Last Supper, Not Mary, My proof, page 1

You make some good points Queenannie so before I rebut I’d like to state a few things.

I didn’t have a solid opinion as to the sex of the John figure before I started, I now believe it to be a male because of the work I’ve done.

I changed the perspective on the face because the distortion caused by the downward facing position left the mouth, nose and chin in an awkward position. I thought that if it were more of front on view those with less anatomical and artistic knowledge would have an easier time judging for themselves.

Leonardo used models for 'important' works such as the Last Supper. Either live or from previous sketches.

Yes, he used models for quite a few things and quite often, however, he did not use them in the same way artists these days use them. These days artists will photograph a model and often times trace the photograph to achieve the photo realistic quality. When you look at the original painting, the fluidity of the bodies is not indicative of a model. In fact, such fluidity could only be obtained by a ballet dancer or equally graceful dancer. When DaVinci used models he used them for reference, to reference mass and the movement of certain masses in relation to the rest of the body, not as a copy. He did not have 13 people seated at a table for years on end.

But now you've changed the face--even if you don't intend to--it cannot be just a different perspective on the same face DaVinci painted--because you do not have the model to go by.

True, I’ve repositioned the face but I haven’t changed it, the measurements and proportions are still the same as you can see in the diagrams. Our faces follow certain formulae, but I think we’re talking about two different types of formulae. The one I refer to is that of classical anatomy, they are rather mathematical and rigid rules. It was by using these rules that I obtain my final product. I’m not proposing that this is exactly as the face would appear in real life, I’m simply saying that when the perspective distortion is removed the features appear far more masculine than before.

My question is this: does the male face differ in artistic proportion from the female's?

Yes it does. The difference between the male and female face in artistic proportions is quite subtle but very noticeable. Generally the female’s nose is thinner and daintier, the eyes are usually larger than a males, and the chin and cheek much rounder and softer. A male’s face is usually constructed from more angular geometric shapes while the female’s face is constructed from rounder shapes. When compared side to side the females head is generally smaller but the distances between reference points is generally the same percentage as in the males.

As for the body there are many more differences. Starting at the top: the female’s neck is much smaller in circumference and less muscular, her shoulders are smoother, more flat and less wide than a male’s. Her chest is not as wide and smaller in circumference. The female’s waist is much smaller in diameter than that of the male and her body does not taper down like a male’s. Generally a female’s hips are shown as about the same width as her shoulders whereas a male’s hips are generally smaller in width than the shoulders. Over all the female body is shown as a good half a head or more shorter than the male’s.

But the idea of DaVinci wanting to stay in good favor politically/religiously as a rationale to support his not doing something unexpected is unfounded--it doesn't prove or disprove it and I think it was right along the lines of what those artists liked to do in those days.

That’s somewhat a distortion of what I was trying to say. Everything I’ve read has shown DaVinci to be a wise, rational, and deliberate man. He was compensated quite well for works such as the Last Supper and I believe he would wish to stay in their good graces in hopes of being equally well compensated for another work. As an artist DaVinci was a professional, he didn’t do work for someone if they didn’t pay him, and the quality of his work was directly proportional to the size of his compensation, he says so himself.

I don’t believe DaVinci knew any special secrets about the story of Jesus. Much of what we state as evidence against the classical story of Jesus comes from discoveries and theories that have been made since the late 1400s. DaVinci would not have been privileged to anything amazing and I doubt he would have taken anything at face value.

If DaVinci painted a female into the last supper than I would think he did it as a joke. However I still can’t see any rationale for him do something like this. There is no evidence that he believed anything different from what the church would say, there is no evidence that he was privy to ancient secrets. There is no reason what so ever for a man of his learning, talent, and standing to risk everything on a secret no one will figure out over 600 years later. I believe that if DaVinci wanted to tell us something he would’ve written it down clear as day and it would be an accepted fact right now.