May 28, 2006
-
Guy or Chick?
We are going to solve this problem right here on my site. We are going to solve this mystery once and for all.
(Picture taken from some site I googled).
As you look at this picture look at the person on the left side of Jesus. We are talking about the person on the left from our perspective.
Is that a guy or a chick?
Comments (419)
well…looks like a girl to me.
and for the record, that was the first time i was ever FIRST.
It’s a guy.
it looks feminine…but couldn’t it be a young man?
It looks like a woman. Look at “her” facial structure compared to everyone else’s.
Da Vinci, you wily man.
6th
She is a server
Sure looks like a female. Hmmm. ???
girl.
looks like a girl……?
schweet. one of the first couple comments
They say that it is supposed to be Peter the one Jesus loved but many believe it to be Mary Magdalene… Personally, I say it’s female.
I b’lieve it’s a woman; smaller facial features.
he metaphorically symbolizes Everyman.
because…. i don’t have a clue what sex he is.
That… Is most definately a woman… so what?
I saw Da Vinci Code last night, so I already have the preconcieved notion that it’s a chick.
she’s a ho
A girl.
(I feel a Davinci Moment. Hold on.)
My art history training tells meeee –
Too pale to be a man; features too delicate; serene expression; different-colored, more elegant (and more feminine) robes.
Leonardo, he is subtle, but he is very distinct. It’s a chick.
Twelve people with Jesus . . .
Do you guys remember what this picture is of? Have you read the story?
Do the math and stop messing around with silly new deconstructions of this masterpiece.
P.S., I haven’t read the da Vinci Code, nor have I seen the movie.
It is a guy, DaVinci was quite possibly gay, and almost all of his art contains very feminine males, it is a guy. The entire period of art had very feminine looking males, it was the “in” thing to do.
And the rest of the “problems” with the picture can also be easily explained away.
-Josh
that’s a woman, man.
Bill — Leonardo wasn’t exactly one to go by the book, keke.
Art historians for centuries have said it is a man.
her complection is lighter than all the men…do you see and her face is softer.
not to mention a man is putting his hand under her chin in htat way men do to women…and not other men…
Which one of them is Jesus?
Religious art historians, maybe.
woman
Female, the delicate features, light skin and all around ambiance of that character artistically signifies its a female. I don’t see what the problem is?
Eva.
I think woman but I’m not going to try to convince anyone of that fact.
Female.
I have to admit, it does look like a chick.
But that is an artist rendering from like the middle ages, not like a snapshot of the actual thing.
Art historians agree on who every single person in the picture is and have for a long, long time. If Dan Brown with his deft pen succeeds in overturning 500 years of scholarship on a mere novelistic whim, it goes to show that, in a totally postmodern world, history completely stops being about what actually happened and dissipates in to whatever I like, whatever I want, whether it happened or not. This gets my blood up. Saying that person is a girl is like saying there wasn’t a holocaust–it’s not even worth having an argument over, not even worth the dignity of a refutation.
totally a girl.
…i think
It really looks like a girl.
The features are very soft and feminine, rounded & suggest a female. But then Jesus’ features & hair, etc. are also a little iffy….
Maybe Leonardo just enjoyed making people think… Nobody likes to be too predictable.
It is female.
I say it’s a female human being.
um. are we sure that’s an accurate picture of the real painting?
and um. he painted that centuries AFTER it happened. Its interesting people aren’t mentioning that DaVinci wasn’t actualy AT the Last Supper…
It’s a,a,a,a,………
i’ve seen a clearer version (not to impugne yours, though, Dan) and i really do think it’s a girl.
Its a girl!
i think they first need to clean the painting up before anyone can really tell. but i beleive it’s a girl. i use to think it was very affiminate man but that is only because i was always told it was the 12 appostles.
wow, so like, this davinci code thing is stupid.
every art historian in the world agrees that it is a man.
every historian in the world agrees that it is a man.
Peter was known as an effiminate young man, and was refered to as such often in the bible.
Leonardo (his real name- what art experts and historians call him- not davinci, which just is a title stating where he’s from)is ALSO known for exemplefying (sp?) an effiminate nature in people, many of his paintings of men that are effiminate look alot like a girl.
ALSO- chew on this. If it was mary magdeline, then where the heck IS Jesus’s best man, Peter? Peter is portrayed in the bible very often as one of Jesus’s closest disciples, so why the heck would Leonardo leave him out of his painting? o.O
a chick.
Personally, I say female. And I also say that she could be His wife. But just because the consensus of voters at a site says so, doesn’t make anything in this outcome true.
The way I see it, the painter wasn’t there, so, we can’t base our theology on a painting.
but it does look liek a girl to me.
female. for sure.
The picture is accurate, it’s the same as in many many textbooks I’ve seen. Though, interestingly, much clearer than the real thing — which was painted with an “experimental” technique that caused it to start flaking off shortly after it was painted. Still, the figure is unmistakably female. Notice also that the two figures that do not shrink back to discuss the news of the betrayal are Judas — who is in shadow in front of the young woman, staring at Jesus — and the lovely woman herself, who is being beckoned gently by the apostle beside her.
BUT… correct me if I’m wrong…typically, didn’t women’s heads have to be covered when in the presence of … anyone????
by all appearances the person is female. da vinci was an artist known for his penchant for pot-stiring.
Putting the religious concepts and the artistic concepts together is not wise. Leo is known to break with tradition. This was his version of an oft-repeated painting. Check other versions for something more biblically accurate.
Looks like a chick, but that doesn’t really mean anything historically when it comes to Jesus and his life.
hmm.. looks like a girl.. but also, you have to think, da vinci wasn’t exactly a christian, so he wasn’t going to paint it how it actually occured.
Its a male… all you who say female… respectfully, you are all morons.
Da Vinci was known for painting males/ sculptures of males who had feminine qualities.
Furthermore, its a painting of the last supper… if you count the people in the room it numbers 12 + Jesus (gasp, the Disciples and Jesus… who would have guessed…they were all present at the last supper).
One more thing… Even if Da Vinci painted a female instead of John (the idea itself is absurd), this in no way proves anything except Da Vinci was a little messed up inside. The very notion that Da Vinci knew the “truth” about Jesus and Mary and painted it into his picture of the last supper, and if you slide John over to the Right of Jesus it is a perfect whole… is COMPLETELY ABSURD.
Those of you who believe Brown’s book really need a history lesson or two.
As I said before, haven’t read the book, thanks.
woman
Definately a girl.
chick
Even before I read DaVinci Code, waaaay before this was ever controversial, while I was growing up as a little girl in Northern Michigan, I always, ALWAYS thought it was a female next to Jesus. I never asked and never really cared. It looks nothing like a man.
If it isn’t John, it means that Leonardo deliberately portrayed the Last Supper with eleven disciples and a woman, completely ignoring the biblical account. Use some logic, folks, along with a little understanding of Florentine painting sensibilities in the fifteenth century. Or is clear thinking and factual knowledge not allowed here?
Have y’all studied your art history? Have you studied Leonardo’s style? Have you studied the cultural/aesthetic sensibilities of the age in which he lived and worked? Have you approached this question with anything resembling informed understanding?
Or, are you just looking at some dude’s finger painting and thinking, like, why not? It sure looks like a chick to me, so maybe Dan Brown is onto something. Like, dude! I must be the first person who ever noticed how feminine that person looks!
Next time I meet somebody with a so-called college diploma, I’m going to ask them if that piece of paper represents anything remotely like a liberal arts education, or just some hodge-podge of electives and PC revisionist stuff. Whew! I can’t take it!!!
What do they teach in these schools these days!
also the very notion of theology based on a painting is ridiculous…
That is so a chick.
Who cares? The artist isn’t accurate with the rest of the picture. The Last Supper took place in the upper room of a Jewish house, not inside a frescoed medieval building. The table would have been shaped like a horseshoe and the diners reclined on cushions. Notice that the painting shows daylight in the windows. The Passover meal was eaten in the evening. The artist knew how to paint, but was as lousy at historical accuracy as Dan Brown is. The painting has no theological bearing.
Looks like a woman to me, but I agree with Super_Piggie; DaVinci didn’t likely go by any specific guidlines, and he probably through whatever he wanted into the picture…
That looks like a chick to me…
You mean a girl?
Addendum: And where did he find all the Vikings to pose for this? Where are the Jewish people?
