i see it, but have you seen the movie? on one part it moves mary to the right of god, and it looks like he has her head on his shoulder like a couple, but now the baby looks like shes leaning on him and they are lookin at the baby but i see it and its wrapped in a blue blanket, so i feel like it was purposly put there

I saw it as well however I do think it may be an optical illusion.
I myself don't understand how some can read so much into this painting as the painter was not alive during the period of Jesus so this is his interpretation of the last supper. I think the painting probably is much nicer looking than what it really was like. But these are just my thoughts on the subject.
I have heard other things about this painting as well but I myself put nothing to it. To me this is just an interpretation of the last supper nothing more.

I think if you study Renaissance art from across the board you will find that the images people see in paintings and sketches are actually not optical illusion's but the real deal.

Renaissance artist often put other figures in painting, like in the neck areas, leg areas, face areas and other places like the clothing or background in a painting to represent a Symbol and meaning, it is the Observer to piece this together like a story in a book and to understand what they were saying. To understand this is called encryption or encrypted.

I don't think Leonardo had so much time to ponder upon the implications of the Last Supper to the extent to which Dan Brown did it.
I think the Last Supper is a wonderful work of art, and that the painter has skillfully accomplished the requirements of his commissioners while conveying a divine work of art.
I don't really think we need to look further.
Sometimes I believe the dispute around The Last Supper is doing this masterpiece more damage than the arched door cut in the painting (in the place where Jesus's feet would have been) by some ignorant administrator.
The Last Supper - the un-coded approach

Welcome to the forum, LeonardoDaVinci_.
Please read all the rules and guidelines ~ then you will know how the site & forum work ~ I hope that you will enjoy being a member!

You sent me an 'alert' to ask a question about this subject.
Please add comments and questions to the board ~ as you have here.

Alerts (~when you click on 'notify'~) are for informing us of times when rules have been broken.) Thanks!

I will add your question to a relevant thread:
Art - Why should 'John' look so feminine?
http://www.wineintro.com/forum/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=270526&fpart=3

[u]Old or New Subject?: [/u] Hidden image of baby face in brooch of “Madonna with clove” painting (a.k.a. “Madonna of the Carnation”) by Leonardo da Vinci?? (Particular pics of this painting are in the (Wikipedia.org) Wikimedia Commons collection of Leonardo paintings pics: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Madonna_with_clove. The full “canvas” shows a young woman and her naked baby son sitting in a room, alongside a vase of flowers, with big windows in the background. The baby is reaching out towards a red carnation that the mother is holding in her hand. I like the “Leonardo da Vinci 036.jpg – 427,978 bytes” pic the best because it is lightened and smoothed, and has so much detail if you click to enlarge it.) Hi again to all fellow pareidoliacs out there :) (smiley face)! (By the way, did I just make up a word there? According to Wikipedia.org, “pareidolia” is “...a psychological phenomenon involving a vague and random stimulus (often an image or sound) being perceived as significant. Common examples include seeing images of animals or faces in clouds, the man in the moon, and hearing hidden messages on records played in reverse.”) Well, anyway, this time I see a hidden baby face image amongst the shadows of the polished brooch (also sometimes spelled “broach”) stone of the subject madonna in this painting by Leonardo da Vinci – ALTHOUGH I see it only in this specific pic of the painting. (I don't know how they managed to lighten and smooth this photo of the painting the way they did.) This pic of the painting is called “Madonna with clove” (usually also known as “The Madonna of the Carnation,” circa 1478; displayed in the Alte Pinakothek gallery in Munich, Germany.) I think “clove” is short for “clove carnation,” which is a small, spicy or herbal flower, and also apparently had symbolic religious significance, as I think this painting is supposed to be a representation of the Virgin Mary with her son, the Infant Christ –- European Renaissance-style. The large, brownish or deep amber-ish(?), reflective (translucent or transparent?), oval brooch is located about in the middle of the oil painting. The brooch seems to act as a clasp or pinback which keeps or pins the front top edges of the Madonna's light blue overshirt, or vest, together. The brooch's big stone or gemstone seems to be cabochon-cut (smooth, polished dome front with flat back), and the outer (bezel?) border is surrounded by some kind of small, round stones (or gemstones or pearls?). To see the baby face in the brooch, I zoom in on the brooch somewhat, and then tilt my LCD monitor this way or that to “lighten up” the dark shadows which tend to obscure the face. To me, the face in the brooch is as realistic-looking as a kind of dark sepia photo or a miniature portrait: a face looking out from within a smoky, glassy orb. The ovoid or rather egg-shaped head of the baby takes up almost all of the brooch's convex surface area, which has mirroring shadows and highlights. There is only a full frontal face (as far as I can tell), very slightly turned to his/her right – no neck, chest nor shoulders, nor head coverings. The right (the brooch baby's right) edge of the forehead is highlighted by sunlight along its length, and up beyond whatever hairline there may be. The left side of the uppermost forehead has a big “flaw” (spot of eroding paint?). I can see the eyes, nose, and the suggestion of a mouth, but I can't make out any hair nor ears. The eyes seem to be looking sidelong or sideways at the face of the baby Jesus whom the Madonna is supporting half-way on her lap in the painting. The Christ child, sitting on a cushion, seems to be reaching out with both hands towards the red “mini-carnation” that the Madonna is holding in her hand. The flower stem nearly touches the brooch. While the “real” baby boy and the “brooch baby” seem close in age and looks, the “baby in the brooch” seems to have a higher forehead and seems thinner than the real child in the painting. I'm not sure of the baby Jesus' age – could be anywhere from three months old (infant) to crawling (probably), or even near toddler, age. I think the face in the brooch is of a boy (but of course I could certainly be wrong! – the brooch baby's face is too young to really tell what gender he/she is...it's just a feeling.) I cannot really see the baby face in the Madonna's brooch in other photos of this painting – the other pics (usually entitled “Madonna of the Carnation”) are too dark, or something. And I only go by what pics I see on the Internet – I have never seen this painting “in person.” So this “hidden image” could just be a trick of light or of the imagination (we pareidoliacs can have quite the imagination, you know :) – an optical illusion caused by a particular, lightened pic. At any rate, I have been (very slowly, ufortunately) reading through so many great posts on this website – so interesting and informative! It's a lot more than what I first thought, but think they're wonderful! THANKS! And have a spot of fun, fellow pareidoliacs :) !

