THE REAL DA VINCI CODE

Before The Da Vinci Code, the movie; before the most massive and extended publicity circus that has likely ever surrounded a movie; before Tom Hanks' long hair, before The Da Vinci Code, the book; before Holy Blood, Holy Grail...

...before it all there was Leonardo Da Vinci and The Last Supper, the centerpiece of the current controversy.  Certainly one of the greatest masterpieces of all time, The Last Supper is still nothing more than a painting done grudgingly by a grumpy artist in the late 15th Century.  It has taken on a mythic quality that has nothing to do with reality, particularly Leonardo's reality.

The evidence most certainly indicates that Leonardo Da Vinci was at best an agnostic and more likely an atheist.  First and foremost he was a man of fact and science. And he was most certainly a gay man.  In fact, there is no evidence to even remotely suggest that he was anything other than a gay man.  Leonardo's life is well documented and yet there is absolutely no evidence of any woman in his life; however it is well documented that he lived with a succession of very beautiful young male apprentices, none of whom had any artistic talent.  He is also known to have spent almost 30 years through his death with a young male companion who was known to be something of a trouble maker.  Much older famous and very successful man, young beautiful bad boy.  Now there's a stretch.

But, of course, Christian history would rather record Leonardo as asexual rather than gay. In fact, the lengths that society will go to in order to avoid discussion of homosexuality is sometimes staggering, especially when it comes to the rich, famous and celebrated.  The idea that so much of Western History is a result of the genius and accomplishments of men who were gay is simply not polite conversation.

And as the Da Vinci Code controversy and debate confirms, this remains the case. 

In the midst of all this controversy created by Dan Brown's great and very fun read, a movie that apparently sucks, and a bunch of crazy Christians who see their religion under siege by a fictional novel and Tom Hanks, the real Da Vinci code is lost.

Leonardo was sending a clear message that is frustratingly absent from the current nonsensical storm of debate.

Leonardo lived with his loving male partner for some 30 years and this most certainly influenced his work and was reflected in his faces.  This is the case with all artists.

Leonardo was, among many things, one of the greatest technicians of all time: the men and women in his masterpieces were always painted with great clarity.  He did not accidentally paint a figure that was uncertain in its gender.  Any fool can look at the figure of John in The Last Supper and see"her" for what "she" is.  And rather than accept the obvious, the world goes Mary Magdalene crazy.

If you sort through all the nonsense and the current avalanche of publicity and debate, you'll find a few honest art history experts who will shrug their shoulders and tell you that Leonardo portrayed John the Apostle as a gay man.  And if there was a hidden message in The Last Supper it was that the apostle closest to Jesus, the apostle that Jesus "loved above all others" was a very effeminate man.

Leonardo painted John as very womanly.  This is  undeniable.  Dan Brown and his believers would have you think that although Leonardo called the figure "John", he was secretly painting Mary Magdalene.  As always, as if WE don't exist.

While there is no absolute proof of either supposition, the evidence supporting the gay interpretation far outweighs the Mary theory.

So if you push aside the rubbish heap of publicity and controversy based on pure fiction, you're left with a simple reality that is likely nothing more than the obvious to anyone other than a homophobe:  John the Apostle, as painted by Leonardo Da Vinci, a gay man, was very pretty and very  effeminate, and closest of all the Apostles to Jesus.  The conclusions one would logically draw from that are just too horrible for a Christian world that has elevated a 15th Century painting to the status of historical photograph taken at a Passover Seder some 2,000 years ago.

In fact, The Last Supper is nothing more than a brilliant painting done some 1,500 years after the "fact" based on a gay interpretation of the gospels by a very gay, witty and iconoclast genius.  Leonardo likely considered the fact that John refers to himself in the gospels as "the disciple who Jesus loved."  John is also described in the Gospels as being the one who sat closest to Jesus "on whose chest he leaned."  Like any gay man, Leonardo surely saw the implications in this and had his fun at the end of a paint brush.

Comments

[pierre]

Very enlightening commentary. thanks for the 'history notes'. You've provided an optic I had never considered -- and I find it quite plausible.

[Patrick]

You really need to stick to what you know best and leave the rest to those who can give truth without sarcasm. It is no wonder why the world does not take the homosexual society seriously as you so point out in your blogs.

RICHARD COMMENTS: DARLING, YOU HAVE THIS BACKWARDS. IT IS NO WONDER THAT THE WORLD DOES NOT HETEROSEXUAL AND CONSERVATIVE CHRISTIAN AMERICAN SOCIETY SERIOUSLY. WHILE I AM GUILTY OF THE SARCASM, THE DA VINCI BLOG IS ENTIRELY FACTUAL.

[carywd]

very interesting post, you make some good points

[Queer Beacon]

Richard, I think this is one of your best posts yet. And I love most of your posts.

I could not agree more with your point, society wants to forget about the gays, so people rarely mention the fact that so many great men and women were gay and "yet" contributed so much to the world (e.g., in Brazil, our greatest sports hero, Ayrton Senna -- the F-1 pilot, is said to have been gay but no one talks about it).

I'll be sure to give credit to your post in my upcoming review of The Da Vinci Code, I'll watch it later today.

[Sportin' Life]

Richard, excellent post.

You apparently read the Code in the same way I did. It was fun, but the glorification of heterosexuality was a little annoying.

[Patrick]

Richard Darling, There is no need to shout! I'm sorry if I offened you personally, but you DO NOT have all your facts right and have done just what you accuse the CONSERVATIVES and CHRISTIANS of doing.
Just giving your PERSONAL interpretation does not make anything factual. Just as Leonardo's Last Supper is his OWN interpretation. The Da Vinci Code is a fake piece of trash. Good Fiction, maybe, but still a piece of trash with NO authenticity to back it up.
Someday you may understand and then remember my comments.

[Bart]

I can't tell if you're serious or not in this post. Yes, Leonardo painted men and woman with great clarity and in the Last Supper, especially with your close-up, it definitely doesn't look like anything but a woman.

[Douglas]

I'm the artist who painted the other (not Leonardo) Last Supper reproduced here. It's part of a whole series of paintings I did of the Passion of Christ. So far as I know, I'm the first artist to include high heels and cigarettes in a religious painting. Try to top that, Mel Gibson!.
I read the DaVinci Code, a decent page-turner, though I've read better whodunits. I haven't seen the movie yet.
Leonardo was quite gay. That's well established now, and was common knowlege then. Salai was his boyfriend, bodyguard, and business manager. The Duke of Milan who comissioned The Last Supper certainly knew this and did not care. The Franciscan monks, whose dining hall this painting decorates, knew; and if they cared, they were in no position to complain (a painting by Leonardo in the mess hall paid for by the Duke. What's to complain about?).
Leonardo was indifferent to hostile to religion in general, but it's not very likely that he would openly challenge religious authority in a monastery refectory while on the payroll of the Duke of Milan. I don't know where Dan Brown gets the idea that this figure is Mary Magdalene. Italian art of the day (and Flemmish and German art of that time) is full of pretty and femmy Saint Johns swooning next to Jesus at the Last Supper. Jesus' boyfriend? Of course! If Salai posed for anything in a finished work by Leonardo, it would have been this figure. Alas, the painting is so very badly decayed (even after a 10 year restoration) from seepage, war damage, and Leonardo's ill-considered attempt to make some kind of oil painting on a plaster wall that the figure is so indistinct.

Thanks for posting my picture!