(but I suppose it could be a very feminine man… it really doesn’t mean much to me)
(and I can’t believe I just spelled that “through” instead of “throw”…)
i always wondered about that
I have a question for Dan. Why are you asking this question? I don’t think it’s dumb or anything. I just wonder why.
i think its a woman..but personally i see three women. my eyes may be buggin out r something but im sure taht the lady on the far left is a girl…not a guy
a woman. i dont need dan brown to tell me that.
Dude!!!! What is with everyone?! Stop taking this painting as fact! It’s not fact! No matter what Leonardo was going for in the painting, it doesn’t mean that he was THERE, at the last supper. Thus, it is pointless to use that painting as evidence for a question as serious as this.
–Stephen
The painting, first of all, is not Florentine in the least. It was done on the wall in the dining hall of the Monastery of Santa Maria delle Grazie in Milan, for one thing, and Leonardo’s style was not Florentine; it was his own style. Leonardo did not respect any school. I am extremely informed on DaVinci’s works — I know his style of painting and drawing women. And again, the hell with Dan Brown, I’ve never read a thing he’s written. And again, who says Leonardo painted it by the book? Do you know if he even accepted the Bible? My last comment said outright that this mixing of the religious with the artistic – even though the subject is religious, like, so what – is not at all wise. Just because it’s a woman in the painting doesn’t mean a woman was there. I’m not attacking your religion.
All of the men in the painting look similar — that is, fairly masculine. The most feminine male in the painting is Jesus himself. And please look closely at the use of shadow around the chest of the woman. You’ll see something that’s a bit too curvy to be a man.
Also, as for the collegiate jab — I’m making a pretty good argument here based on in-depth research, and I haven’t even graduated high school.
look, will everybody quit freaking out already?
the question is not “was Jesus involved with Mary Magdalene” or even “was there a woman at the Last Supper”, but “is the person in the painting male or female?”
personally, I think it looks like a woman
possibly the reason so many people say it’s a man is because so many other people have before them?
I think if you expect it to be a man, you won’t have much trouble believing it, but if you look at it as just a painting rather than a factual snapshot of history you may notice the very feminine features
Haven’t studied Da Vinci so I don’t know about the “girly-man” theory, but in comparison to the others in the picture this figure definitely looks female to me
It’s a young man. John was a young man. Young men were always portrayed as feminine back them. IF it were a woman, where would the 12th. apostle have been?
RYC: I am pretty good at chess. I was the eighth grade class champion at my school. I look forward to seeing your post on “The Davinci Code”.
and for the guys dissing on all of us that think it is a girl and calling us uneducated: i studied art for years and i know that davinci is a trickster. he painted things to go against and for the church depending on his mood at the time. look at all of his works and you will see some little artist trick in it.
and so what if it is a woman!?! it doesnt say anything against Christianity or story of the Last Supper! It’s just a painting by one man. Because it is such a famous picture and because it paints something close to our hearts, we get pissed off when it contradicts our views. Lighten up. It’s just a painting.
ok for those who dont know anything about painting it is a guy, for the fact he looks feminine shows that he is a young man, about in his 20s, have you ever noticed those statues of the boys dont they look like girls with a short hair cut? yes they do…
Yeah, that’s a lady thurrrrrrr.
Thanks-things got better as the night wore on!
The question I really want answered is, what in the heck does Jesus have in His hand that’s making the guy on the right freak out? Is He holding the One Ring or something?
RYC: Yes.
I don’t mind telling people. I am proud to have him as a dad.
Now that I look at this whole scene again, it does make you wonder what Da Vinci was trying to say…..it looks like a chaotic dinner, and Jesus looks sad. I don’t know if that is a man or woman, I thought I heard once the young person is supposed to be John, as he was the youngest of the disciples wasn’t he? The Bible doesn’t say anything about a woman at the last supper….that doesn’t mean there weren’t any there…..the bread looks like it is placed strangely, too….that young person looks very pale…..jeesh I don’t know.
Germansheplover, you seem fine with the painting not changing the meaning of the Bible, so long as the figure is a man.
Here’s the bigger question – Why are they all seated on one side of the table? I think it’s just to pose for the picture. AND Aside from the knife, where is the rest of the silverware?
They’re seated on one side of the table for aesthetic value. And it was the High Renaissance — what silverware?
Clearly a chick.
Isn’t this painting supposed to be at the moment Jesus announces that the betrayer is one of them, and I think the guy whispering to the young man is whispering for him to ask Jesus who it is…..that would explain the chaos…..I don’t know where I learned this…and yes, it is just a painting, expressing DaVinci’s viewpoint…..it was restored recently I think…..no secret messages found….
K, well, I’m going to go now. But if you could all please remember:
This painting is art, it is expression; it is not an illustration for the Bible.
The DaVinci Code is a novel, which, however based in fact it may or may not be, means it is fiction.
It’s been fun.
RYC: Hee, you’re my new favorite person.
Hermaphrodite!
I hate the way Jesus is portrayed in paintings and sculptures. It makes me mad. He was NOT white, he did NOT have brown hair, and he probably did NOT wear any other colours than various shades of brown or gray (remember, he was a poor carpenter’s son. Only rich people could afford to dye their clothing). Jesus probably looked more like bin Laden than the guy in that painting.
In a Sunday School I once coloured Jesus in with brown skin, and I got into trouble. WTF?? Stupid people.
The question I really want answered is, what in the heck does Jesus have in His hand that’s making the guy on the right freak out? Is He holding the One Ring or something?
Posted 5/28/2006 at 12:14 AM by Soultender
HAHAHA! I was thinking something along those lines myself.
Dan Brown has it all wrong. That’s a dude. A really girly-looking dude.
Same with the dude on the right with the reddish outfit, the one whose wrists seem just a little bit limper than all the others. I think that’s Philip. Looks to me like he’s making the googley eyes at James the Great, perhaps admiring his hair. Phil isn’t exactly Mr. Macho Man either, is he?
And what about the guy on the left who is also dressed in red? That’s James the Lesser, and he’s slipping his arm around Andrew and blowing in his ear… Or maybe not…
Anyway, I think it’s John. He does look different — that much is true. I assume he hasn’t been working outside as much as the other disciples. The pink shawl is harder to explain.
As for Thomas (the one behind James the Greater), doesn’t it look like there is another (faded) finger beside the finger he has extended? Looks to me like a middle finger. Did Mr. Brown mention that? I’d be interested to know…
Think what you like. Have fun. It’s just a painting.
Woman
It could the Virgin, who knows?
Sure looks like a chick. But w long hair, it’s hard to tell…
Hello Dan!
I’m an avid reader of your site and I was wondering if you could do something for me.
My site is hosting this Summer “Xanga’s Next Top Model”, and since your site is a very good and popular site, I was wondering, when the winner of XNTM is announced (sometime in June or July), if you would feature her on your site. You could put a picture or two of her and feature an interview with her.
And my other request is this:
I was wondering, in order to trigger viewers, if you would briefly talk about XNTM on May 31st, the day of the premiere.
Please & Thank you!
~Tragick
P.S. Please comment back. Please!
Sure looks like a pretty lady to me.
Thematically, conceptually, a guy. Women didn’t eat at the same table as men back then. Ha, what an idea, a female apostle. *laughs self to sleep*
It looks feminine, but so do a few of the others. I’d say its a guy.
Okay… first… the question made was whether the picture shows a man or woman… The question was not “based on what you already know or what has been said about the last supper is it a man or a woman”…
From my view the person on the left of Jesus is a woman… Especially when compared to all the other people in the picture. Smaller face…
Girl, Jewish Men had beards, it was law…
Could be a woman, but then we are using todays standards and culture to determine how a woman should be presented, maybe it was a man. It was a person at least. OK, if its a woman what does that say about who she is, or is not. Plus the painting is hardly photographic evidence, I could paint a woman in heels in that spot, what would it mean? Its just a painting done about 1500 years after the fact. A fact we may never be able to prove, or disprove?
Da Vinci….500 years later and he’s still screwing with us. x] jk jk. it’s a very feminine interpretation of Peter. or at least that’s what i believe. no one will ever know…
Girl.
hmmmmmm, let’s askjeeves
*gasp* dan said chick!
Looks like a girl but you could say she is anyone and that that guy talking to her in her ear is flirting with her.
~G~
that totally looks like a chick to me.
It is the style of art. To us it looks like a woman, but people in that time period would have seen him as a young man.
