‘exist’ in the changing perceptions of people. In Byzantine art, demons are generally anthropomorphic, looking like angels… black, occasionally having horns or a tail. In the 15 and 16th centuries a radical shift from the humanoid to increasingly bestial forms like sheep, dogs, pigs took place…
Lets hear it for the fans of classical inspirational artwork! Yahoo!
[quote]supa power wrote:
[quote]roybot wrote:
[quote]supa power wrote:
Looking AWAY from the guy in white right??
When people struggle this hard to see a face despite being told that there is a face in there then we can call this pure nonsense.[/quote]
When people struggle this hard to see a face despite being told that there is a face in there, exactly where it is, a big red circle around it and having some take the time to draw arrows pointing to each major feature with labels, and still get it wrong, I don’t think the authenticity of the face is the problem.[/quote]
Did you ever stop and think that maybe I was typing my post before your post showed up??? Clown.
Edit: Meant SLAINGEs post, not yours.[/quote]
I sure did. Which means you toiled and labored for twelve minutes to craft that gem of a post, and even with the benefit of a big red ring you still couldn’t see the head. Either way, you’re in no position to call anybody a clown, let alone dismiss so much as a skidmark on a fresco as “nonsense”.
Interesting.
Until it was pointed out, I saw a completely different (bigger) face in profile.
This is how I saw it. A chubbier man’s face in profile versus the little pointy-nose Shakespeare caricature guy.
Edit: Nose just below eye.
I’m not sure what it is about this painting, but it really is mesmerizing.
It’s like I want to squeeze it or something…
[quote]roybot wrote:
[quote]supa power wrote:
[quote]roybot wrote:
[quote]supa power wrote:
Looking AWAY from the guy in white right??
When people struggle this hard to see a face despite being told that there is a face in there then we can call this pure nonsense.[/quote]
When people struggle this hard to see a face despite being told that there is a face in there, exactly where it is, a big red circle around it and having some take the time to draw arrows pointing to each major feature with labels, and still get it wrong, I don’t think the authenticity of the face is the problem.[/quote]
Did you ever stop and think that maybe I was typing my post before your post showed up??? Clown.
Edit: Meant SLAINGEs post, not yours.[/quote]
I sure did. Which means you toiled and labored for twelve minutes to craft that gem of a post, and even with the benefit of a big red ring you still couldn’t see the head. Either way, you’re in no position to call anybody a clown, let alone dismiss so much as a skidmark on a fresco as “nonsense”.[/quote]
No you didn’t, stop lying.
You have completly contradicted yourself. In your original post you said “and having some take the time to draw arrows pointing to each major feature” and in this response you say that you “sure did” account for me not seeing said picture. And fuck it, so what if I see a different face to you inside that red ring, We have already had several people with different interpretations of the “face”.
Oh yeah and it definately took me 12 minutes to type 3 lines.