Devil Found in Detail of Giotto Fresco in Italy

Off Topic
41

[quote]SLAINGE wrote:

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…[/quote]

The Christian devil took form after the Horned God in Wicca. He is usually depicted with horns, sometimes curled like a ram’s. It was Church propaganda to turn people away from the “devil” worship of “pagan” religions to the true faith of Catholicism.

42

[quote]supa power wrote:
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”.
[/quote]

43

[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]

Agreed.

This is like finding Jesus on a cheese sandwich.

Why is it news?

44

the composition seems to represent Francis’ saintliness in a quaternity of angelic natures
standard depiction of ‘holiness’ deriving from equal development of self at extremes of spectrum balanced left-to-right and top-to-bottom

the devil appears in the fifth place, in the point of an inverted pentagram
nature, sexuality, beastliness are cleaved from him and reduced to the ephemeral but adhere, and menace with lasciviousness, the groin of one of his angels
adds the third ‘z’ dimension to the two dimensional representation delineated by the ‘x’ and ‘y’ co-ordinate graphing of the quaternity of functions

his own head forms the sixth point, completing the interlacing of microcosm and macrocosm in the hexagram

i’m curious how much of this conformity to template is consciously executed. People with no esoteric knowledge regularly perpetrate art unknowingly following rule systems of ancient iconographic traditions while they are in ecstatic states.

45

[quote]supa power wrote:

[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. [/quote]

The time difference between my ‘red circle’ post and your first post is 12 mins; the time difference between that post and SLAINGE’s ‘arrow’ post is 8 mins…the time stamps verify that…so, either you posted after seeing SLAINGE’s post, or you posted before seeing it.

EDIT: Now if you didn’t see SLAINGE’s post, you spent 12 minutes writing your post. My pants aren’t on fire here…

46

[quote]RSGZ 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]

Agreed.

This is like finding Jesus on a cheese sandwich.

Why is it news?[/quote]

Disagreed.

It looks 100% intentional, and with the horns it’s obviously meant to be the devil.

It’s news because it’s a picture of the devil in a famous piece of religious art. Not that I really give a shit or anything.

47

[quote]KrohDaddi wrote:
the composition seems to represent Francis’ saintliness in a quaternity of angelic natures
standard depiction of ‘holiness’ deriving from equal development of self at extremes of spectrum balanced left-to-right and top-to-bottom

the devil appears in the fifth place, in the point of an inverted pentagram
nature, sexuality, beastliness are cleaved from him and reduced to the ephemeral but adhere, and menace with lasciviousness, the groin of one of his angels
adds the third ‘z’ dimension to the two dimensional representation delineated by the ‘x’ and ‘y’ co-ordinate graphing of the quaternity of functions

his own head forms the sixth point, completing the interlacing of microcosm and macrocosm in the hexagram

i’m curious how much of this conformity to template is consciously executed. People with no esoteric knowledge regularly perpetrate art unknowingly following rule systems of ancient iconographic traditions while they are in ecstatic states.[/quote]

You are fucking nuts, you know that?

48

[quote]KrohDaddi wrote:
the composition seems to represent Francis’ saintliness in a quaternity of angelic natures
standard depiction of ‘holiness’ deriving from equal development of self at extremes of spectrum balanced left-to-right and top-to-bottom

the devil appears in the fifth place, in the point of an inverted pentagram
nature, sexuality, beastliness are cleaved from him and reduced to the ephemeral but adhere, and menace with lasciviousness, the groin of one of his angels
adds the third ‘z’ dimension to the two dimensional representation delineated by the ‘x’ and ‘y’ co-ordinate graphing of the quaternity of functions

his own head forms the sixth point, completing the interlacing of microcosm and macrocosm in the hexagram

i’m curious how much of this conformity to template is consciously executed. People with no esoteric knowledge regularly perpetrate art unknowingly following rule systems of ancient iconographic traditions while they are in ecstatic states.[/quote]
Holy shit!!! I JUST said the same EXACT thing to my wife!!!

JFC get out of my head!!!

49

[quote]supa power wrote:
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”.
[/quote]

You came straight out of the gate and dismissed it as nonsense.

50

[quote]RSGZ 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]

Agreed.

This is like finding Jesus on a cheese sandwich.

Why is it news?[/quote]

Jesus on a cheese sandwich was news…

51

[quote]overstand wrote:

[quote]KrohDaddi wrote:
the composition seems to represent Francis’ saintliness in a quaternity of angelic natures
standard depiction of ‘holiness’ deriving from equal development of self at extremes of spectrum balanced left-to-right and top-to-bottom

the devil appears in the fifth place, in the point of an inverted pentagram
nature, sexuality, beastliness are cleaved from him and reduced to the ephemeral but adhere, and menace with lasciviousness, the groin of one of his angels
adds the third ‘z’ dimension to the two dimensional representation delineated by the ‘x’ and ‘y’ co-ordinate graphing of the quaternity of functions

his own head forms the sixth point, completing the interlacing of microcosm and macrocosm in the hexagram

i’m curious how much of this conformity to template is consciously executed. People with no esoteric knowledge regularly perpetrate art unknowingly following rule systems of ancient iconographic traditions while they are in ecstatic states.[/quote]

You are fucking nuts, you know that?[/quote]

No he’s talking shit. It’s new-agey guff, especially the last paragraph (access to esoteric knowledge is instinctive? Bullshit). It has as much relevance to artistic composition as magazine horoscopes.

