<< 1 >>
Rating: 
Summary: In intellectual romp through history, religion and Leonardo.
Review: As an artist an avid fan of history, I found this book to be extrememly interesting in the fact that it tries to uncover myths that have eluded the public's eye for quite some time. This book says a lot about Christianity, history and art and keeps your attention pretty well. The authors do jump to a few conclusions that may or may not be true--but otherwise it is very entertaining and insightful.
Rating:
Summary: Leonardo did it!
Review: As an atheist I'm one of those that was satisfied after reading this book as far as accepting that the shroud is a fake and that Leonardo da Vinci produced it. In "A CONCISE HISTORY OF PHOTOGRAPHY," by Helmut Gernsheim, 3rd Rev. Ed. ©1965, '71, '86 - Dover Publications. On page 4 it says that da Vinci did camera obscura in late 1400s, early 1500s. In "PHOTOGRAPHY UNTIL NOW," by John Szarkowsky, The MOMA (Museum Of Modern Art) NY, ©1989 - Page 12, "...Given the intimate coherence of Western science during the four centuries between Brother Roger and Sir Francis, it seems likely that the basic principle of the camera obscura was fairly widely known;³ nevertheless no clear descripion of the phenomenon seems to predate that of Leonardo da Vinci, who about 1500 wrote: 'When the images of objects which are illuminated penetrate through a small hole into a very dark room, these images are received in the inside of the room on a white paper, situated some distance form the opening. You will see on the paper all these objects in their proper form and colour. They will be reduced in size, they will present themselves in a reversed position, owing to the intersection of the rays,4' Leonardo, however, ws so secretive a man that he wrote backward so it happened that Giovanni Battista della Porta, who described the camera obscura more than half a century after Leonardo, was long credited as its inventor." We have science to guide us, yet using science it has been proven that there is no historical Jesus and is clearly a human invention. The New Testament says that two clothes were used for Jesus, a body and a separate head cloth. Even though there is no evidence for Jesus, and the religious (christians, mainly) are ruled by the bible, they have to accept this and forget about the Turin shroud being the real thing. You can't have it both ways.
Rating:
Summary: Leonardo did it!
Review: As an atheist I'm one of those that was satisfied after reading this book as far as accepting that the shroud is a fake and that Leonardo da Vinci produced it. In "A CONCISE HISTORY OF PHOTOGRAPHY," by Helmut Gernsheim, 3rd Rev. Ed. ©1965, '71, '86 - Dover Publications. On page 4 it says that da Vinci did camera obscura in late 1400s, early 1500s. In "PHOTOGRAPHY UNTIL NOW," by John Szarkowsky, The MOMA (Museum Of Modern Art) NY, ©1989 - Page 12, "...Given the intimate coherence of Western science during the four centuries between Brother Roger and Sir Francis, it seems likely that the basic principle of the camera obscura was fairly widely known;³ nevertheless no clear descripion of the phenomenon seems to predate that of Leonardo da Vinci, who about 1500 wrote: 'When the images of objects which are illuminated penetrate through a small hole into a very dark room, these images are received in the inside of the room on a white paper, situated some distance form the opening. You will see on the paper all these objects in their proper form and colour. They will be reduced in size, they will present themselves in a reversed position, owing to the intersection of the rays,4' Leonardo, however, ws so secretive a man that he wrote backward so it happened that Giovanni Battista della Porta, who described the camera obscura more than half a century after Leonardo, was long credited as its inventor." We have science to guide us, yet using science it has been proven that there is no historical Jesus and is clearly a human invention. The New Testament says that two clothes were used for Jesus, a body and a separate head cloth. Even though there is no evidence for Jesus, and the religious (christians, mainly) are ruled by the bible, they have to accept this and forget about the Turin shroud being the real thing. You can't have it both ways.
Rating: 
Summary: Narrow Minds
Review: I read this book several years ago, having had no prior interest in the shroud, and found the presentation of how the image was made to be pretty reasonable and well-demonstrated. I am moved now to write this review because I recently read Second Messiah, which criticizes this book and which postulates that the image is that of a real human laid on the shroud, which I think cannot be true because, among other reasons, the image of the long hair of the back of the head would not run straight down the figure's back as it actually appears on the shroud; instead, as the body was laid down, the hair would first dangle to the cloth and then, as the head lowered to the cloth, the hair would crumple underneath the head, as anyone with long hair knows happens if you lie down after a shower. This book Turin Shroud describes a physical process involving a camera obscura and a primitive emulsion on the cloth, producing a photographic image. I can't speak to the Leonardo theory or the Priory of Sion material they include, since I don't follow nor much care about such conjectures. But that material even if wrong doesn't impeach the physical theory of image production. As to motivation, it seems reasonable that someone would try to create such a religious object as Christ's shroud, in order to attract pilgrims and donations, and may have stumbled on the process to create this image. There is another, long review on this site that goes into more detail -- I've read this review and I generally agree with its approach.
