 |
the photographic image fails common sense reasoning
. . . in referece to the wikipedia text,
Photographic image production
Historian Dan Scavone on why it is preposterous.
The argument that history's proto-photo was a life- sized photo(!) on a fourteen-foot cloth(!) that was a composite(!): double corpse with daubed-on blood and, in separate processes, Leonardo's own head front and back, is a priori far-fetched. The premise is more demanding of faith than is the authenticity of the Shroud. I am led to ask why Leonardo has left us his self-portrait in red chalk and not his photo, and why he would use another body when Vasari notes that his own physique was near-perfect, and everybody knows his exorbitant vanity.
. . .
This question leads the authors [Lynn Picknett and Clive Prince, the principle authors of this theory] to another assertion: Leonardo was a member of a secret society called the Priory of Sion, which esteemed John the Baptist over Jesus. Therefore, the apparent disembodied head visible on the Shroud man was Leonardo's cipher for the decapitated Baptist. Leonardo's use of his own photo, they argue, was owing to his inordinate vanity, the same that prompted him to encode his own face in his famous portrait of Mona Lisa, wife of Francesco de Giocondo. This theory was confirmed by Lillian Schwartz of Bell Laboratories and Dr. Digby Quested of London, who discovered that it matched up perfectly with the major lines of Leonardo's face in the above-mentioned self-portrait at age sixty. Picknett writes "Leonardo was capable of subtly building his own image into that of his masterpieces; if he had done so with the Mona Lisa, why not with the Shroud?"
The argument that the image was produced by some sort of medieval proto-photography seems preposterous to all but ardent conspiracy theorists. In reality, given what is known about the chemistry of the image, it could not be a photograph.
Return to summary of why it is not a photograph
Why it is not a photographic image production
|