Definitely a guy…specifically the apostle John. It’s no mystery, just read the story from which Leonardo painted it. It’s not like he just made it up. We see the disciples’ confusion, Judas reaching for the bread, and Peter whispering for John to ask Jesus who he was talking about. It’s all straight from John 13:21-27.
The reason John looks different is because he was a teenager while most of the others were older men. Besides, Leonardo painted most of his subjects in a feminine light. Cover Jesus’ beard and you’d think he was a woman. That’s the Renaissance style.
Chick
john was the youngest disciple of Christ. that’s why he has a very feminine face, it’s young and very babyish. i mean if you look at the rest of the guys, they’ve got beards, mustaches and whatnot. and yeah sure he looks like a girl, but what the heck doesn’t mean he is eh?
just saying
“The painting, first of all, is not Florentine in the least. It was done on the wall in the dining hall of the Monastery of Santa Maria delle Grazie in Milan, for one thing, and Leonardo’s style was not Florentine; it was his own style. Leonardo did not respect any school.”
Lauren,
Leonardo was indeed of the Florentine school, and his Last Supper painting does indeed reflect Florentine sensibilities even though, as you say, it was painted in Milan, and even though, as you say, Leonardo had his own style. Mozart had his own style too, but it is still rightly called classical, not baroque or impressionistic, and Leonardo, even though as different from Michelangelo or Botticelli as Mozart was different from Haydn or Hummel, was nevertheless a part of, was indeed a great leader of, the Florentine style.
This clarification and correction is important because the Florentine style Leonardo participated in, and in many ways led, often portrayed male youth with feminine features.
It’s difficult to put one’s finger on how an artist is both unique and also part of a style. How are composers as different as Brahms and Wagner both “romantic”? How are composers as different as Bach and Vivaldi both masters of the high baroque?
How are painters as different as Leonardo and Michelangelo both Florentine? And yet they are. And this bears directly on the question at hand.
it’s f u c k i n g chick! why are we still debating this issue?
I think some of you are taking this too seriously. Especially for a question asking what the picture is, not the religious significance, or actual factualy account of the Last Supper.
**As you look at this picture** look at the person on the left side of Jesus.
But hey, that’s just me. It resembles a female, but maybe it is a very effeminite male, who knows what Leo had in his mind then :-!
Later,
Frank
i say its a female
That apostle was known for being feminine. Jesus saved him from being gay.
In a manuscript that Leonardo left us, he names everyone in that panting. It’s a very young man by the name of John, as in the apostle John. Read don’t guess, our opinions are irrelevant the facts were written down by the man who made it.
Read fro yourself
Looks to be a woman, but it could possibly be a young man.
it’s just a guy
dude
It’s a woman. And what’s more look at the way her attire complements Jesus’. Jesus wears a red tunic with a blue drape and the woman wears a blue tunic with a red drape.
Looks feminine Dan – In fact, it looks like me.
Candy
looks like a girl…but I don’t get that just because Da Vinci decided to paint a girl into it (if he even did) why that makes it truth lol…
Does it really matter what was painted? Leonardo da Vinci did not live during the time of Jesus and his disciples, so obviously this is not an accurate portrait. Also, the Da Vinci Code is a work of FICTION which should not be taken seriously. The Priory of Sion was a hoax (i.e., it didn’t exist and still doesn’t), so the whole basis for the book is gone. Dan Brown blends very few facts with many tall tales and makes an astounding work of fiction, a great read. But nothing more.
well for one this di vinci’s style of drawing used men consisted of feminate males… did he not draw the mona lisa? people say that is actually his self portrait… others say it is a picture of a certian noble woman… so what will you say to that? also did you know someone is getting stabbed in that aboved picture? really its true…look at the guy to the left raising both of his hands similar to when someone is getting robbed and the robber says stick em up… see the knife? and no one knows whos hand that is too… kinda trippy eh? SO lets try figuring out why mr leo put that thing knife thingy there… what was he implying with that?
JhiNX
That is a beautiful man, thats what that is! You know, pretty, smooth skin, heart of ivory kind of thing?
it’s a woman. and notice. she’s on Jesus’s right hand side.
<3 Catrina
female
Um…looks like a woman to me…^^ Have a nice day Dan : )
It’s definitely a female.
I read The DaVinci Code twice and I loved it. But when I saw the movie, it was a major dissapointment.
I hate how Christians make awhole lot of nothing out of a fiction book. It’s your own perception of it. To me, I can’t really say if the book was true or not since I wasn’t raised as a Christian or strict catholic, but I do know that the bible was written by man, not God himself. Don’t get me wrong, I believe in God but there are also other things I believe in…
people are saying that leonardo’s type of work saying he painted male’s delicately.
well… look at all the other men in the picture… he didn’t do that with the other men…
why would he do it with just ONE?
<3 Catrina
The only reason Christians are so fired up about this book and movie is that it seems believable and makes our faith look ridiculous. It tells lies about Christianity and, unfortunately, people believe what they are told. They read this book or see the movie (both of which I’ve done) and think it’s all real. THAT’S why people are upset about it.
And we know that the Bible was written by men. We know there are errors in it. We’ve known that for a long time, and others should too, if they’ve ever seen the amount of footnotes in a study Bible.
chick it looks like.. i dunno much about the bible but were chicks supposed to be there?
it’s a man. why would there only be 11 disciples?
Shut up, Dan -
go stare at your wife’s breasts.
it is a girl.
did da vinci live in christ’s time?
I promised myself I wouldn’t come back.
They are Florentine because the basic Florentine ideals were realism and perspective. Not exactly hard to come by in the High Renaissance.
He drew and painted feminine young men. Okay.
I’ve seen and studied enough of his sketches and paintings to know the difference between a Leonardo-drawn young man and a Leonardo-drawn woman. There are other feminine men in this particular painting, but none of them have the unmistakable long, graceful neck, narrow shoulders, or ivory skin of that woman.
Er, and the knife back there. It’s behind Judas’s back, and the other men are drawing away from it. Probably symbolism for betrayal eh?
“Art historians for centuries have said it is a man.”
And experts are fail-proof, and absolutely unbiased and unaffected by each others opinions, right?
Everyone else is talking, arguing, whatever, but look at the subservience in the posture of the figure. The eyes are closed.
Just accept that Leonardo Da Vinci painted a woman and move on.
Look at these religious illogic, disciples of a book of lies,
being offended that they actually have to attempt to defend
their convictions…due to a painting, no less. I think its
a shame that you did not use a better, more clear (funnily
enough, I would have thought there isn’t anything more clear
than visual acuity) example, such as the fact that scribes
have altered said book (which wasn’t even written until three
hundred years or so after Jesus’ ‘crucifixion’) throughout
history, or the fact that there is no one agreed standard
translation. Fuck, you folks can’t even agree as to which
edition of your fictional book of prose you wish to use,
much less have convictions that withstand the test of logic
and rationality.
If any of you want to comment on my topic of
<TABLE class=blogbody cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=4 width=”100%” border=0>
<TBODY>
<TR>
<TD width=”5%”>
<TD vAlign=top>
INFATUATION (if you please)
feel free to drop by
CHICK.
I believe the figure is meant to be a depiction of St John the beloved whom Scripture says was the one who ‘leaned on Jesus’ bosom at the last summer. Also note the demonic looking man on our right (jesus’ left) could that be an artistic depiction of Judas the Iscariot? Perhaps Leonardo depicted St John as more angelic and the iscariot as demonic on purpose?
What does it matter, anyway, the painting is an atists impression and the book is a novelist’s impression.
female
girly girl. you can even see hint of boobies.
female
several of the people in this picture have very feminine features. I do not get my theology from artists who painted their interpretations almost 1500 years after the facts.
Could be some allusion to Mary Magdelene.
Yet I’m inclined to believe that it’s only a subliminal suggestion left open to interpretaion for the purpose of future interest and speculation.
I reckon it’s Peter or Mark or Paul or Luke or one of those cats.
Plainly a chick. Jesus’ wife, probably.
honestly, it does look like a girl, yet what does it matter that da vinci cant paint a man where needed?
its in the complexion…she looks too fair to be a man. its also the features, quite feminine.
It’s a guy. I watched a program that discussed this idea on it, one that actually had real historians, art historian, and theologins on it as opposed to the crap on the discovery channel. There is no doubt that it was a guy.
But, theoretically, if it wasn’t a guy, it still means nothing. ANY gnostic texts that refer to a “marriage” of Jesus (especially to mary Magdaline) always refer to it as a mind-melding, not anything physical.
