By Serge Bramly

This readable biography of Leonardo is revealing. It doesn’t completely endorse the fifteenth century genius. If the writing stumbles it is because the subject matter, Leonardo di Vinci is imperfect. It is remarkable how few finished productions Leonardo had and have survived; count the paintings on hands and toes. The product of one of the best of those, The Last Supper, can only be guessed at. It started to deteriorate almost immediately; no one paid much attention to it. It was neglected and abused for centuries and almost bombed out of existence during World War Two. And did Leonardo ever complete the face of Judas and the countenance of Jesus Christ? It is likely an enterprising student or artist stepped into to finish those portions of the work.

A problem was Leonard did not know when a production of his was finished. There are general discussions of art in the book, but most artists know to finish, to complete, to rid the mind of effort and work. That vacancy in the mind is welcome and a relief. There are drawings of the Sforza Monument, a horseman in bronze to be placed in Milan. But Leonardo did not know how to cast a rearing horse with a rider; years passed and he never started the work. It was abandoned. Meeting Michelangelo in Florence Leonardo was confronted by his own inability to conceptualize and complete that horsey work [as well as drawings of many other incomplete works].

What Leonardo painted, he painted well, but he is one of many painters from 1480-1520 who painted well. The painting of Jesus Christ recently sold at auction is not as detailed, studied and finely finished as Albrecht Duerer’s 1500 self-portrait, the artist as Jesus Christ.

Leonardo’s work is mostly notebooks and fragments thereof, where there are drawings, sketches and imagines of things and thoughts about other things. The biographer notes there are other artists, engineers and diarists who imagined flying machines and armaments, but there is no grand discussion or comparison of those images from multiple sources. Some of Leonardo’s notations are alchemy; he visualizes plastics but does not start with petroleum. He makes scanty astronomical notations, but they may be more astrological in nature – the biography does not go into detail.

Leonardo was interested in dissecting bodies but not to produce a systematic study leading to medical advancement. He was aware of the process of human originality and creation to produce art, but imperfectly applied it to himself. He seemed unaware of human psychology.

Fellow artists saw his finished works, plus cartoons prepared for painted works and some drawings. Most artists were impressed with the drafts. But there is not a line of influence: Leonardo produced this, and ten years later Michelangelo and Raphael produced these. Too many persons influenced artists plus the egos and experiences of painters, sculptures and architects. Those individuals advanced concepts and presentations of art.

And what of Leonardo? His influence is historical. He did not share or publish many of his notebooks (codices) during his lifetime. During the 1570s visitors were invited to take what they wanted. His peers and contemporaries did not see the bulk of his work and inventiveness, and like today, as scattered as these works are, Leonardo’s influence is difficult to access.

The biography is favorable to the man, but his shortcomings are almost debilitating and incomprehensible. This biography attempts to be truthful and honest – describe the whole man and his creations without resort to much artistic mist and mystification.