'he was really good. don’t even need to say at what, that’s how good he was';

'>>7142096
he was good in everything';

'>>7142080
Da Vinci is the Lovecraft of Drawing.

Extremely low output, but of extremely high quality.

If you compare the average Da Vinci drawing to the average Michelangelo or Raphael drawing, you'd easily understand how much better Da Vinci really was.';

'>>7142147
>If you compare the average Da Vinci drawing to the average Michelangelo or Raphael drawing, you'd easily understand how much better Da Vinci really was.
jesus christ you're fucking incompetent';

'>>7142147
AHAHAHAHAHAH';

'>>7142174
I have a giant Michelangelo book recommended by vilppu

It has, quite literally, every michelangelo drawing

most were very mediocre. People only pass around the Sibyll study and other iconic sketches of his, but most of Mikey's drawings were no better than the average /draw/ thread poster here';

'>>7142194
da vinci is the posterboy of ic, full of studies, floating heads and renderslop, no work anyone gives a fuck about other than a painting that got stolen

Meanwhile Michelangelo was a contributor to the Sistine Chapel painting, David and fucking La Pieta and Raphael was a drawing god. da Loser doesn't come close
But enjoy your meme renaissance man, youre allowed to have shit taste';

'>>7142147
Mike was a sculptor foremost. his drawings were mostly doodles for sculpture ideas. Sistine chapel ceiling was done under duress...';

'>>7142215
>Meanwhile Michelangelo was a contributor to the Sistine Chapel painting, David and fucking La Pieta
drawing was being discussed.';

'>>7142215
da vinci mogs';

'>>7142215
>no work anyone gives a fuck about other than a painting that got stolen
What is "The Last Supper"? God damn every post on here is bait. Or maybe you're really that stupid.';

'>>7142080
He wrote a treatise on painting, which I believe served as a foundation to educate many painters.

Besides, perhaps it's best to think of him as sone kind of a role model: it's the way he approached things more than the things he did which mattered.

People studying his writings were immersed by that.';

'>>7142147
>lovecraft
>Extremely low output, but of extremely high quality
lmao';

'>>7142080
>Less than 20 paintings
>6k sketchbooks
>Didn't even get paid for the Mona Lisa.
And you bitch about your tiny SStar/Patreon following.';

'>>7142080
I have his sketchbooks with translated notes by some Chinese lady. The man knew the ratio of every visible piece of the human body. he spelled out tons of knowhow into making good drawings from back and foreground to foreshortening and hand and feet drawing.
While looking into Archimedes and other mathematicians' applied works there are countless sketches of da Vinci making compass prototypes, drills, cranes, cars, planes, hammers, etc
I'm not sure what he did all day but iirc he died a virgin like Newton so he must've been useful to several people.
He wasn't as big as Archimedes or as prolific as the Divine one but definitely worth being one of the four ninja turtles.
Plus he had a heckin cool name. You can't beat great branding when it comes to being remembered.';

'>>7143677
theres no way he died a virgin, even i'm not a virgin.';

'>The earliest known use of the noun gentleman scholar is in the late 1500s.

>OED's earliest evidence for gentleman scholar is from 1578, in the writing of John Lyly, writer and playwright.';

'>>7143712
The Renaissance most likely brought this concept to historical significance.';

'>>7142225
this is true.';

'>>7143696
But you're not very good at art now are you';

'>>7143677
>I'm not sure what he did all day
Studying, mainly.

If you read the notes, the knowledge go much further than just how to make good drawings: from making educated guesses about the heart's behavior via precise anatomical studies (which recently helped a surgeon devise a new chirurgical method), or about why there's sand here in a river, many random tips like "how to make the sand rigid [to move stuff or people on it more easily]", or rough study about gravity predating Newton (https://www.caltech.edu/about/news/leonardo-da-vincis-forgotten-experiments-explored-gravity-as-a-form-of-acceleration).

The mindset is fascinating: it's a systematic, precise inquiry about everything, big or small. Like Aristotle I guess.

The only issue is that he didn't had the time to wrap everything up properly.';

'>>7142080
He was a good artist, and that's it. People like to scientize his work and pretend like he was some great polymath - he wasn't .He was an artist with good technical ability and a mechanically-inclined imagination, but he was no engineer or inventor.';

'>>7144124
He was the first concept artist. People today still have not designed helicopters as aesthetically pleasing as his.';

'>>7142147
Classic bait.';

'>>7144124
>People like to scientize his work and pretend like he was some great polymath - he wasn't
Actually he was, pretty much in the same vein as Aristotle. Generalists are a rare bread, especially today, so unless you actually have some expertise in how it works in details, it's easy to misunderstand it.

But you're right definitely right to say people overpraise him in some ways. For example, even if he drafted F=ma, he was still far from pushing it as far and systematically as Newton did.

You also have to understand the context: it's easy retrospectively to judge Newton's work. But if you start with a blank sheet as he did, making the hypothesis that you can wrap many mechanical phenomenons with 3 principles is absolutely non-trivial. It's simple but incredibly difficult.

It probably took Newton many years to come up with that, and he was building on early work (Aristotle, Galileo, and others), and his formulation has been refined later.

I encourage you to read his notebooks with an open mind and to empathize with the mindset, for curiosity's sake.';