I think it’s a guy because the fourth person on the right has a girly facial structure as well and that’s a guy.
Who cares. The Da Vinci Code is so bloated out of proportion.
It was a boring book and nothing more.
uh, does it matter? Not like it was a polaroid or that they all posed for Da Vinci that night. It could be a chick, fair skin, no beard. It could be a soft mannered guy. One other person in the painting has no beard (right). Not as fair, more heavy set. Another with no beard far left some where in the middle skin tone and features. Look at the painting overall, Da Vinci is hardlined on physical aspects of the room. The work of an engineer, not an artist. The people are drawn with a much different method. I think he was a decent artist in this rendering, but maybe not the best. The only difference to this whole story is a real record of who was there and who was not from the time of the Last Supper. Not a painting done over 1400 years later. No one in historial research ascribes any merit to a work created that far after the event as being an accurate historical record of the event.
Does it matter. The Bible says that they were all men. Leonardo Da Vinci may have been playing a joke. He can interpret scripture anyway he wants. Just because he painted John as a woman does not make it true. Anymore than Madonna wearing a cross makes her a Christian.
bit late to be asking, dont u think? everyones now going to have an influenced response.
i’m not going to answer this question. but what i am going to say is, you can only judge that painting in the context of when it was created–i’m sure leonardo wasn’t anticipating that pink = girl, or long hair = girl, or whatever; just enjoy the art.
She’s obviously a she.
I really do not care what Da Vinci painted. I mean it is not like he was a religious person and was concerned about the acuracy of his depictions. I bet he revels in all the controversy over this. Perhaps the whole point of his painting is to cause such controversy.
Perhaps women (especially) feel that our historically dominating patriarchial society; has chosen to (for a large part) leave the role of women as major, active, key players out of any main-stream significance when they inheritantly know other-wise. Even God’s word was delivered through men whom are not infallible.
In the pic it looks like a chick, not a little yellow one. In other pics its a guy
that’s a girl.
its not a guy or a chick…its a girl.
-cam
Well, they all look kinda girly to me, so I’m going to go with guy.
Actually, I think the blue robed apostle’s posture and gesture toward the young woman is more threatening than courtly.
it is most likely a girl, however, I do not base any theology on nor am I concerned with Davinci’s interpretation of a Biblical event. It is already a faulty depiction of the last supper they would not have been sitting at a table they would have been lying at a “U” shaped table. And the apostles where probably very young not old men.
it’s a girl.
I think that this particular picture makes her look like a girl.
Remember, at this time men were trying to look feminine.
The reason John looks feminine is because during this Last Supper, he is still going through puberty.
And if it is a woman, then where is John? Getting drunk under the table for the first time? In the bathroom? Come on, people.
Young Man.
It’s definitely a woman!
Maybe it’s a drag queeen?
chick chick chick chick chick.
XOXO,
cG.
billbryant–what has been said for centuries, does not become true. just because you have heard something said for countless years, does not make it factual.
Looks like a girl.
But I believe it’s a guy.
That’s what the Bible says, and I’m going to believe that over a painting by a guy who wasn’t even at the Last Supper.
Looks female, is male, me firmly believes. Did anyone ever ask Leonardo? Seriously.
I swear I did not see sweetness0984′s comment before I wrote mine.
Sure looks like a chick to me, and the one to the far right too.
For that matter, why doesn’t “Jesus” have a beard? The other guys do.
yep thats a woman.
Looks like a female to me.
Lots of people in the image look like girls.
It is a guy, DaVinci was quite possibly gay, and almost all of his art contains very feminine males, it is a guy. The entire period of art had very feminine looking males, it was the “in” thing to do.
And the rest of the “problems” with the picture can also be easily explained away.
-Josh
Posted 5/27/2006 at 11:25 PM by Beren_C
I agree with this guy.
It’s a guy….a young guy, but still a guy.
Girl
jesus had 12 apostles. that’s one of them. if you take notice also: minus the mustache from Jesus’ face, that picture very much looks like the one we’re debating over. it’s how da Vinci created younge men.
*younger
Chick.
thats a chick. and by the way, why do people make such a big deal out of being the first to comment??? just wondering……
Its a she-male. Yes folks, half man, half woman, and very good friend to jesus.
not going to lie… it looks like a woman the face structure of the person is tottaly different from the other people in the picture.
it’s a man. john was often painted that way, and if you took the beards off of the other men at the table, they would all look feminine.
men were painted with very feminine features during that time in history.
It’s a freakin painting! Of course its a woman, but it is not the scriptures, nor is Da Vinci God! All this painting accomplishes is to show how much paganism and feminism is imbedded within our Christianity. People can deny it all they want, and call Dan Brown an idiot. All he did was write a story about things a lot of people have known for a long time, and add a great plot to it.
Girl.
I dont know, but it really really really looks like a chick.
Much paler than all the others. The only one without a hint of a beard. Smaller bone structure than the others. Feminine facial features. Feminine posture.
So what if feminine men were “in”? Look at that one compared to the others.
man
id say its most defnitly a girl, comparing her to the men sitting arround her the features are muich more delicate, there is a huge difference
da vinci code messes with your mind… but dan brown is definetly on crack…he put some loose facts together… so i say… da vinci wanted it to be a woman… but da vinci’s probably on crack also
Someone on this site said that this picture is accurate…ummm, don’t think so. This is a rendition but there are quite a lot of inaccuracies. For example, they didn’t even eat a a table like that…they ate reclining on their left sides on the floor with a low most likely wooden, not stone, table in front of them…Also, this took place at night, not during the day. Anyway it is silly to base history on a painting that was painted over a thousand years after the fact by someone in a different country and culture. It looks like a girl to me but if you look at another of DaVinci’s works, from the top it appears to be a woman but than you look down and whoa, it is definately a man. (that is a picture for mature audiences only so I’m not putting the name of it on this site…) Some theorize that DaVinci was gay…but anyway, it is just a painting, not an piece of factual history. He wasn’t there at the last supper…and the Bible, which is so historically accurate that historians Christian and Non-Christian alike use it as a true historical reference says that it was the 12 male apostles. Even DaVinci’s own notebook found and translated in the 19th Century named him as John (and all the rest of the male apostles were named too). It is really no big deal.
i believe it to be a man.
[ariana]
he/she looks pretty womanly, but if it was a woman, why would the men be talking to her like that? it probably wasn’t appropriate during those times for men and women to be so “friendly”. i’d go with it’s a man… i mean.. think about all those girly representations of Jesus.
well i’ve seen the davinci code so i’m saying chick
“The Last Supper”, while being a very magnificent piece of art, is also a very degraded piece of art. It was painted in tempera on plaster. Plaster is notorious for it’s instability, i.e. chipping, flaking. The method in which Leonardo painted the piece lead to it’s rapid deterioration. Within 60 years of it’s creation it was described as being so deteriorated that it was “ruined”. In 1652 a door was put in the middle of the painting, but later was bricked up. Since then many people have tried to repair it through various means. In the 1700′s it was re-painted by two different artists. The second of the two men successfully repainted the whole piece except for 3 faces, when he was halted by public outcry. Since then the painting has been further damaged by the passing of time, attempts to move it, and bombs in WWII. There have been four seperate attempts to clean and stabalize the piece, the most recent having been finished in 1999. This restoration caused an uproar in the artistic community because of the changes in the colors and facial structures that do not line up with the still preserved preliminary sketches of the piece.
So, basically, I guess what I’m trying to say is it’s not fair to ask a question like that, because what we are looking at is not what Leonardo originally painted. A fairer question would be to find a picture of the preliminary sketches and use that for your question.
And as for all the comments saying the figure looks womanly…look at other art by artists at the time. Young men were painted in a very effeminate fashion. Besides, the clothing is no more feminine than what any of the other figures are wearing. Before deciding on whether this person is male or female, do some research beyond reading a fictional book or watching a movie based on said fictional book. Read an art history book, or something, then make up your mind.
/sorry. Had to rant. I’m just getting sick of uninformed people spouting fiction as fact.
woman.
Looks like a woman, but according to my bible, it was definitely a man!
6th
She is a server
Posted 5/27/2006 at 11:19 PM by soonaquitter…..
I think shes right, if you look the man is leaning over really far and it look like she is setting something (looks like bread) on the table. So yes I think it is a woman but she isn’t sitting down for supper with them.
its a chick
There is some sort of conflict inside my mind between what I want to say and what I see…. to tell you the truth, the painting has been altered.
it looks like a woman to me, but I’m not sure.
