Talk:Vitruvian Man

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Visual arts (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Visual arts, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of visual arts on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the quality scale.
 

Old discussions have been given section headings for ease of navigation. AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 11:40, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

"Leading to" the renaissance[edit]

From the article:

The rediscovery of the mathematical proportions of the human body in the 15th century by Da Vinci and others is considered one of the great achievements leading to the Italian Renaissance.

How can this be leading to the Italian Renaissance, which began before Leonardo was even born? I thought of changing it to "great achievements of the (early?) Italian Renaissance", but that would be rather difficult to defend. By the time I got something I thought accurate, it was too insipid to say at all. Maybe someone else can do better. Securiger 07:35, 28 May 2004 (UTC)

I agree. I'm deleting the sentence.--Bcrowell 16:34, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Golden Ratio and the navel[edit]

In popular text on the golden ratio, one often finds the claim that the navel in the Vitruvian Man divides his hight in the golden ratio. This may be approximately true, but claiming it to be intentional from daVinci's hand is to the best of my knowledge unsubstantiated, and it seems unlikely for several reasons. All the other proportions are rational (where as the golden ratio is irrational), and no texts dated before the 19th century discuss the golden ratio as an aestethical proportion.

Still, considering how frequently the claim is made, this article might include a prase like this: "It is sometimes claimed that Leonardo placed the navel so that it divides the height of the man in the golden ratio. However, this claim is unsubstantiated and not likely to be true."--Niels Ø 19:28, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)

We'd have to be careful that we weren't feeding misinformation from the rather too popular The Da Vinci Code! Pcb21| Pete 22:37, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
This particular claim has been around long before that particular book. Anyway, I think a good encyclopedia should discuss not only accepted facts, but also frequently made claims - stating clearly their status as unsubstantiated (and in this case even unlikely) claims. Why? (a) Because some users of the encyclopedia - e.g. school children writing an essay on da Vinci - will benefit from it, and (b) because the interesting thing about da Vinci is not just the man and the facts about him, but also the myth created around him.

From page 200 of Melchizedek's "The Ancient Secret of the Flower of Life, vol. 1"
"What the geometries show is that in the ideal, the navel sits at the phi ratio between the top of the head and the bottom of the feet. This is what most books indicate."
and
"...but if I remember correctly, the male navel ends up slightly above the phi ratio, and the female navel just below it. If you average the male and female points, you get the perfect phi ratio."

Finally, the navel is the center of the drawing when you extend the square to a rectangle where the top is aligned with the top of the circle (the 8 x 8 square becomes 8 x 10, and if you draw diagonals, they pass throgh the navel. The center of the figure is at the place where the legs and the torso divide (your private parts) if you are looking at the figure in the square. the Hitochi Princess (talk) 09:30, 18 March 2008 (UTC)ShamanDhia

Also It Seems that The ratio of square's leg to circle's radius is very near To Golden Ratio. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BehzadVaraminian (talkcontribs) 22:08, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

There is now a mention of this misconception in Golden ratio#Painting, with sources. Oconnor663 (talk) 00:25, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

No mathematical proportions in human bodies[edit]

As discussed in Golden Ratio, you can't say the human body is made up of perfect proportions - if it was, we would all look the same. People have bigger and smaller noses and ears, and longer and shorter arms. There is no correct mathematical proportion approach in explaining how humans are supposed to look, as there are too many humans that are too different from each other.

See anthropometry.