Hello Ann

Yes, I see what you mean.

I suppose that this may be a deliberate painting of the reflection of the baby, or, alternatively, it might be an optical illusion, since our brains tend to seek out faces ~ even when they are not there.

But the brooch does appear to reflect the light in the room, so, to me, it wouldn't be surprising if it also reflected the baby's head.

Hi, PDM :) (big smiley face) ! I’m glad that someone else besides me alone can “see” the face in the brooch. But who or what the face in the brooch is supposed to be, or what it may mean…well, all THAT…I don’t know. IF the brooch face was deliberately painted in, I don’t know if it was supposed to be a direct (or real-time) reflection of the “real” baby’s face or not, since the brooch baby’s eyes’ direction, expression, and position of the head seem (at least, to me) different than the eye direction(s), expression, and head position of the real child’s eye direction(s), expression, and head position. However, artistically or metaphorically, one of the things my imaginative side has thought of in the past is that maybe the brooch baby could be a sort of “reflection” of the real baby before or after (past or future time) the “real” child in the painting was born, or maybe it’s supposed to be the real baby’s “alter ego,” spiritually or otherwise, being reflected (whether or not the brooch baby is a boy or girl.) Hope I didn’t make all that sound too confusing. Alternatively, there certainly could be another explanation for that brooch baby’s head being there (IF it was meant deliberately.) It could mean something else entirely, and I‘ve certainly thought of all other manner of different things than what I just mentioned, and how the brooch face could’ve gotten there; but all in all -- in the end -- again, I really don’t know what it’s all about! As my pareidoliacal imagination knows no bounds, it just may all be speculatively fun, but possibly, moot points. And I think I may have just made up a new word there, again. But if this IS just an optical illusion, what I like about it is that the baby face in the brooch has a lot more character in its expression than, say, “the man in the moon” (which has naught but a stony-faced expression.) (Smiley face).

I can see a face in the lap of the Mona Lisa as well. The face is being made by the folds of cloth she's wearing.

Welcome gluckrevolutioni

Indeed, one thing that we must bear in mind is that our brains are 'wired' to see faces ~ whether they are there, or not.