It does look feminine. What’s far creepier an issue is where does that hand with the knife come from? Count the hands: It doesn’t belong to anyone in the picture.
for those of you who thinks she’s a server: why would leanordo paint a woman server in the picture instead of john?
Yes it’s a woman– her face as womanly features and her hair is chick-like
=)
based on the fact that there’s -> no facial hair, lighter skin and the bone structure. it’s female
chick.
oh, and the reason he’s is leaning over and the other man has his hand on his shoulder is because it’s Simon Peter asking John which one of them Jesus is referring to when he said that one of them would betray him. So … unless John is a woman… O_O….
Looks like a woman. See how the man is caressing her? And the facial structures…so fragile looking.
guy, definantly
chick
its a very young..
… man.
Looks like a girl…
People say that it’s just how artists in those days drew young men… but look at the other young men. They still look more masculine than her.
A woman is what she is. My opinion is that she represents something. Of which, im not sure. But the da vinci opinion is wrong
ha. forgive me for my stupidity. that’s definately a guy. i forgot the whole ” lords supper, twelve diciple thing” srry!
i personally think it is a woman.
but what about the fact there isnt one cup they all drank from?
hmph.
CHICK!!!!
that is so a woman, i mean, her eyes are like softer than the mens’.
The next time I hear someone saying that a famous person was gay…
That is a gay propagandist theory. Just call all famous, dead people gay, and it will support our movement.
Great.
Anyway…I don’t know about the one on the left…but the one on the right was probably John. Because he was the “disciple whom Jesus loved” as far as I can tell, and Peter asked him to ask Jesus who it was that Jesus predicted would betray him. He said the one who dips his hand in the bowl with me…so the homie on the left could be ol’ Mr. Judas Iscariot.
Chick!
girl
It’s definitely a chick.
If people watched enough shows on the news about the Di Vinci Code every reliable art historian will tell you that John was portrayed in a faminine way through art history and that is how Leonard did it in this famous painting. Sure it looks faminine, but so does the 2nd diciple from the left in that picture.
It’s definately a woman
It looks like a chic. And the way that the other men are responding towards her reinforces that.
I don’t know who it is, but it looks like a female to me. Or a dreadfully beautiful male.
it is obviously john. you wanna know why? because Davinci labled him as such in his early sketches.
In his writings, da Vinci, himself, wrote that it was a man. It was John, the Beloved. Who cares what it looks like; go back to what the artist said it was.
looks like a girl
tis a guy
It’s a woman. Pink robes, soft features.
I’m going to see the movie today, will read the book afterward. That being said, there are 12 people other than Jesus depicted at the table. He had 12 disciples. My take is that one of the 12 looked a bit feminine, but was indeed a man.
chick!
It’s a woman. Why is she leaning away from Jesus?
oh, btw… in case you didn’t know…. Jesus died for our sins when he realized his big brother Chuck Norris is incapable of dying. Thought I’d fill you in.
~Stix
John was supposed to be more feminine than the rest…but a lot of it may be Da Vinci screwin’ around.
I say it’s a guy…people have said it’s John, and he’s generally been depicted with more feminine features.
And it’s not like Davinci was there to know what they looked like, last I checked Jesus or the disciples probably weren’t Caucasian either, so I don’t see how a painting done how many years later could be an accurate historical representation of Christ.
She is wearing pink.
Not only is her facial structure different, her facial expression is softer as well.
Definitely a woman.
♥ Erika
chick
It looks a little femine but i still think it is a man. If you look at other art from the same time period you will notice that young men have femine characteristics it was used in his style along with other artists to portray youth!
L00ks Like a Gurl
girl
what’s funny is the arguement isn’t over whether or not Mary was at the last supper, but rather DaVinci panted her in his artwork.
why does everyone all the sudden care so much if he did or did not intend for that to be the case.
maybe it is like Mona Lisa and supposed to be some huge secret with no other meaning.
people get so worked up over it. the important thing is what the painting is of: the Last Supper; not wheter or not DaVinci decided to put a woman in there for the kicks of it..
I think it’s a woman because of the facial structure.
girl.
in the movie it’s like proved to be the girl. Mary
Ok people men did wear pink and they did wear makeup and they often tried to look feminine as a sign of youth but again painters used feminine attributes to portray youth. google it folks.
it’s a guy . . . john maybe? it’s called the Last Supper . . . only the disciples were there i believe and there wasn’t a girl disciple i don’t think
it is John. He was the youngest of the apostles and had yet to grow facial hair.
here are two links with interesting info:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Last_Supper_(Leonardo)
http://www.christianitytoday.com/
Christianity Today has some awesome articles regarding the Da Vinci code.
What most Chrisitans don’t realize is this is one of the best things to happen in regarrds to Christianity in many, many years. Why? Because it is leading people back to the early makings of Christianity and it’s founding fathers. That is a good thing.
it’s a female!
chick
that is certainly a woman.
I’d say that is a female. I’m assuming that you are bring this up because of the Da Vinci Code. What was your opinion of the movie and or book?
i think its a girl.
her complection is lighter
Looks female but it doesn’t necessarily mean that it is. Even if Da Vinci painted it as a woman proves absolutely nothing about anything. It is only his interpretation of something he believes. Doesn’t mean it is factual.
Looks like a woman to me. There are softer features. Also notice the hair. It may sound odd, but her hair has a “fixed” look to it.
Do your history, folks; don’t just spout whatever you feel at the moment. I can say “guy” and you can say “chick” all day long, louder and louder if we like, but just saying something repetitively doesn’t make it true. Only research, done properly (do schools teach anything anymore?), can answer a historical question.
Pink was regarded as a masculine color until after WWII. Pink and blue were reversed before 1940.
Leonardo was indeed a homosexual. True, today’s homosexual crowd sometimes appears to be remaking the sexual “orientation” of every historical figure they can get their hands on, but in the case of Leonardo he’s their man for real—another reason he painted John so effeminately.
It’s truly disheartening to follow this thread. I’ve never seen such a telling example of our society’s postmodern meltdown.
The face has softer features like a woman would have. So I vote chick.
btw, I hope everyone knows that it is just a painting. If it were a woman, would it change anything about the truth of the Scripture?
Afterall, it is a painting painted years and years after the event itself.
It’s a very young guy – too young to have a beard or more defined facial features
it’s a woman if you ask me, judging only n my viewed response of the cture, not my knowledge of theology or f any controversy surrounding the subject.
It’s a man.
woah, xanga cut off some of the letters in that comment. let’s try again…
based solely on viewing the picture, I would have to say it is a woman, the hair, blue tunic and the slight hint of a bulge where one would normally find a woman’s chest are what make my opinion. However, the person was obviously painted so that his or her gender would be ambiguous. This isn’t based on my knowledge of theology or of the controversy which surrounds this debate. This is solely based on seeing the picture.
Could be either. We’ll never know will we??
I’ve got a question for ya Dan:
In X-Men 3: The Last Stand, that ‘thing’ that could make shock-waves, was ‘that’ a guy or a girl?? I have no idea what ‘it’ was.
“Could be either. We’ll never know will we??”
We know now. We’ve known for centuries.
It takes more than a popular work of fiction to overturn what can easily be known by doing research an average fifth grader can handle.
How could we possible know what gender someone is in some super old dead guys painting??
**cough,Da Vinci,cough**
It looks like a girl.
It looks like a chick to me. I mean obviously. Look, all the men near her are stairing at her and they’ve obviously been away from their wives for awhile hench the fact that they are completely taken by her.
The man four persons to the left of jesus (the one in an orangish pink) also looks like a woman…..however, HE is not. The art form back then was to depict things in a very elegant light. That man and the one in question are MEN. Think about some 25 year old men that you know….now, put them in robes (which remind our minds of dresses) give him a pale complexion and long hair……he probably would look like our idea of a “girl” as well. Not to mention, women back then wore long head coverings….men didn’t, but they still had long hair for the most part.
The MAN in question is a MAN, albeit a very pretty one.
“How could we possible know what gender someone is in some super old dead guys painting??”
We’d know immediately if we found one of Leonardo’s sketches of this painting with the figures labeled, and if the figure in question was labeled “John.”
I, like several others have already done, am going to point out that who you think it is based on your own knowledge was not the question. The question was, if you were to see the painting for the first time with no prior knowledge, would it look like a girl or a boy?