I wonder why this article still uncritically copies statements from romantic misty-eyed art textbooks. --Abdull 08:48, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

dear whoever wrote human body not perfectly proportioned: Yes, it is true that the human race are not all the same. However, say someone has a big nose. There cheekbones, forehead, etc. would equally proportion the size of their nose. Same with say, a big butt. There thighs, and legs would then be a somewhat equally proportion to their butts. Yeah, I know your probably thinking..."Who thought of this genius thing to say." Just joking haha. But seriously. Think about it. Even though we all look different but, like i said, if one body part is bigger your other body parts will make up for it. You'll come out nice and proportioned. by the way, the reason this might sound a little confusing and maybe a little out of order is because I'm only about 14. sincerely, swimqt913


That's highly inaccurate. Just because some has, for example, a big nose doesn't mean that the rest of their body parts "make up for it" in size. Even if this were generally true, nothing is perfectly proportional in the way you are talking about. Even if everyone was proportional to the centimeter, there would be a very low chance that they were proportional to the milimeter, and so on. stealthymatt (talk) 00:38, 11 March 2008 (UTC)


Please use your mousepointer on my version of vitruvian man and vitruvian female.

--Rob ten Berge (talk) 01:47, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

The idea that there are mathematical proportions to be found in the human body was an important theme in the history of ideas that begins with reports of Polykleitos lost Canon. Wikipedia editors may find these ratios to be present or not, irregardless. --Wetman (talk) 22:43, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Vitruvius wrote the first canon of proportions around 50 B.C. He described human proportions in fractions. The same proportions calculated with phi are only minutely different... ie: 5:8 approximates the golden ratio. Fibonnaci was the first to assign the 0-9 # system to the phi divisions, which were described first in Euclidian geometry (maybe Egyptians?). Sticks and strings were used to calculate everything. Geometry provides a visual representation of the equations described with letters and numbers.

While it is true that no one is perfect, the concept of a canon of proportions has been with us more than 2000 years.

center of gravity[edit]

I've deleted this sentence: "This illustrates the principle that in the shift between the two poses, the apparent center of the figure seems to move, but in reality, the navel of the figure, which is the true center of gravity, remains motionless." This isn't true. First of all, the center of gravity of a human body is nowhere near the navel -- it's much lower. Try balancing on the edge of a table, and you'll find you have to balance at a point much lower than the navel. Also, when the arms and legs are raised, the center of gravity is also raised. The center of mass is the average position of all the mass in an object, so raising a bunch of mass will also raise the average.--Bcrowell 16:41, 9 October 2005 (UTC) I've put in a corrected discussion of the center of mass.--Bcrowell 17:17, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

The image center in the drawing and the center of gravity are different discussions altogteher. the Hitochi Princess (talk) 09:30, 18 March 2008 (UTC)ShamanDhia

art![edit]

This should be an article about an artist, a piece of art, and the history of art, but there's almost no discussion about any of those things. We really need someone with the requisite knowledge (which means not me!) to add to this stuff. For instance, I believe that renaissance art showed human bodies in more realistic proportions than medieval art...? And didn't da Vinci (illegally?) dissect corpses so he could learn about anatomy?--Bcrowell 17:17, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Maybe some (or most) of the bodies he dissected were illeagal, but the Santa Maria Hostbitle granted him permission to cut open some bodies (only because of him being a well known artist/architect). But yes, I'm sure there were at least a few bodies that he dissected illegally.

Essential trivia.[edit]

I came here in order to learn:

  • what's the size of the drawing?
  • what's the radius of the circle?
  • what's the side of the square?

Unfortunately these things are not mentioned in the article. I suppose one could calculate the relative sizes (or measure them directly on the image) but what about absolute sizes?

the square is 6x6 ft. if blown up in real life, I suppose, from the info given. I will be back when my headache's gone so I can tell u the radius.... but I can't tell you how big the drawing is in real life... I'll check the Italian version to see if it says anything. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.161.52.93 (talk) 03:31, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok so I worked out all the answers to your questions. 1. the size of the drawing in real life on paper is 34.2 x 24.5 cm which is roughly 13.46 x 9.64 inches. So it's a bit bigger than a letter sized sheet of paper. 2. The radius of the circle, according to my calculations, taking into account that the Vitruvian man is 6ft tall and that the circle and the square have the same area is 3.3851 ft. or about 3' 4.6" 3. the side of the square is easy since the man depicted is 6ft tall, therefore the sides must be 6ft also.