Rating: 
Summary: CREDIBLE BUT INCOMPLETE
Review: Picknett and Prince build a convincing case that the Turin shroud was faked by Leonardo Da Vinci, possibly at the request of the pope at the time. Relics were big crowd-pleasers, and this shroud could have replaced an earlier one that did not have an image of the crucified Jesus. But Leonardo also had his own motive for the way he carried out this commission. Leonardo, as we are learning from many popular books, hated the Church. He was a Grand Master of the Pirory of Sion, that shadowy organization that featured so prominently in the book, Holy Blood, Holy Grail.According to Picknett and Prince, it is Leonardo's face that is imprinted on the cloth of the shroud and, further, the head (which is too small for the body) was added separately. The authors compared the features to known likenesses of Leonardo and came up with a match. It was Leonardo's little joke on believers. Who but a genius of his caliber could have created the shroud with its amazing image? The major contribution of this book to shroud lore is their experiments showing that Leonardo could have used a photographic method using a "camera obscura" (a box with a pinhole used by artists to make an upside-down image they could trace) to make the image. Although photography wasn't invented for a few more centuries, the principles of light-sensitive materials WERE known, and Leonardo was fascinated with light. He was way ahead of his time in his knowledge of the natural world, and he could have used the technique the authors demonstrated. The authors show that Leonardo understood the workings of the camera obscura. They succeeded in making an image of a sculpture of a head that is of similar quality to the image on the shroud using a homemade camera obscura and common chemicals that were available to Leonardo. So far so good. But I kept waiting for the rest of the explanation. Where did Leonardo get a crucified body? The authors relegate this important question to a parenthetical comment that we may never know. Excuse me? The "true believers" know exactly where the crucified body came from, since they believe it was Jesus and according to the New Testament, Jesus was crucified. It is enough of a stretch to say Leonardo used his own head, since the process suggested would rely on the sun for exposure and it would take a very long exposure to make an image. Of course, Leonardo may have made a cast of his own face and worked with the cast (just as the authors did). But it's hard to see how he could have made a life-size cast of a body that has the marks of crucifixion on it that would result in an image of such good quality. And manipulating a cloth as large as the shroud to get the exposure in the right place and of good quality sounds like a task even Leonardo might be unable to accomplish. It would require a huge camera obscura! They also don't deal with the other books that claim the shroud shows a body that was still alive when wrapped in the cloth (The Jesus Conspiracy by Kersten and Gruber). They do discuss the evidence that the shroud existed prior to the lifetime of Leonardo, but they quickly explain it all away. The many characters and dates involved become confusing -- a timeline of the many mentions and appearances of a holy shroud throughout history would have been nice. Their experimental work with a photographic method of imprinting an image on cloth is impressive and is a better explanation than any of the other shroud writers, but they should have carried their work a bit further. The books feels incomplete. It is interesting, but not enough to really explain the Turin Shroud.
Rating:
Summary: Very impressive, up to a point
Review: The authors give a very informative and entertaining survey of the known history of the Turin Shroud, as well as of the status of research, and of the various theories. They also give a very believable account of their confrontations with the "Shroudies" who want to prove the authenticity of the shroud at all costs. Moreover, they correctly emphasize that, even if the carbon dating tests have shown that the shroud can't have been made anywhere near the time of Jesus, the question remains as to how it was made. After reading this book - and checking the work by other researchers cited by them - there is no doubt in my mind that the Turin Shroud was made by a early photographic process. That is the only method that has allowed modern reproductions of the shroud to be made (not only by the authors of the book, whose work - as they admit - in this regard is amateurish, but by a photography specialist in South Africa). Those who insist on the Jacques de Molay theory overlook the fact that the authors of "The Second Messiah" also tried to reproduce the shroud - and failed miserably. Where the book starts to need more than a few pinches of salt is when they insist that Leonardo da Vinci was the faker of the shroud. They do give a lot of intriguing information about Leonardo, as well as circumstancial evidence, but I did raise my eyebrows when they introduced the mysterious "Giovanni" character who fist pointed the right way. Moreover, other books by the same authors indicate that they tend to move in the shadowy world of conspiracy theories and secret societies - which makes one suspicious. The same goes for the claim that the face on the Shroud is Leonardo's own, and that the intentionally had the face slightly separated from the body. I personally find it more likely that "head cut from the body" effect was due to a faulty composition, when the faker re-exposed the cloth to capture the face, which I believe to have been photographed separately - and rather than Leonardo, that possibly some today-forgotten artist was the faker. The Vatican should thank the authors, since, as they point out, should the Shroud turn out to be not only the oldest photograph in existence, but also by Leonardo, and his self-portrait, that would meant that it is the most priceless artifact on the planet.
Rating:
Summary: Well thought out
Review: This book is clever. The idea of a negative imprint is clever. The idea that Leonardo could have achieved this is entertaining, and that doesn't mean it's not true either.
With it being "established" that Leonardo was a Grand Master of the Priory of Sion, this means irrespective of everything else he was involved in, the tie in with the Jesus mystery which the Priory is embroiled in is something to be aware of.