52

[quote]SLAINGE wrote:

[quote]RSGZ 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]

Agreed.

This is like finding Jesus on a cheese sandwich.

Why is it news?[/quote]

Jesus on a cheese sandwich was news…[/quote]

I know, which again makes no sense.

53

[quote]roybot wrote:

[quote]supa power wrote:

[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. [/quote]

The time difference between my ‘red circle’ post and your first post is 12 mins; the time difference between that post and SLAINGE’s ‘arrow’ post is 8 mins…the time stamps verify that…so, either you posted after seeing SLAINGE’s post, or you posted before seeing it.

EDIT: Now if you didn’t see SLAINGE’s post, you spent 12 minutes writing your post. My pants aren’t on fire here…
[/quote]

I typed that before SLAINGES post and it sure as hell didn’t take me 12 minutes, pobably 1 minute max. What the fuck is the matter with you? What a retarded arguement. Lets use some logic. What likely happened is that SLAIGNE made his post at whatever time, the mods then read it, and then it appeared, maybe a while after he originally posted it. This happened with a few of my posts today. You make the post at 12.00 and it appears at 12.05.
Do you really think that the time of posting is accurate to the nanosecond??

54

[quote]roybot wrote:

[quote]supa power wrote:
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”.
[/quote]

You came straight out of the gate and dismissed it as nonsense.

[/quote]

Um yeah. All I see is a bunch of clouds. If I squint hard enough I can conjour some kind of a face, but I can do that looking at a piece of food.

Did you see Bin Ladens face in the 911 smoke too?

55

[quote]supa power wrote:
Um yeah. All I see is a bunch of clouds.
[/quote]

Let me stop you there. I thought you saw a face - now you just see clouds…

56

[quote]supa power wrote:

[quote]roybot wrote:

[quote]supa power wrote:

[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. [/quote]

The time difference between my ‘red circle’ post and your first post is 12 mins; the time difference between that post and SLAINGE’s ‘arrow’ post is 8 mins…the time stamps verify that…so, either you posted after seeing SLAINGE’s post, or you posted before seeing it.

EDIT: Now if you didn’t see SLAINGE’s post, you spent 12 minutes writing your post. My pants aren’t on fire here…
[/quote]

I typed that before SLAINGES post and it sure as hell didn’t take me 12 minutes, pobably 1 minute max. What the fuck is the matter with you? What a retarded arguement. Lets use some logic. What likely happened is that SLAIGNE made his post at whatever time, the mods then read it, and then it appeared, maybe a while after he originally posted it. This happened with a few of my posts today. You make the post at 12.00 and it appears at 12.05.
Do you really think that the time of posting is accurate to the nanosecond??[/quote]

Did you see SLAINGE’s post or not?

57

[quote]roybot wrote:

[quote]supa power wrote:

[quote]roybot wrote:

[quote]supa power wrote:

[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. [/quote]

The time difference between my ‘red circle’ post and your first post is 12 mins; the time difference between that post and SLAINGE’s ‘arrow’ post is 8 mins…the time stamps verify that…so, either you posted after seeing SLAINGE’s post, or you posted before seeing it.

EDIT: Now if you didn’t see SLAINGE’s post, you spent 12 minutes writing your post. My pants aren’t on fire here…
[/quote]

I typed that before SLAINGES post and it sure as hell didn’t take me 12 minutes, pobably 1 minute max. What the fuck is the matter with you? What a retarded arguement. Lets use some logic. What likely happened is that SLAIGNE made his post at whatever time, the mods then read it, and then it appeared, maybe a while after he originally posted it. This happened with a few of my posts today. You make the post at 12.00 and it appears at 12.05.
Do you really think that the time of posting is accurate to the nanosecond??[/quote]

Did you see SLAINGE’s post or not?[/quote]

^yup definately a face there if you look hard enough. Holy shit, it took you 16.53 minutes to make your last post. oh my gawdzzzz!!!

Are you seriously this dumb? Go back and read my other posts and you may get a hint.
No his post obviously was not there when I started typing.

58

Go take your anal brigade somewhere else and start correcting peoples spelling or something.

59

[quote]supa power wrote:
Are you seriously this dumb? [/quote]

Yes, yes I am . But I can still spot a demon head in the clouds with a red circle around it and giant arrows telling me where the eyes, nose, mouth and horns are…

60

[quote]supa power wrote:
Go take your anal brigade somewhere else and start correcting peoples spelling or something.[/quote]

Do you want me to go back to your first post or work backwards?