All of this was not that hard to calculate, but I did have to look at the other wikipedias to find out the size of the actual piece. Someone should add it to the page, if not I'll do it.

From p. 196 of The Ancient Secret of the Flower of Life, vol. 1, by Drunvalo Melchizedek:
P of square = 48
C of circle = 48
C = Pi * D
48 = 3.14 D
D/2 = R
D = 15.2866
Ratio = 1.618

The whole idea of a canon is to describe the relationships in units; do not assign specific values to the units. (The guy could be 6' or 4' it doesn't matter - the square can be divided into 12 parts or 10 or 8, and the ratio will stay consistent.

Also, from page 199:
"Computers have shown by measuring a hundred people or more that there is one ten-thousanth of an inch difference between the width of your outstretched arms and your height."
and
"When you measure almost all the copies of Leonardo's drawing, you find that the circle is really an oval and the square is really a rectangle."
the Hitochi Princess (talk) 08:32, 18 March 2008 (UTC)ShamanDhia

Cites and References[edit]

Why are these even needed for this article? This article is meant to be a discussion of a certain famous drawing. That drawing, and the text explaining it are both plainly visible at the top, and linked to larger versions big enough to read, albeit with a mirror and in Italian. I honestly can't think of a better cite than a link to the original document and the author's own notes. Perhaps the person who requested the cites could specifiy where a cite is needed? Rhialto 01:21, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

This is a topic for another section of Wikipedia, not here. stealthymatt (talk) 00:41, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Location[edit]

Is there a citation for the location of the drawing? The article states that it is housed in the Accademia Gallery in Venice. I believe it was on display there for a year after the introduction of the Euro, but that it is not on permanent display because it's too fragile. Opinions?

Da Vinci Should Have Known Better[edit]

Leonardo Da Vinci should have drawn his famous Vitruvian Man figure to fit into a rectangle and ellipse instead of a circle and a square to show how the human form relates to nature. He got it wrong and he should have known better. His version of Vitruvian Man became famous because he successfully related the human figure to the square and the circle by positioning the feet of his male figure at the bottom of both. Why did he take up this task? Apparently, he wanted to substantiate a two thousand year old mystical belief held by Pythagoras. This ancient Greek mathematician-philosopher believed that the square and the circle are the fundamental geometric patterns of the cosmic order and therefore the human form should relate to them. DaVinci could have and should have related the human figure to the universe and nature by drawing it with the arms and legs reaching to the corners of a rectangle based on the Golden Ratio of 1:1.618. Why? Because this ratio is found in innumerable expressions of nature from the patterns of pine cones and flower petal arrangements and from the swirl of galaxies to the double helix of DNA.

DaVinci knew about the Golden Ratio because the proportions of the body in his Vitruvian Man drawing and the facial features of the Mona Lisa are based on it. Also, DaVinci did the illustrations for Luca Pacioli’s book, “Divine Proportions” that popularized the Golden Ratio during the Renaissance.

Ironically, it is Pythagorus who is usually credited with discovering the Golden Ratio. However, some historians believe he learned it from the Egyptians who built some of their pyramids based on it. Countless mathematicians, architects, scientists, artists, musicians, and designers have used the Golden Ratio. In ancient Greece Phidias used it to design the Parthenon and Euclid the geometer defined it as the “Extreme and Mean Ratio.” Other terms such as “Golden Section,” “Golden Rectangle” and “Golden Triangle” have also been used to identify the ubiquitous 1:1.618 ratio. Today mathematicians use “Ф” or “φ” (the Greek upper or lower case letter Phi) to identify the Golden Ratio.

If DaVinci had configured his Vitruvian Man drawing to fit an ellipse and rectangle based on the Golden Ratio he would have produced an “X” shaped pose with the arms and legs approximately 52 degrees apart. I made a sculpture to illustrate this idea that I call “Ф Man.”