Personally, I think it looks like a girl. Always have. My saying she looks like a girl has nothing to do with what’s written in the Bible or what art historians say. I haven’t read the Da Vinci Code, nor have I seen the movie. Of course, I’m not a strict Christian, either.
Really, I think the Gnostics weren’t too far off, and a lot of modern Christianity is absolutely nutty. I also think most depictions of Christ are wrong, simply because of one thing: Jesus wasn’t white. He looked like bin Laden or Hussien, not a white man.
http://arthistory.about.com/cs/last_supper/f/john_v_mary.htm
should answer the question.
(it’s a guy.)
~~~megan
If anybody on this thread is actually interested in truth, please go to this address:
http://home.arcor.de/berzelmayr/st-john.html
There is plenty more where that came from for those of you who want to be set free from the fog of 21st century deconstructionism.
do you guys actually believe that da vinci movie? its not mary magdalene, its not even a woman. if you read the Bible youll know that mary wasnt even there during the last supper. the person to the left of Jesus is john. he was around the age of 14-16, thats why he looks so young.
The guy in orange on the right looks like a woman too…so does the guy in lighter orange on the left end…
And when did Da Vinci learn all these things (and secret things) about Jesus? He didn’t see him…he wasn’t an apostle. He wasn’t a Bible scholar. He could paint well, though.
Woman!
its a male…in the renaissance, it was very common to have paintings of feminine men….most men devinci painted looked feminine..
her skin has been changed with Photoshop-any other picture I’ve seen of that painting doesn’t look that light.
anyways, the psersons features are similar to those of Jesus’…the chinline, especially. looks like a feminine guy to me. If he had a beard, there’d be no controversy
even before all this about the davinci code i have always thought it was a woman…her facial expressions are softer and more feminine…why it is a surprise to everyone that it just might be a woman in the painting with jesus is beyond me….he was supposed to have many followers..not only men
Guy. Looks like has a beard. Some more manly features. Why does it matter so much?
Plus isn’t it a painting of the Last Supper?
If it is, then it is a man.
(I first thought, count how many diciples there were in the painting, if more then 12, then it is someone else. But there’s only 10, other than Jesus…)
well, it definately looks like a girl. considering, at the time this painting was set, it was very inappropriate for a man not to have a beard. I mean, even Jesus has a little scruff. Having no beard usually meant you had some sort of disease.
of course, at the time i was painted, John the Baptist was always depicted with very female features. In plays, he was always played by a woman.
I guess it depends on what culture you’re getting your information from. However when I look at that person I can’t see a man.
I actually saw a show on this and it is in fact a guy. I forget his name but this apostle was always depicted womanly because he was good looking/the youngest of the group.
Pesky
Looks like a girl. As ocdeatingme said, “her complection is lighter than all the men…do you see and her face is softer. not to mention a man is putting his hand under her chin in htat way men do to women…and not other men…”.
Could be a younger man, but I sinerely doubt it.
This is controversial: this painting is of the Last Supper. we all know they didnt really have razors back then so shaving was out..i think..it has to be a woman..Jesus had his disciples at the LS but no mention of anyone…therefore its probably a woman becuase women dont have facial hair but it might be like mary mother of jesus or mary magdeline* or someone like that.
just my opinions
meg
*sorry i dont feel like looking up spelling of anything today*
i think it’s a man who just looks feminine. it could mary magdalene, but her presence at the table isn’t listed among the 13 at the last supper in the the gospels. her role, i think, was to wipe feet.
Female, or, for her sake, I hope so.
actually scratch that last post by me!! i think that leonardo had a creative mind because its almost impossible to tell. it could be mary magdelene,becuase she was at the last supper…minor role mind you ..wiping feet…but she was there nonetheless…or it could be john in leonardos mind…he had a…feminine side to say the least…so i dont really think its possible to tell,
It’s Mary
its a guy
She looks like a female, to me…
It’s a guy. His name is John. That is who DaVinci intended him to be in this painting. Look it up.
I missed my calling. I should have been a novelist. In my blockbuster, I would make the guy in the middle be Judas. I mean, if I say it’s Judas, you can’t prove it’s Jesus, can you? And if I say it’s Judas more and more loudly, and they finally produce a big movie about it, I can completely drown out logic, reason, common sense, and historically valid thinking in one swell foop! Then this site will have a question about it, and folks will be on here say it looks more like Judas than Jesus while ignoring anybody who actually know something about it.
See how absurd this is? We don’t even know it’s a painting of the last supper without trusting the work of historians, yet when those same historians, some of whom have devoted a lifetime to understanding things like why Leonardo painted girly men and what makes his last supper distinct yet part of a tradition, and why it is absolutely impossible that Mary is in that picture—when those historians can only laugh at the fiction of a guy like Dan Brown, we fill page after page with “well, it looks like a girl to me” nonsense.
I know it’s wrong, but I think I’m on the verge of giving up on productive discourse with anybody under the age of 30.
girl
a guy. no offence, but why are we getting our ideas about religion from a man that was not compleatly mentally stable and was not living back when Jesus was walking on this earth. People take his painting to be truth when there is no way that DaVinci could have known what these people looked like. I think our country is in serious need of picking up their Bible that has been collecting dust up on thier shelf and reading it once in a while. I try to read mine at least once a week outside of church on sunday mornings, evenings, and wed. evenings. If people would read it every once in a while, I think we would become better people as a whole. Maybe thats just me. But from what I have read and studied in the Bible, I can give you really good reasons why there is no way Jesus was ever married or had children, incase you are intrested… have a great day!
chick.
it looks like a woman to me
It looks like a woman, no doubt. But a lot of men could look like women with long hair. Besides, what if he was really young with long hair and was just a skinny sort of guy? I mean, I know lots of guys that would look like women with long hair.
But it’s just a painting… people have to realize that the book is FICTION, it was printed as FICTION for a reason. Even though it has some theological beliefs. From what I know talking to professors of history and theology, it’s bogus. *shrugs*
but the basic point is yeah, in the painting it looks like a woman
and from what I read of another comment: It doesn’t look like he’s got his hand under “her” chin, it looks like it’s on her shoulder and he’s talking to “her”. And an older grandfather figure would do the same to a younger person, such as their grandchild.
Her face structure seems feminine. Other then that I don’t know much history behind this mysterious thing,.=P I think that is a woman.
Why would he be a chicken?
Isn’t it supposed to be John? The one whom Jesus loved?
Looks to be a woman. But probably is a man.
It’s a girl most def.
Looks like a man to me, but was Leonardo at the last supper? That’s news to me. Glad to know he was an eye-witness.
A chick? It looks like a woman, I don’t see any feathers. It seems sort of disrespectful to call a woman at the Last Supper a “chick” and a man at the last supper a “guy”.
I’ve never read, nor have I seen the DaVinci code, I’m also not very religious, so I have no idea what I’m talking about, but baised off of just LOOKING at the painting, I would say it’s a girl.
I understand people are saying it’s all in the history of the thing, but how do we know there isn’t another couple of people cut off in the painting, and that woman is a server, as a couple of other people have brought up? I don’t know, to me, it looks like a girl, but it could very well be a young man.
I think it is a girl….like the one person said, most likely a server.
At the time, I could never even imagine all the disciples ‘HELPING THEMSELVES” to food and drink–I am sure there were women present to help with the last supper.
But this pic would never convince me Jesus was married or had children.
Just another deceitful tactful to refute who HE himself said he was….and still today is.
btg
it’s a women Mary Magdalene
girl…. 100%
notice the knife?
how mary and jesus are dressed inverse
the fingers on mary’s neck?
yeah yeah, it looks like a chick, but then they say he (da vinci) was rather gay and liked girly men so he painted young men like girls, it was the style in those days … and man, that symbol of female in the space between jesus and her/him is really pronounced … come on, there’s more to this pic than christians will believe … that pseudo-vagina is too obvious to miss !!!
that guy wants to kill her, to the left. geez … talk about threatening ..
her features definitely look feminine. I’d say a girl. Interesting…
THE TRUTH
It is Paul. In the time period when this painting was done younger men were painted more feminine and without facial hair. In Micheangelos sketch he actually wrote the names of the disciples next to their sketch and then ommitted the names in the painting.
