Leonardo Da Vinci

[BrokenDaniel]

I've recently discovered a book in my mother's house which contains mostl of his paintings and sketches... I'm honestly fascinated by this guy, how polifacetic he was and how he seemed to kill it everytime. His studies/sketches on anatomy impacted me deeply, i've never took too much interest in biology as a subject, but now it's fascinating for me. Also he made some portraits of people who clearly didn't existed, by how dephormed they where, like today's caricatures, but you still get something realistic from them, due to his ability. In many ways he was ridiculously ahead of his time.

As for his type, well, i really doubt he was an INFJ. He seemed very messy, leaving a lot of his works without conclusion, and spreading himself too much on his interests, that seems P to me. Probably an intuitive, but ISTP seems like an option. Possibly a thinker, his analytic skills seemed Ti to me. In introversion Vs Extraversion i'm a bit lost, since i don't know too much about his life, except from some bits from the book that i've mentioned.

So, INTP, ENTP, ISTP are my options, i don't have a case for ENFP, his vegetarianism could be a sign of Fi, given the times where he lived, but it's silly to go by that alone. Not an ESTP, i don't think he repressed introverted intuition, also devoting his life to study doesn't seem too Se dom for me.

What do you think?

 

[Eventhorizon]

I think humans are like anything else. You mix a little of this, a little of that and you get this type of person. Da Vinci helped the world in ways few will likely ever realize just like Newton etc. However, think of what would have happened if he was born on a mostly deserted island.

 

[LucyJr]

I kind of se him as a ENFP or ESFP. He was very friendly and sociable, the soul of the company.

 

[Rift Zone]

Genius! It comes in all flavors. =)

 

[invisible]

has anyone else been to see the Mona Lisa in the Louvre? i think its definitely worth a visit, one of those times when the hype is deserved.

i love him. so inspiring. one of those very unique human beings, like Beethoven, there will never be anyone else to compare to him.

 

[BrokenDaniel]

These are some of his caricatures, they're brilliant, and very well done, i had difficulty recognizing this as his own, given the times where he lived. Makes me think of ENTP or ENFP as his possible type.

 

[Alomoes]

INFJ? I wouldn't be surprised. Sounds like a recluse cause nobody knows much about him except for his paintings. Also paintings of things are very one directional. Very Ti focused I'd think. Also dabbled in math and so on.

 

[cvp12gh5]

INTP.

 

[Alomoes]

Just saying, the stereotypical Einstein is actually probably an ISTP. Tesla is likely INTP. Reasoning is because Bach does not equal Tesla and Tesla does not equal Einstein. One of the three are sensors. Already confirmed Bach. Don't know about the others.

 

[Eventhorizon]

Just saying, the stereotypical Einstein is actually probably an ISTP. Tesla is likely INTP. Reasoning is because Bach does not equal Tesla and Tesla does not equal Einstein. One of the three are sensors. Already confirmed Bach. Don't know about the others.

Guess guess guess...

 

[BrokenDaniel]

INFJ? I wouldn't be surprised. Sounds like a recluse cause nobody knows much about him except for his paintings. Also paintings of things are very one directional. Very Ti focused I'd think. Also dabbled in math and so on.

He was polifacetic, and not that much of a recluse, his style was incredibly technical and detailed, agreed, thing is that it was exhaustive, to the point of obsession. I know of a painter who's INFJ, totally different thing, much more focused on the image itself, and details don't seem to concern him as much, my teacher (ENFP, art graduate) says he lacks a certain technique, specially details, which seemed to be Da Vinci's strong spot (Ti dom). I draw too, and there's sort of the same thing with details (fuck em'), although i'm really far from being a pro, like the INFJ i mentioned.
Oh yeah, and i suck like really hard at math. Ti doms always seemed better at it, at least the ones i know.
xNTP is my take now, pretty sure about it, leaning towards INTP.

 

[Alomoes]

Guess guess guess...

Better than not guessing and doing nothing on the matter.

I'm thinking he was a Ti dom now.

And yes. INFJs suck at math (But oddly enough, not music). Going by the Socionics beta quadra, those most likely to be confused with INFJ, he could be ISTj/ISTP or ESTJ/ESTp. http://www.sociotype.com/socionics/quadras/Beta

That is if he is a beta of course. And as a note, even if one does suck at math, if given infinite time to solve a problem and infinite resolve, can they solve that problem? Case in point. http://www.lairweb.org.nz/leonardo/mona.html

Four years to paint the Mona Lisa. Four years. I can't even imagine that. How. Why? What? Now in his defense, the painting is multiple paintings on top of each other, but still.

Weird people. http://www.historytoday.com/richard-cavendish/mona-lisa-stolen-louvre

But yeah. Part of the reason why INFJs are so horrible at math is because of the way math is taught, I think. They give you not four years, but forty five minutes each day for half a year. Hopefully college will be different.