For more information contact: Daniel A.Tagliere 6415 N. Le Mai Avenue Chicago, Illinois 60646

Phone: 773-763-5868 Email: dantagliere@aol.com

A circle and a square is more beautiful than an oval and an oblong. I'm going with Leo over you. — Chameleon 00:59, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Is this at all relevant to the point of the article (and wikipedia)? It's great to have your own opinion, but wikipedia doesn't really care what you as an individual think, unless you're a reputed scholar or and expert or famous or the subject of the article. In short, wikipedia isn't the place for this kind of opinionated idea. stealthymatt (talk) 00:45, 11 March 2008 (UTC)


hmmm... nice article here, shame about Daniels advert. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.107.6.35 (talk) 01:05, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Point taken about the ad, but also, this is an important image for many reasons, and while no original research is a standard of wiki, people that are heavily involved in research and study appreciate new theories - they could be right, they could be wrong and lead to right discoveries...like keplers mystery of the cosmos and the laws of planetary motion. 52 degrees rings a bell with me regarding this image, but not at all for the reasons Daniel states.

Where else but on wiki? I'm only on wiki a little over a week. The most valuable thing to me is the current research/theory on older topics like Vitruvian Man... and the true value of a real-time encyclopedia may be partly to bring ppl together around certain topics. the Hitochi Princess (talk) 09:30, 18 March 2008 (UTC)ShamanDhia

Where's the harm? This is a discussion page. Daniel is obviously intensely interested in the subject - if you're not interested in contacting him, ignore it. YAC (talk) 19:12, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I just wish to contribute to the discussion-- though we, as humans, are curious beings, has it not occured to anyone that some things may have to go on without explanation? That we must accept that there are some things best left alone? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.68.169.103 (talk) 17:04, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

This page is for discussing the encyclopedia article we're writing, not for discussing the Vitruvian man itself. Please see WP:NOTFORUM Powers T 20:41, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Where is it?[edit]

When I was in Florence there was a Gallerie dell' Accademia there, and earlier this month the picture was, I think, in the Uffizi - in Florence. I didn't see it last year in Venice, but perhaps I just missed it and shall have an ecuse to go back. Are we in fact sure it resides in Venice? Midgley 18:33, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

We are then. Good. Midgley 13:53, 29 January 2007 (UTC)


how?[edit]

"the length of the hand is one-tenth of a man's height" howw???

I dunno man. Ask Vitruvius -- he's teh guy who said that. We only documented what he wrote. Well, technically, we documented what Leonardo wrote that he wrote. Rhialto 11:32, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

The average man is 5'10", right? That's 70 inches. Divide by ten, and you get seven. My hand is certainly 7" long from wrist to fingertip. What sort of freak are you that yours is different? Hahahahaha! — Chameleon 00:55, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I made a mail merge document in word .doc linked to an xcel spreadsheet that provides the phi divisions for people from 3' tall to 9' tall accurate within 1/8 of an inch, for 12 phi divisions. Looking at the table has helped some people understand the fractions stated in the canon. The documents were made to explain the visual representation of the human body from the "goldennumber.net" site. the Hitochi Princess (talk) 09:30, 18 March 2008 (UTC)ShamanDhia

Skylab 2 or 3?[edit]

Near the end of the article in the 'see also' section it says, "Skylab 3 mission patch, an edited variation of the Vitruvian Man." The problem is if you actually look at the image of the patch on the right of that quote it utilizes the roman numerals II, i.e. 2, Skylab 2, not 3. That doesn't necessarily mean Skylab 3 didn't use a similar image, or that that the Skylab 3 mission patch for some reason features 'II' instead of 'III'. My limited research was inconclusive, if someone would like to clear up this apparent error on the article, go ahead, I'm just pointing it out.Anti Career Wikians 04:49, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

20:34, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[edit]

