I saw the first part of ‘The Beauty of Diagrams’ on BBC4 last night. It was Marcus du Sautoy talking about Leodardo’s ‘Vitruvian Man’.
'Vitruvian Man' - Leonardo da Vinci
Now, I yield to nobody in my respect for Leonardo, nor for Marcus, who is doing a fine job to raise public awareness in science and mathematics (perhaps more in mathematics, as we shall see later). But I do have some problesm with this image.
First, it is supposed to represent the proportions of an ideal man. Approaching this as a scientist, this is a hypothesis, to be tested by experiment. Marcus did this, but only on one subject. Is that a mathematician’s approach? I suggest that a scientist would have wanted data on a much wider range of subjects (OK, Marcus, I know it’s only a TV series). Taking the scientific approach further, you need some physical reason for why things are as you postulate. But I cannot see any physical reason why man should have any sort of ‘ideal’ proportions.
I am more worried, though, by the idea that there should be any ideal proportions. Does this mean that anyone not conforming to those proportions is, somehow, not complete as a man? The Nazis would have made a great deal of that.
But I suppose my biggest worry is the idea, explained by Marcus, that the whole thing arose because Leonardo, and just about everyone else at that time, considered man to be the pinnacle of creation. Now, I don’t want to get into theological arguments but it seems to me that considering man to be anything special, compared to all the other creatures on earth, is a dangerous idea and a breeding ground for arrogance.
So is Vetruvian Man really important? It probably is to historians of art and architecture. And it is certainly a beautiful image. But in terms of saying anything about how we should act and our position in creation I suggest it is no more than mildly interesting.
