3 ms·
What are you talking about? This is completely unrelated whining to what the article actually talks about, which is Da Vinci's artistic interest in humanising t
by bangkoksbest 4y ago
What are you talking about? This is completely unrelated whining to what the article actually talks about, which is Da Vinci's artistic interest in humanising the traditionally "grotesque". Very far from discrediting.
You're not only ignoring the link, but you're going out of your way to write up an irrelevant sanctimonious comment.
- JoeAltmaier 4y agoDeliberately misinterpreted? The article is titled in a pejorative way. The article represents him as laughing at the disabled, the disfigured, and speculates on how we should not think kindly of him today for his cruelty. Then it dips its toe into the pool of accuracy and mentions he never actually said anything cruel (or wrote).
- bangkoksbest 4y agoFirst off... The authors of articles doesn't come up with the title. If you want to gripe about the headline writer, fine, but it's not relevant to the substance of the article that was actually written. I don't see the title as pejorative, but then again I'm also not seeking to feel performatively offended. Never once in the article is it suggested we should think unkindly of Da Vinci. From the very first paragraph onward, the article is sympathetic to him. You wanted to be offended and wanted to read into the article that this was something akin to Da Vinci being cancelled or criticized according to modern norms, but that's literally the opposite of what is written.
- JoeAltmaier 4y agoThat's just ... all wrong. The author writes the title. The article is laced with insinuations that Da Vinci was mean e.g. "Leonardo’s chateau in Amboise during his last years, laughing over drawings of ugly people."