Breaking Down The Code There has been a fury of controversy over Dan Brown’s novel “The Da Vinci Code” since it first hit bookstore shelves in 2003. The novel may be a work of fiction; however, critics did not hesitate to crucify the novel because of its conspiratorial religious and historical implications. Just when the dust began to settle, Brown’s novel enjoyed a rebirth with the release of the film adaptation this year. In continuation of the Da Vinci fever, a seven part lecture series was put together at Virginia Tech entitled, “Real and Imagined Pasts Behind the Da Vinci Code.” On a Wednesday night in November, a fairly heterogeneous crowd gathered in Torgersen to hear the conclusion of the series, “In His Own Words: Da Vinci the Atheist.” The presenter, Dawn Odell, assistant professor in Art History, used her knowledge of Renaissance art to bring better understanding to Leonardo da Vinci’s ambiguous artwork. “It seemed like the best thing to do was just to go through some of the arguments of Dan Brown’s, and see whether they hold up through an art historical perspective,” said Odell. Odell made it clear from the beginning that the title of her presentation served as bait to draw in an audience, and was not the most accurate depiction of Leonardo himself. She suggested that a more appropriate title would have been “Leonardo the Humanist.” Why the distortion? Odell explained that Da Vinci simply means “from Vinci,” and would not be the best way to identify the painter. The use of Da Vinci in her title was meant to spark familiarity among the audience; however, Leonardo would have been better. Odell also acknowledged that the use of the term atheist was not accurate for the time period. After scouring through Leonardo’s backwards writings, she believes one could best describe him as a humanist. Odell explained that his writings signified a man who was more interested in the intricacies of the natural world, and less caught up in the theological world. “I think it was clear that he had some contentious feelings with the church,” said Odell. To further unravel common misconceptions, Odell moved on to iconography in Renaissance art. “Dan Brown’s use of hidden symbolism belongs to a different genre,” said Odell. Instead, she explained, symbols would have been used that have intrinsic meaning to the people of that time period. Symbolism was a tool used to “identify not hide,” Odell concluded. Odell continued the lecture by displaying the “Mona Lisa,” “Madonna of the Rocks,” “Virgin of the Rocks” and the “Last Supper.” She addressed the common questions posed not only by Brown, but scholars throughout the years. What is behind Mona Lisa’s inexplicable smile? Is John the Baptist praying to Jesus, or is it the other way around? Who is the effeminate person sitting next to Jesus in the “Last Supper”? Odell suggested that Leonardo’s paintings may just be victims of over-analysis more than anything else. Since Leonardo’s hands were not the only hands to touch the canvas, it is hard to tell what the original intent of his paintings may have been. On top of that, patrons usually decided how each figure was placed and what ultimately ended up in the painting. Instead, Odell said that the importance of Leonardo’s art lies in the body language. “Gesture is a window into the soul,” said Odell. In each painting, hands are an integral part of the image. There is a world of meaning behind the clasped hands of an infant, the crossed hands of a woman, and the outstretched hands of Jesus. Ultimately, Odell wanted to break through the superficial portrayal of Leonardo in Brown’s book. “I wanted to help people understand Leonardo as a more complicated artist than the way he is presented in Dan Brown’s book, and also to think of him as a scientist/artist; not just somebody who does visual imagery,” said Odell. As the final night of the lecture series came to an end Matthew Gabriele, coordinator of Medieval & Renaissance Studies, said he was pleasantly surprised by the great turnout his program received. Both Odell and Gabriele enjoyed “The Da Vinci Code” as a fictional novel, but they wanted to make sure that people knew where to draw the line between fact and fiction. “Real history is a lot more interesting than any kind of fiction you can concoct,” said Gabriele. |