Mary D. Garrard's Analysis

First off, I like Mary D. Garrard’s opening statement, “I will suggest a way of looking at Leonardo's art that reveals it as indeed abnormal, but in social rather than psychological terms.”, because like the last week class’s lecture, it was very acceptable and tolerable to be flamboyant, or in better words, have girlish features. I agree with Garrard’s thoughts and her thesis about Leonardo da Vinci’s work. Also, Leonardo da Vinci made the women in his paintings as intelligent creature(s), and equal to their male counterpart. We can see this from da Vinci’s Ginevra de' Benci, where he wrote in Latin, VIRTVTEM FORMA DECORAT, which mean beauty adorns virtue. Also, one can point out the Lady with an Ermine, of Cecilia Gallerani, who da Vinci had considerably respect for. Gallerani even invited da Vinci to a meeting(s) with “the minds” and discussed philosophy and other subjects, which Cecilia was in charge of (WikiVisually). One can see how Da Vinci’s artworks
Da Vinci's combined both himself and female features into this painting as well. Also, one can’t miss the somewhat sexual nature of this picture. One question, I saw when researching this theory, “Is the Mona Lisa really based on da Vinci's gay lover?” Was Da Vinci gay? (Williams, 2016) This reading says he may have, and even individuals would assume that da Vinci is homosexual in the Middle Ages if he painted this way, and question his “manhood”. When comparing Da Vinci art style compared to a Middle Ages artist such as Giotto Di Bondone, one can compare their Last Supper painting. Di Bondone’s Jesus is god like, with blight colors, auras around each person’s head, with manly beards on their faces. Yet, when viewing Da Vinci’s Last Supper, Jesus looks girly, and one could easily mistake him for a lady, and even the theories surrounding Da Vinci’s Last Supper are remarkable and abnormal. Is that a lady next to Jesus or