--Rob ten Berge 16:39, 17 September 2007 (UTC)== Vandalism??? ==


Please do not add nonsense to Wikipedia. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. --Pjacobi 20:34, 22 June 2007 (UTC) The images I uploaded for the Dutch version of wikipedia were immediately removed by Pjotr. (Images: Vitruvian Man (2) and Vitruvian Female). Made by myself, Rob ten Berge, to share with others. Pjotr didn't react on any of the 3 attempts I made for a neat and friendly attempt on communication about removing the images. They were, I could read in a discussion of Pjotr with a collegue "Not encyclopedial". After my attempt to upload my pictures to en.wikipedia I had to learn what is a "troll". OK My intention is to upload pictures of high quality, whereby the explanation will follow later. About the Vitruvian Man and Vitruvian Female pictures I sent, you can inform yourself at:

  • [2](Current version) section "de kennis"(the knowledge)
  • [3](New--82.72.152.118 04:38, 18 October 2007 (UTC) version)
  • [4]
  • [5]
  • [6]An animation by Rob ten Berge based on the Vitruvian Man.

Explanation for Vitruvian Man 2: Human being with 4 arms and legs. 7 chacra's inside body. 2 chacra's outside body. Earth and Moon on scale. Earth polar diameter = 7920M. Moon polar diameter = 2160M. Earth core = 2 X 2160M.

                          M.= Mile = 1,609344567Km.

My cosmology is about a system of 7 and 12. ("de kennis") The things I know about nuclear physics I learned via Urenco. The things about reïncarnation by experience and good memory. (Jim B. Tucker:"Live before live".ISBN 9022991873) The drawings about the human brain on the schedule of Vitruvian Man and some other pictures I removed from wiki.

  • [9]Vitruvian Brain by Rob ten Berge.
  • [10] 4321 cosmology
  • [11] Last Supper (detail)
  • [12] Last Supper & Vitruvian man
  • [13] Vitruvian man (2)
  • [14] Vitruvian female
  • [15] Vitruvian skull
  • [16] Vitruvian Rob Anima
  • [17]Vitruvian backbone 7-12-5
  • [18]Vitruvian schedule micro
  • [19]Vitruvian JC (detail)

Please don't remove my works of art and science of thís incarnation without asking!

I just want to give a positive contribution to wikipedia.

Best regards Rob--Rob ten Berge 16:14, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Some little errors I'll correct later. --02:27, 18 October 2007 (UTC)82.72.152.118--82.72.152.118 02:27, 18 October 2007 (UTC) --82.72.152.118 04:54, 18 October 2007 (UTC) --82.72.152.118 05:33, 18 October 2007 (UTC)--82.72.152.118 05:33, 18 October 2007 (UTC) --82.72.152.118 (talk) 06:03, 17 November 2007 (UTC) --Rob ten Berge (talk) 09:35, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

In modern times[edit]

A modern take on Vitruvian Man

I've got rid of the list, worked what remains into some semblance of paragraph form, and found some sources. Unfortunately, for the sake of formatting, this image had to go. AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 19:04, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

There is no mention of it as a symbol for architecture in modern times, only for medicine (wich I've never noticed). The statue in the picture is actualy right outside the KTH school of architecture in Stockholm. 89.160.58.77 (talk) 00:31, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Analysis[edit]

This article needs a section of common Vitruvian Man analysis. stealthymatt (talk) 00:50, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Date Consistency[edit]

In the template listing Di Vinci's works at the bottom the Vitruvian Man is listed as being from 1492. The article (with cited reference) and caption under the article's image state it is circa 1487. I have noticed (and changed) that the image of the Vitruvian Man used in the symmetry main article listed 1492 as the date. I know not which is more accurate, but obviously any inconsistency should be reconciled. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.68.198.37 (talk) 13:36, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Bill Gates ownership?[edit]

I've removed the claim that Bill Gates now owns the Vitruvian Man. Not only does this contradict the earlier-stated ownership of it by the Gallerie dell'Accademia, I can't find documentation for such a claim anywhere on the web. This appears to reflect a confusion between the Vitruvian (a work on paper), and the Codex Leicester, which Gates did in fact purchase. -- P L E A T H E R talk 02:58, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Eur.it.100.gif[edit]

The image Image:Eur.it.100.gif is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --14:21, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Vitruvian Man[edit]

It is not clear to me how a pace can be four cubits, unless the person is 12 feet tall Pamour (talk) 10:30, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Link[edit]

I believe that link to http://vitruvivien.com belongs here. It is unique art fully documenting that human with such proportions is possible.