Obviously its for the reader to draw their own conclusions, but like so many subjects that are often just "accepted on first hearing" as being correct, it always pays to see an alternate point of view! What's presented in this book is exactly that, and like a good complex equation it does add up, but then, just because 6 x 2 = 12, it doesn't mean that 3 x 4 can't give the same result!
Rating:
Summary: Entertaining read, interesting hypothesis
Review: This book purports to put forth what the authors consider is a completely new twist on the Turin Shroud. Unfortunately this is yet another book where we are dealing with a relatively "anonymous informant." Here the anonymous informant is a man named "Giovanni." It should be granted that this reliance on an anonymous source does nothing, a priori, to disprove the hypothesis put forth in the book but it certainly does give one pause. So what does this "informant" have to do with the Turin Shroud? Well, this man apparently provides the authors with the information that Leonardo was heavily involved in the occult, was the "Grand Master" of a secret society and was responsible for the Turin Shroud. Not only was Leonardo responsible for creating the Shroud, the mysterious "Giovanni" said that Leonardo used a type of photographic technique - one that had not come to light since Leonardo employed it. The key to science is repeatability of results. The authors go into a little detail about their own three-dimensional work with the Shroud images via the work of a man named Andy Haveland-Robinson, a consultant in computer graphics operations. This is important because they claim that their findings show a lack of three-dimensional information, in direct contrast to the VP-8 studies done earlier. (It can be said, however, that the original work with the VP-8 is highly suspect.) Nevertheless, we really have nothing to go on except their chapter eight which explains the basics behind their techniques. One key element is: would Leonardo have had the necessary materials available to him for this venture? We have to consider that by history as we know it, any photographic technique at all was more than three hundred years in the future. The authors say that the materials he would have needed would have been available. However, the authors, in attempting to recreate the work of Leonardo that they believe he did, did not use only materials that existed at his time. (In other words, they did use materials that only came into use after Leonardo's time.) As they freely admit, they had to make some concessions. This, no matter how small the concession, calls into question their hypothesis. They do say that it is possible that history is wrong as to when some of those materials came into use and it must be admitted that it is not impossible that Leonardo could have made use of them - but, in any event, that does not make for an air-tight hypothesis. Certainly not as air-tight as the authors routinely claim through the course of the book. Beyond that, why was the process never revealed by Leonardo, revealed by someone else, or even just discovered by someone else? We know that Leonardo was very secretive in general and he was accused of sorcery at one point in his life. But this does not necessarily show why someone else might not have developed it. Or why the technique has not appeared in any of Leonardo's notebooks that have been found (and, granted, many have been lost). Again: not disproofs of the hypothesis - just more wiggle-room for questioning. The authors claim that Leonardo may have viewed photography as part of his "magical" and "hermetical" practices. The authors state that "it is likely that Leonardo himself would have regarded basic photography as something magical." I am not so sure of that. Even if such studies were considered magical in some fashion, that does not mean Leonardo would have looked at them that way. It is known that Leonardo had good ideas about how the human eye works, mainly from dissecting the eyes, that were certainly not magical. In fact, he seems to have equated light with a wave that had a definite speed. We also know he was fascinated with the investigation of lenses and mirrors, as well as light in general. It later came to light that Leonardo had invented one of the first photometers (for measuring the brightness of an object) as well as drawing up the design for a camera obscura, which he publicly showed during his lifetime. (The authors do mention most of this and yet they still seem to think that Leonardo would have only placed photographic-like processes in the realm of magic.) This is not to say, however, that Leonardo was not accussed of magic - or, actually, of sorcery. The Church also took a fairly dim view of these proceedings and thus it would have been wise to keep some of this research under wraps. The authors believe that the Shroud is a composite image. As they say: "We believe that it is composed of three images - the face, the body from the neck down at the front, and all of the head and back." Furthermore, they believe that the face image is, in fact, that of Leonardo da Vinci. This is partly based on evidence that the authors feel they adduced regarding that the face on the image is a "bad fit" in the sense that it apepars to be too small in relation to the body. There is also the idea that in all images of the Shroud, there is a very distinctive cut off between the upper torso and the head. In other words, the neck is completely missing. However there are vastly in the minority on this part of their hypothesis. Does that make it wrong? Of course not, but the authors really do not go into other people's hypotheses all that much as to why the image is not composite. The book was meant to persuade. After reading it, I cannot say that I was completely persuaded. However, I can say that I was intrigued. The authors presented their case well and I would certainly like to do further investigation into this matter. I think the authors make a few assumptions along the way but I found nothing that I found was just totally unrealistic in terms of their assumptions, just perhaps a little hopeful. They are on much less stable ground with their alleged informant and the Priory of Sion - particularly because the Priory of Sion has all but been completely discredited in scholarly circles, recognized for the hoax it was. Since this is not a fundamental part of their book (when you get into their hypothesis), it does not detract overly much from the book. Overall: it is a good book that is well written and paced and gives some good information about the history of the Shroud (albeit, some selective history) and some of the research done with it. I would recommend you read it - but also read other books about this subject so as to get a more balanced viewpoint.
<< 1 >>
|