Awww, carp, I meant John. Silly blonde girl (me) has all the art facts and cant get the bible stuff right.
do be honest- i really don’t care.
its a chick.
obviously, a more liberal rendition of the last supper. if you even believe it happened, then you’ll have to take the full account for its full merit. it clearly explains that john was at jesus right side.
looks like a woman to me
girl
sorry…da vinci
plus feminie features
STUPID, STUPID QUESTION
Assuming that at least 90% of these users here have read or seen the movie davinci code, you are basically just feeding off the bias created by the media.
Furthermore, you bias whoever will comment on this by putting forth the question which will influence at the start — male or female? Female sticks out as the sore thumb, because everyone else in the picture is assumed male.
Conclusion? This cafe is a bunch of crap; further more, your questions aren’t even though provoking. They just draw from this stupid american culture. If you fell down in the woods, wouldn’t anybody hear .. how inane.
I think in Da Vinci’s painting, yes it’s a woman….but this is only one person’s view.
i really dont care
I think its a woman
The apostle John was the youngest and also the most gentle. He sat next to Jesus because, during the supper, Jesus put his head on John’s chest. I’m sure it was meant to be him.
it DOES look like a girl….
It’s already been settled by people who actually know what they’re talking about, but I’ll explain their findings anyway…
Saint John in the picture looks like a girl because of his soft face, long hair, and lack of facial hair. This is simply because John was the youngest apostle. He is portrayed as young, not female.
Aside from the artistic reasons it’s not a girl, Da Vinci himself never claimed that Mary Magdalene was in the painting. He never gave any indication of it. You’d think that he would at least write about it in his personal journals. I wonder why he left no evidence, aside from a misinterpreted painting…
BECAUSE HE DIDN’T BELIEVE WHAT DAN BROWN CLAIMS HE DID!
http://www.thetruthaboutdavinci.com
Read, watch, and learn. Quit being ignorant about stupid novels that make false claims.
A female.
Also, there is another issue raise: the V between Jesus and John. Most art historians believe that it was to provide interesting contrast in shapes — artistic style, not ancient symbolism.
One final point: That painting was painted over a thousand years after the event. Historical accounts are more accurate the closer they are to an event. There are more accurate accounts — i.e. the BIBLE — than Da Vinci’s personal beliefs. So even if you disregard the evidence that says Da Vinci wasn’t portraying Mary Magdalene in this painting, you must look at the fact that Da Vinci had no first-hand information, nor is there any evidence he had any secret documents from the Priori of Scion.
The Da Vinci Code? It’s a load of bull crap. Dan Brown is so dumb, he thinks the dead sea scrolls were New Testament gospels…hello?!? Any brains in there, Mr. Brown?!?
Looks like a woman, but its a guy b/c those are the 12 disciples at the last supper w/ Jesus.
It is John the disciple Jesus loved. John had very long feminine type hair, but many people mistake it for Mary of Magdala. But I believe it is John.
Molly
Man just like the one on the far right and the second to the left. They all are men, some more masculine than others. Unless Da Vinci decided to get rid of a disciple and replace him with a woman. Guess I’ll have to go read the Da Vinci code to join pop culture and hate on Jesus. Wait… I believe in the clear, similar historically accurate writing of Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, and Josephus over ficitional artistic interpretation done 500 years after it was created by somebody who lived 1500 years after Jesus.
chick. the skin is fairer and the nose smaller. Overall, smaller and more petite
Girl.
Dunno. It looks like a girl. And by the way the others are treating her/him, it seems almost affectionate. So… girl? Or… Leonardo da Vinci might have pulled a ‘japanimation’ and went ‘androgynous’ style.
I think it’s a guy. Sure, he looks feminine, but so does the guy second from the left…
Let’s not forget that Da Vinci himself labeled him as John.
It’s a bad Google of a famous and now controversial painting…is that even a copy of the original???
How ’bout the Mona Lisa? She looks kinda masculine to me…
great question! Not sure about the answer though. maybe if i saw it in person, and not on a screen it would be easier to tell.
the absence of a beard may be a clue… woman? or very young man? or just a clean-shaven man? ahh i don’t know.
it’s supposed to be Mary Magdalin(however you spell it)right?
as far as i can tell everybody already has a very set preconcieved opinion on this with no room for much arguement.
i however must say that i am undecided. As a painting of the last supper it would seem strange for it to be a woman or Mary Magdalen as people say but that does not make it at all impossible in my mind. While i admit i am much younger than many who respond to this site and also fairly unlearned in the subject of exact history esp. biblical history it would make very little difference in my faith if Jesus was indeed married. that however isnt the question at hand.
i am however fairly more studied in art history… Leonardo Divinci undoubtedly had a tendency to attribute afeminate feature to many of his male figures and Peter was refered to as an afeminate person. This painting however leans heavily toward being most likely the most afeminately characterized male painted by Leonardo… My first impression would be to say female if i didnt know any of the history behind it. putting it all together leaves me fairly undecided. while it would make mostsense for it to be a male. what makes sense isnt always what is. it is an interesting subject with fairly endless arguement. however i dotn see it likely that we come to any definate solution that all could be convinced of. and another thing is why does it matter? Leonardo wasnt there. and a painting doesnt necasarily dictate history… his interpretation is just that ; his interpretation.
hey what is up do you live in columbus you wanna be friends
i say st. john
he-male?
Problem #1 - you’re showing a copy of a recent restoration which has had controversy surrounding it since before The DaVinci Code was written. Many artists and historians argued when it was completed that it’s nothing like the original work. So we’ll never know for sure who or what exactly Mr. DaVinci painted.
Problem #2 – assuming Jesus is the one in the middle, if you look at the third person to his left (our right), that could be a chick too – not quite so pretty as the John/Mary figure (huge understatement, I know), but could definitely pass for a chick, nonetheless. As a matter of fact, s/he in the orange looks very much like an Italian woman I know.
im not an art history major or anythinglike that, so my opinion means little to this topic
but davinci had a bit of a fascination with feminine looking men, and john was supposed ot look a bit feminine
a perfect example: this is leonardo’s St. John the Baptist
see what i mean?
WHO CARES IF IT’S A BOY OR A GIRL?! LEONARDO DA VINCI WASN’T ACTUALLY AT THE LAST SUPPER!!! HE CAN THINK WHAT HE WANTS!!! IT DOESN’T CHANGE WHAT ACTUALLY HAPPENED 2000 YEARS AGO – SERIOUSLY SEEK THE TRUTH PEOPLE!!!!!
AGH!!!
Seriously, What Difference does it make what leonardo drew?
Its a girl.
is the person on his left any more feminine than the person on his far right?
a girl.
da vinci painted it to look like a woman….he was against christianity and against the church. this is definitely not an accurate portrayal of the last supper. da vinci believed that Jesus married magdalene, which is not true at all. so to answer the question….yes it is a woman, but a woman was not present at the last supper.
Look like a chick, but that may be power of suggestion. It also kind of looks like she’s holding hands with Jesus. However, this isn’t a historical record, it’s a work of art. Just because da Vinci painted it doesn’t make it true.
It is a man. Back in those days, younger men were drawn is women. That is just how it was done. And duh, guys. It is him and his 12 disiples. And. as you can see.. This picture only shows 10 people, other than Jesus, but you also see some random arms and half of a head. This is in fact Jesus’ youngest disiple.
Looks feminine to me, but Da Vinci’s own hand written notes indicate that he intended the figure to be John. Youn boys will often have a feminine look about them until puberty.
well it doesnt matter because davinci’s painting is not an inspired work of God or really that historical, we may as well be asking, ” why are they all sitting on one side of the table?”
The face is drawn like a chick with narrow chin and triangular jawline features, but it is only a drawing. Show me the original photograph and I can decide from it.
L,r
It has to be a man I think. If not, why did he paint only 11 of the 12?
It is a man. In Biblical days, men often wore their hair long, and could be mistaken for women in modern eyes. They all wore robes, but the women tended to have a reddish pink color, where as the men wore blue, white, (yellow and purple if they were rich,)or brown, earthy colors. Jesus DID have female friends (Mary Magdelene, Martha, Mary the mother of Jesus, etc.) but we do have reason to believe that is a male. Look at Jesus himself. He has long hair, and the painter seems to have painted them all with softer features. The paleness of the figure on the left, could have everything to do with the light in which the artist portrayed it.
- Tori
I know I don’t comment on this xanga often, but I love to read this guy’s questions. He’s become one of the reasons I check my e-mail everyday, when xanga updates my subscriptions, lol.
However, in any case, let me say a few things about Mr. DaVinci.