No, it fails the criteria specified in WP:EL and WP:NOT. Further, the link does not elaborate on Vitruvian Man, it is nothing more than a commercial art site. Mindmatrix 20:05, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

accessibility icon[edit]

I don't agree that the accessibility icon can be considered as a representation of the Vitruvian man. The quintessence of the V.M. are the proportions (cf the article), and none is respected in that icon. Apart from the fact that hands and feet are missing, while they are the basic units of measure for the V.M. (cf the article), on the icon, the arms are neither held horizontally, nor raised such that they end on the same line as the head, which is another essential feature of the V.M. — MFH:Talk 14:15, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree (that it doesn't belong here). K2709 (talk) 16:12, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Merkaba[edit]

I've seen quite a few of these now: Leonardo Da Vinci's man in context of the merkaba (3rd pic from bottom). Anybody got any interesting references? K2709 (talk) 16:10, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Censorship[edit]

I noticed that in the opening theme for the sit-com The Big Bang Theory, the famous Vitruvian Man image is shown for a fraction of a second. However, the man on the image has no genitals. Is this kind of censoring the Vitruvian Man common? If it is, then we should dedicate a section to it in the article --84.52.51.135 (talk) 10:36, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

LS, I noticed that my contributions for Vitruvian Man are often erased immediately after I upload them. Consider that my intentions are good. Please remember Wiki-rule number one and the "Golden Rule". Remember also my accepted contributions please and count them.

I want to thank user Mattes for his help for saving: [20].

17 of the 56 contributions in Category "Vitruvian Man" are mine.

Remark: It is 24 Palms, NOT 18. (Measurements).

VITRUVIAN MAN 2[edit]

Accepted by Wikimedia Commons: [21].

VITRUVIAN MAN 2.jpg

Best regards, Rob ten Berge 82.75.23.125 (talk) 06:24, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I made it a bit smaller. I don't want to rubbish your efforts, but I don't think we should use this in the article, because it's not a picture of the original, and it's not an important work on its own. AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 16:37, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

OK. But I really don't understand why my contribution of the original italian text of the first version is deleted. Almost as usual.... Example: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vitruvian_Man&oldid=329439191 Greetings, Rob ten Berge

Possibly because the Manual of Style says "Foreign words should be used sparingly". Most readers of the English Wikipedia can't read Italian, so it would confuse people. AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 09:55, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
Possibly you forgot to read the English translation under the first complete Italian Text of Leonardo da Vinci on Vitruvian Man 1.

With important differences with Marcus Vitruvius Pollios Latin text. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:VITRUVIAN_MAN_2.jpg

Yet I repeat:"Non mi segua chi non è matimatico nelli principi".


http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Rob_ten_Berge

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Vitruvian_Man_%26_Last_Supper.jpg

& Please have a look on the animation under it.

Vitruvian Man & Last Supper.jpg


Best regards, Rob ten Berge —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.75.23.125 (talk) 00:58, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Measurement and Translation[edit]

Might I suggest that the measurements for the proportions be provided in the original system of measurement and metric (or, as a compromise, the original and imperial). I understand of course that this can not be done for all of the proportions as some of them are ratios but others: 'a pace is four cubits' could also be rendered in something more meaningful to the average reader. I understand that cubits etc. are relative units so maybe we can take the average. In the case of cubits this is 45cm, for example. Also,

",palmus autem habet quattuor digitos,"

", erit eaque mensura ad manas pansas,"

are listed as proportions. If these are not directly translatable to English, either a note should be made; if they are redundant then they should be removed.


