I think one of the most interesting aspects of Bosch's canon of work is the unconventionality of the subject matter. Interesting as well is how this unconventional imagery was accepted and in some cases lauded. Another interesting aspect discussed in this reading is that the church encouraged alchemy. In our group discussion we raised the question as to why the church would encourage a stronger relationship with science, and why has this relationship seemed to shift into modernity? My best guess is that alchemy would aid the church's economic endeavors. This would be intrinsically beneficial to the interests of the clergy.

Page 218 discusses the African Magus portrayed in the foreground of the central panel of the Adoration of the Magi. I find the figure to be elegant and beautifully painted. In class, we discussed how in The Garden of Earthly Delights, the "black figures" may not depict racially black folks. We discussed whether or not Bosch would've ever even seen a black person before. In survey, I remember discussing how difficult it was for white painters to capture blackness in their work. How black folks very quickly became a sort of caricature under the white artists brush. Yet this figure seems to be captured beautifully and regally- poised, accurate and central to the image. The reading suggests that that the blackness of the figure is symbolic of the nigredo stage in alchemy. The blackness indicates that the ingredient is beginning the transmutation process. I find this symbolism interesting. The reading discusses how it's possible that the encroaching figure in the barn is a personification of lead, the lowest, least valuable metal. Considering this interpretation, perhaps the black figure represents a halfway between the human and the divine. This would be an appropriate roll for a priest, who devotes their life to serving the lord.

In the section about depicting a battle, Leonardo writes about how characters leave marks on the ground, with feet and body. I feel that this is very important. One must not simply render a subject in space, one must give the subject dimensionality and weight. In order to capture life, the subject must convincingly take up space. It seems like Leonardo traced the movement of individuals in his work, leading up to the moment that is captured in the painting. Before brush was placed on canvas, the infantryman's foot scuffed the foreground of the painting. He captures the moment, and everything that led up to that moment, making the work particularly convincing. That being said, Leonardo is writing about how to depict a generic battle scene, every battle scene must have arrows and dust. How many battle scenes did Leonardo fully conceptualize? Not many. It's just interesting to see him write with so much authority without much physical result.

On page 173 Leonardo discusses the importance of using a walls natural marks and discoloration as inspiration for the painting that will overlay it. I thought this was very interesting, and also harkened back to the video we watched in class. In the video, the Christi folks speculated that Leonardo wasn't very careful in choosing his materials to work with. This section seems to suggest the opposite, that in fact Leonardo would be very intentional about where his work would go on any given surface. Perhaps he would feel inclined to incorporate a knot of wood rather than blindly paint over it.

On page 169, Leonardo discusses how certain figures should be placed in a portrait. Old men should be represented with slow and heavy movements, women sitting modestly with legs together and head slightly inclined. I think this blueprint interested and well reflected in the realm of portraiture in that time. What I found particularly lovely was how Leonardo wrote that old women should be depicted like "infernal furies." Perhaps it's the translation, but I adore the notion of an old woman depicted with a fire within. I see that in so many respected seasoned women, particularly my grandmother-- how much wisdom and fight they have within.

P. 125 Ackerman writes that the achievements of Renaissance thinkers was not essential to the development of modern science. He argues instead that the importance lies in the perceptual attitude on which they were based. While I understand what Ackerman is saying, I don't fully agree. A lot of the scientific work produced in the Renaissance (zodiac man, da Vinci's weapons of war) were simply incorrect, implausible or never brought to fruition. However, I believe that the conceptualization was an integral part of the "perceptual attitude" that Ackerman discusses. If folks hadn't done science and done it wrong there would be no motivation to discover what is considered correct and valid today. I believe that the act of doing, even if it was incorrect, was still an active move towards modernity. Science today, as well as art is an active process. It is a process of experimentation and exploration by doing and failing and doing again. Empirical research does not happen by just sitting around and pondering the big questions. A perceptual attitude cannot be peer reviewed. Even if they were wrong, artist-scientists in the Renaissance set a standard of doing that influenced both modern disciplines.

P. 108 says that da Vinci drew the internal female organs. I'm wondering where these images are. Scanning the rest of the reading there is only one anatomical image of a woman, and remembering back I can really only conjure images of male anatomical drawings.

P. 196 discusses the melding of science and art, and how polar they have become in todays culture. I am curious as to how this transition occurred-- why were these two disciplines pulled apart?