29-12-2016, 11:42 PM
(29-12-2016, 09:37 PM)Koen Gh. wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view....
When I started studying the manuscript - after having read some introductory material - I first focused on the text. ...
I did this, as well, except that I skipped most of the introductory material. I had stumbled over Edith Sherwood's site when doing a Web search for something related to Leonardo da Vinci, and then, after glancing over her ideas about da Vinci and a few of the plants, I watched one of the videos on youtube. After that, I looked specifically at the text and then, after a while, realized it wasn't as easy to decode as it might seem at first glance. That led me to the plants, in the hope that they would reveal something about the text... and then the rest.
This is a bit of a philosophical question: what comes first, the imagery or the text? Should we try to understand the images better first, or try to crack the text first? Which one will offer the easiest entrance? Which one will help us understand the other better?
I think this can be summarized as imagery, text, physical attributes, and metadata, with the metadata being secondary ideas and conclusions that are extrapolated by studying the physical and visual aspects of the manuscript.