24.113.93.245 (talk) 08:35, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

"Vitruvius's much lower angle, in which the arms form lines passing through the navel."[edit]

Surely that would be a much higher angle. Also, to what does this refer? Is the angle in Vitruvius's text? ("Flat on his back, with his hands and feet extended," does not imply any particular angle.) Is an early drawing referred to? 81.131.24.136 (talk) 03:00, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

The movie[edit]

I recall that I once saw a film. In it there were three floating islands. Each island was a primary colour. Each island had a queen. A girl from one floating island gave a rose of that island's colour to a man from the other island. His queen wilted and changed the colour of the rose. At one point the man finds a vitruvian man in a book and uses it to produce some kind of vitruvian ship that he fits inside in order to escape. I think the film was silent.

I mention this for two reasons: First, is that it might be worth mentioning as a modern depiction of the Vitruvian man. Secondly, I'm hoping someone will know about this film. I saw it as a child and I haven't been able to find it (or prove it exists)... --Hrimpurstala (talk) 02:36, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Proportions[edit]

I have made some edits to the "Subject and title" section (why is it called that?) in which I have tried to bring what is written here a little closer to what is actually in the drawing, and remove various spurious intrusions; to this end I have placed the actual text as footnotes. I have left Leonardo's various proportions in list format as I found them, but suggest that a translation in continuous text of the original would be preferable. I could make such a translation myself, as, provisionally, I have already done for the second part of the upper section of text; or if anyone knows of a good published one, that could be either quoted or paraphrased here. Thoughts? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:26, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Explanation of graph directly below Vitruvian Man: 4 cubits x 6 palms x 4 fingers[edit]

I added the following to the article...

Directly below Vitruvian Man is a single-line graph with marks that indicate the division of his arm-span as four standard cubits or ordinary cubits. The first and last cubit are then divided into six palms, and the first and last palm are divided into four fingers (6x4). One should note that in ancient times (Egypt), the royal cubit of seven palms x four fingers (7x4) was used to construct sacred buildings. - Brad Watson, Miami 71.196.11.183 (talk) 14:30, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Where is it today? I mean, the original? In venice? The article does not answer the question: Where is it, and is it visible to the public? 188.104.107.70 (talk) 23:21, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

"Hernia"[edit]

The male pictured in Leonardo's Vitruvian Man does not suffer of hernia. Just as Leonardo depicted his subject's arms and legs both in a tensed and relaxed state (if the person was lying on his back), so did the artist suspected of buggery by the Inquisition with another body part. --37.82.77.38 (talk) 22:09, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

The main image[edit]

The image for this article is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Da_Vinci_Vitruve_Luc_Viatour.jpg which has a license box saying 'Do not copy this image illegally by ignoring the terms of the license below, as it is not in the public domain. If you would like special permission to use, license, or purchase the image please contact me ...' Given that the drawing is hundreds of years out of copyright and there are genuine public domain alternatives such as http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Uomo_Vitruviano.jpg why reference the one that is encumbered with license restrictions? Mtpaley (talk) 23:37, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps because the current image is of outstanding quality, and a featured picture? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 12:00, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Triumph (band)[edit]

Triumph used a robotic version of the Vitruvian Man for their Thunder Seven cover art and videos in 1987.184.147.233.31 (talk) 16:55, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Inconsistent definition of the foot[edit]

The text gives two different relations between a foot and the length of a man: 1/6 and 1/7. It seems hard to believe that Leonardo would make a mistake like that.

Using the two relations "a foot is four palms" and "a man is 24 palms" we can deduce that a man is six feet.

Then it says: "The lower section of text gives these proportions: [...] the foot is one-seventh [sic!] of the height of a man."

Further down, the text reads: "Leonardo is clearly illustrating Vitruvius' De architectura 3.1.2-3 which reads: [...] The length of the foot is one sixth of the height of the body" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.232.8.5 (talk) 07:07, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

There's no contradiction. In the first paragraph he reports what Vitruvius says; in the second he gives his own proportions. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 08:18, 14 May 2015 (UTC)