First of all, it is clear, from looking at his painting, to see that Mr. DaVinci really didn’t know much about the bible at all – and that was common in his time. It wasn’t normal, or average, for a person in his time to have studied the bible. But, look at the picture. The first noticable thing that says DaVinci really didn’t know much about it is the fact that people are actually -sitting- at the table - the table is -high.- If DaVinci really knew anything about the bible, he’d of known that people in that time didn’t have high tables, and that they didnt’ sit on chairs, they “reclined.” They would almost be laying on eachother.
The second thing we notice in the picture is that there is levened bread. This is a no brainer. People who ate at passover did -not- eat levened bread. Anyone who knew anything about Judaism knew this.
The third thing that we notice is that there is Fish on the table. Now, while I realize that a bunch of Jesus’ desciples were fishermen, this one’s also a no brainer. People who practiced Judaism did -not- eat Fish at passover.
So, with that in mind, here’s a question: Are we really going to listen to some scandal from some guy about something he really knew nothing about? I don’t know, I wouldn’t. Seems to me like he was just trying to tack somthing – anything – “wrong” on Jesus, like so many many others have tried to do as well.
totally looks like a woman, no way that’s a man.
When was this photo taken? Did DaVinci have time travel capabilities?
most of the guys in the painting have facial hair as well as a strong bridge (nose). All of the guys in the painting also display some sort of hand gesture (open positions) while the figure on the left of Jesus is clasping his/her hand in a closed position. The figure also has soft eyebrows whereas the rest of the figures in the painting display strong and pronounced brows indicitative of male features. The figure is female.
A guy.. it’s most likely john. Those who were young were mostly portrayed more like a women in drawings. it’s their style of drawing back then.
and btw.. i like xhyprocite’s response.
In the picture, on the left, there is a hand that belongs to no one with a knife. Judas is the only black man in the painting. Leonardo DaVinci, who I believe to be a total pimp, drew all that, plus a woman, on purpose. His painting is actually hanging in the Roman-Catholic church, right now.
girl
she’s a lot smaller than the others and also to delicate-looking to be a guy
also the only one (i think) w/out a beard
I wouldn’t have even thought it could be a guy if u hadn’t asked. I think it’s a girl.
omg, I cant believe I was so stupid, this is a painting of the last supper, so Of course that’s a man, he’s one of the twelve apostles. There’s Judas even, spilling the salt!
Looks like a girl to me
It’s a girl. I just saw The Divinci Code and everyting they said makes perfect sense. I mean, look at “her” she has such delicate facial features, long flowing hair, and much more feminine robes. It also kind of looks like the guys on the left side are all over her.
looks like a chick to me. it looks like shes kinda leaning on the guy’s shoulder & the guy has his hand under her chin.. so ya i’d say its a lady.
Definitely a woman
Hs anyone noticed that most of the guys have been saying “guy” and the girls have been saying “girl” ? Personally, I also think it’s a chick.
It is a man, there were no women at the last super, Maybe if da vinci could of taken the time to read the Bible , he would have know that.
Male.
Its John, the disciple whom Jesus loved…even Jesus looks feminine to me…so maybe they were just making the stand out. The da vinci code is a joke.
I have another question for you … why was/is Jesus always portrayed as Caucasian? Since he was born in the Bethlehem, shouldn’t and wouldn’t he have looked Middle Eastern?
them*
this painting simply portrays what leonardo thought happened, his verison.
who cares wheather it is male of female?
why is it so important?
i really want to know an answer to this.
i personlly think its female.
I’m pretty sure it is a guy. In those days if you were a guy and you were metrosexual you looked alot like a female. But still at the last supper the Bible says that Jesus was with his discples. And there was no female discple among all the discples.
But, if I am wrong take this into perspective. There is no reason for people to be flipping out over the DeVinci Code. I mean, it is just a story that came out of someones head. I don’t think they intended it to be taken the way it has been taken these days.
It must be one of the “Marys.”
A Q for a Q: Whose hand is on the right shoulder of the mysterious person who may be a chick? More code probs: What does the big post in between the “chalice” figure formed by the leaning mysterious person and the presiding Jesus Christ symbolize? From our perspective, is the fourth person to the right from the mysterious person also a chick? Tsk Tsk Tsk. My husband and I went to watch The DaVinci Code on full screen this weekend. Dan Brown’s creativity with words still surpass the filmmakers’ rendition but you know what? Overall both quarters did great jobs. Good portrayals of fiction. After all, Robert Langdon said that in the end what matters is what we believe. So, back to your Q–gender can be flexible according to what one believes. The painter would have the final answer but s/he’s not around anymore….
let’s ask da vinci
who knows? I think it’s a woman, but we’ll never know what Da Vinci had in mind.
could be either.. though that guy feeling her shoulder looks like he’s gonna grab her boobie :^o
Looks like a girl to me. Who knows what the men in this picture seem to be arguing about? Possibly that there is a woman in the table? Hmmm
I did not see the da vinci code, and it looks like a women.
I am a Jehovah’s Witness and do not believe that Jesus ever got married in the literal, physical sense. Of course, Leonardo was not the same kind of Bible Student I am, and I can’t answer for what he believed. It is probably John. It is also probable that Leo found a model for young John based on his own taste in effeminate men. What can I say? True genius is often inscrutable (meaning; don’t try too hard to scrute it!)
Was it culturally normal for women to be at the table and if not, would it even matter what the heck Da Vinci decided to paint?
A guy–renaissance painters tended to depict men as feminine.
dude……a YOUNG dude
> It looks to be female. I agree with sushigirl n ocdeatingme on the clues. I haven’t read any of the writeups on analysis of clues so I’ll also mention that ‘she’ is seated on his right, which is an honored place. This position is generally reserved for close friends n loved ones n also honored guests. A general appearance indicates a slightly drooped neck line and intimate seating , but that is probably stretching it. Looks female to me….
Peace
My question is how would DaVinci even know who was truly at the last supper?!
You mean was it Peter or Mary M.? I believe it was Mary M.
It’s a guy, it is the apostle John, he was just a teenager at the time of Jesus’ crucifixion. so yes he would look feminine because he couldn’t grow a beard yet!
Chick
A woman. Mary Magdalen. Some think she is Jesus’ lover.
Looks like a girl to me.
chick
People will see what they want to see.
End of story.
Here’s the question. What is the credibility of the source by which this picture emerged from. People can use the internet for just about anything. You can google “I hate Paris Hilton, and you’ll get a bunch of sites, or “I love Paris Hilton, and find a bunch of other sites. Whatever you enter, and where ever you look for something, you’ll find something by which it will be a proponent for your case. Two points. The picture could have been photoshopped. Point 2 as mentioned from a local coffee shop owner that I frequent, “All on the internet is not true.
Totally a woman.
its a girl. get over it. can women not hold any sort of power??
SHE is the only one who doesn’t have facial hair. How did they shave in those days anyway? Maybe we should go and look up the history of razors to solve this mystery.
mmkay even though, i’m really late on this entry, i decided to comment it just for myself. i think the person to the left of jesus is a guy. not b/c i’m a holier than thou super christian.
but here’s my reasoning.
#1)this picture is unacurate in the first place. there have been several debates && theories on the color of jesus’s skin. if he was born in jerusalem then his skin would be more of an olive color, as would the rest because jesus, && his follower’s story took place in that region of earth. so based on that, if it was a woman, it wouldn’t be accurate anyways.
#2)Some guys just have more feminine faces, && softer features. so peter might be one of them.
#3)The Bible said Peter was significantly younger than the rest of Jesus’s disciples. He wouldn’t be old, with hard features && have a huge beard, && have wrinkly skin like the other disciples have.
#4)From the point of view of just glancing at the picture, which is hard on the one you posted, [i have a huge one], his hands folded on the table, && just as large as the rest of the men at the table.
#5)This picture isn’t real at all. Leonardo wasn’t there when he painted it. in movies there are different interpretations of the last supper, such as being in a tent. since those men were Jesus’s desciples, i dont think they would all be speaking while Jesus was. && also, all the men wouldn’t be sitting on one side of the table.
#6)the Da Vinci Code clearly states on the front cover, that it is a NOVEL. it is fictional, && it sits in fictional sections of the library. treat it like a fictional book. when lord of the rings came out, there wasn’t a huge controversy about there being wizards && elves, && middle earth. so why should this book be so controversial if it’s FICTIONAL?