In Bosch’s works, a common theme appears to be an underlying sense of evil. In his triptych, A Garden of Earthly Delights, there are scenes of joy and creation throughout the left and middle panel and a dark concerning hellscape on the right panel. Bosch infuses happy motifs with the reminder of inevitable fate and doom. Bosch does this once again in his triptych, The Adoration of the Magi. I was specifically drawn to the King’s (Melchior) gift that he brought to the infant christ. The gift is a miniature sculpture depicting the scene of the Sacrifice of Isaac. This story from the bible explains how Abraham was willing to sacrifice his favorite son, Isaac. This story is comparable to that of Christ’s death that takes place years the image depicted. This gift feels like a bad omen to a normally happy scene. Additionally, Bosch hides toads under the gift, holding it up. Toads usually represent the devil in art, which makes this small detail even more terrifying. In a similar matter, there are six figures hiding in and around the shack in this central panel. These characters also seem to represent a certain doom hanging over the infant Christ. However, these negative scenarios are accompanied by new life and promise. This makes for an interesting juxtaposition of good and evil created by Bosch.

One of the most interesting parts of this reading was how the invention of printing allowed more people to have access to alchemy. Not only were the educated able to have interest in this study, but prints included pictures and “medieval legends” that allowed people who were illiterate to also learn about alchemy. I find this highly interesting when it’s related to the church. The church wanted to be involved in alchemy to potentially make gold. Gold was important to bring money into the church. I wonder if the common folk were interested in making gold, or if it was even written out in the printed manuscripts how to make it. I wonder how commercial alchemy differs from the church. I wonder if true alchemists existed or just anyone could practice alchemy. This then leads to how alchemy becomes chemistry and science overall. This article made me think about who became a scientist afterward and who left the alchemy behind. The article also mentions the abuses of alchemy that people practiced, but does not go into depth about this topic. I would be interested in knowing how people improperly practiced this alchemy, while it was so widely accessible by people.

On page 178, Leonardo describes how to represent a deluge. This depiction begins as a highly detailed image of a mountain with twisting trees and various other plants. Leonardo begins to explain some elements of the disaster, such as the winds and the rushing waters. Soon, it seems that DaVinci’s thoughts are being carried away. He describes how people are reacting, things not necessarily shown in the painting. Men are fighting off dangerous animals (181) while mothers mourn over their drowned children (182). Leonardo begins to use very grotesque, descriptive language to describe the horrors of this kind of natural disaster. It is as if he gets caught up on it quite often during his day. This being said, it’s important to recognize that around 1500 people were becoming very weary of an apocalypse. Albrecht Durer, another famous artist during this time, created his Horsemen of the Apocalypse which widely spread fear of the end of the world into the citizens of Europe. It is quite likely that Leonardo was influenced by these fears which could be seen in his notebook, especially when describing a cataclysm he finds so intriguing. Leonardo seems to get lost in his own mind here, which opens the door for readers to feel his true self, filled with fear and vulnerability. I find this so interesting because within this section of reading, Leonardo comments on how the most important aspects of representing people is their body and their soul. He explains how someone is feeling is widely represented by their actions, and in this passage, it’s as if Leonardo is wearing his emotions upon his sleeve.

It's fascinating to see how Leonardo advises artists on how to portray specific scenes, as if he is writing a genius’ self-help book. In the section, "The way to represent Night" (page 176-177), i find Leonardo's description (or otherwise seen as, instructions), quite interesting. Here, he is describing a great fire set ablaze on a dark night. One thing that stands out to me is his choice of color. He mentions a couple times including a "black background". In a natural setting, the backdrop of night is not always black, but can be a dark hue of blue or a dark hue of green depending on location. I find that the choice of a black background makes it seem like beyond the fire, there is nothingness. He, in fact, includes no detail of what happens past the fire besides the darkness of night. This past weekend, I visited the Mass MoCA and was able to view an exhibit called "The Lure of the Dark". The exhibit demonstrated how shifts in color can change perception of images, but most importantly, transform how we see the world around us. This immediately reminded me of Leonardo and how he chooses to work on pieces from the inside out, exposing a deep inner story. Perhaps this is why I am so drawn to his small excerpt on how to represent the night. Leonardo believes in purpose and intention shining through art, yet his description of the painted night leaves plenty of room for mystery and interpretation.

On page 118 and 119, there are two works that compare scientific illustration with a more aesthetically pleasing work. The scientific illustration depicts a woman and the various muscles of the limbs. It is different from other scientific examples of humans in that she is juxtaposed in a room, laying. Other examples are usually more splayed out in order to show a clear difference between body parts. However, this woman is seen with her arms held over her head and her legs bent while sitting on a bed. For a scientific illustration of anatomy, it does seem oddly sexual. One thing that I found very interesting is the obsession with anatomy and depicting naturalistic imagery, yet this woman does not look very woman-like. Artists, such as Leonardo, would study cadavers and watch how people around him moved in order to get a better understanding of bodies and muscle movement. However, I am assuming it was harder to observe woman bodies. Many times, woman painted in the Renaissance have very manlike muscles, legs, abdomens and chests. This can be seen here in Estienne’s depiction of the woman’s body.

I find the concept of sight and optics very intriguing. On page 98 and 99, the article mentions the study of optics and perspectiva. When thinking about perspective and art involved with sight, the practice of linear perspective may come to mind. This article explains the technique of making the 2D surface of a painting appear more lifelike and three dimensional. Understanding spatial differences to convey distance, and the use of geometry to create an illusion to portray accurate sizes in space soon became relevant in the art world. This again, intertwined the sciences with the arts, showing how they work together to better each other. This technique of perspectiva dealt with how the mind perceives sight. Some were more concerned with the physical science of sight and vision. Leonardo was specifically interested in the eyes and how they interacted with the brain to produce vision. Theories were produced about how the eyes work and use rays to narrow in on a point and send the image into the brain. Although this is not necessarily accurate, it did provide a good start to thinking about how our mind works, specifically involved in the senses. I also believe, the push to understand how we see helped influence how we perceive when it comes to art. The physical science of where our eyes look and how they work could help lead artists to painting to better fit to our eyes and mind’s perception.