 

[Jexocuha]

I can completely understand typing Da Vinci as an INTP. His work is very intricate, and challenges the viewer to look deeper to see if they can decipher the hidden clues of meaning and conspiracy of his work. He definitely knew or saw a lot of hidden depth and subversive aspects to the subjects he would draw or paint. He also was a visionary, much ahead of his time, e.g. drawing models for helicopter-like "flying-machines", etc.. He was way too irreverently inquisitive to be a sensor. I think though, because of the subjective and conspiratorial nature of his works, while maintaining a pleasant and technically astute surface appearance that was culturally appropriate, I would bet my money on Da Vinci being either INTJ or INFJ. When it comes to artists, INFJs and INTJs can be hard to differentiate, especially the further back in time you go, when everything in the Western world was Christianized. In modern times, INFJ and INTJ artists are easier to differentiate. INFJs work will have a more subjective and more upfront expression of supernatural, psychoanalytic, or spiritual quality of it; while INTJ will have a more critical and structurally impressive presentation. But both types of artists can be compelling. And the best comparison I can think of is in the film world. Two films released, from two different masterful film directors, at almost the same time, and were compared to each other due to the cold war political climate at the time: Solaris, by an INFJ Andrei Tarkovsky, and 2001: A Space Odessy by an INTJ, Stanley Kubrick. Both films are thought-provoking, technically astute, contained elements of the supernatural, and they were both top notch examples of sci-fi space exploration. But it is easy to tell the INTJ had more emphasis on the technical structure of the narrative, and his approach to space had an obviously cold and impersonal style. Contrast that with Tarkovsky's Solaris, treating space as a testing ground for a suffering soul-very, obviously, full of philosophical musing, and very personal/subjective speculations and predicaments. So overall, what I'm saying is, before modern secular art, much of the art was funded by and based on the Christian Church - so it is harder to tell if the artist was being (INTJ)impersonal/critical in their work or, if their work had a formal presentation but imbued with subtle personal or even subversive hidden meanings(INFJ).

The Mona Lisa, a mysterious and haunting portrait with clues to a backstory that have been the source of many wild controversies and conspiracy theories for ages - I just can't see an ISFP, INFP, ExFJ, or any other type to be able to pull this off other than an INxJ:



And The Last Supper, which would be an inspiration for the filmmaker (INTP) Christopher Nolan's Prestige. It suggest a controversial notion that the person on the cross, who everyone in the Christian faith worships, was actually Judas Ischariot, and that the Jesus of Nazareth, although a real person and crucifixion a real event, was actually the greatest magic trick in history. The two were twin brothers, and Jesus' motives weren't really to "save souls" but to find some way to "destroy" the Roman Empire for killing Jews(Jesus was a Jew, btw). How does someone do the impossible without an army better than the Roman army? How does someone's paradigm changing mission be taken seriously if, at that time, he's not a King or Ruler of any kind? And what about the kind of controversies(Pharisees and Sadducees) within the Jewish religion at the time? According to the conspiracy, Jesus pulled it off. [I'm not saying that is the truth or that I fully believe that story, but I'm giving some background into the controversy, which was studied by scholars for a long time. And that Da Vinci, per his work, had some insight into this underground version of the story of Jesus).]



All in all, I'm not sure, but I am torn between INTP and INxJ. His quiet irreverence and insistence on "historical truth" without overt disrespect, makes me lean towards INTP. However, the sheer conspiratorial nature of his work, but with an acceptable/formal presentation(a kind of "cloaking") makes makes my gut accept he was most likely an INFJ or INTJ.

 

[John K]

I can completely understand typing Da Vinci as an INTP. His work is very intricate, and challenges the viewer to look deeper to see if they can decipher the hidden clues of meaning and conspiracy of his work. He definitely knew or saw a lot of hidden depth and subversive aspects to the subjects he would draw or paint. He also was a visionary, much ahead of his time, e.g. drawing models for helicopter-like "flying-machines", etc.. He was way too irreverently inquisitive to be a sensor. I think though, because of the subjective and conspiratorial nature of his works, while maintaining a pleasant and technically astute surface appearance that was culturally appropriate, I would bet my money on Da Vinci being either INTJ or INFJ. When it comes to artists, INFJs and INTJs can be hard to differentiate, especially the further back in time you go, when everything in the Western world was Christianized. In modern times, INFJ and INTJ artists are easier to differentiate. INFJs work will have a more subjective and more upfront expression of supernatural, psychoanalytic, or spiritual quality of it; while INTJ will have a more critical and structurally impressive presentation. But both types of artists can be compelling. And the best comparison I can think of is in the film world. Two films released, from two different masterful film directors, at almost the same time, and were compared to each other due to the cold war political climate at the time: Solaris, by an INFJ Andrei Tarkovsky, and 2001: A Space Odessy by an INTJ, Stanley Kubrick. Both films are thought-provoking, technically astute, contained elements of the supernatural, and they were both top notch examples of sci-fi space exploration. But it is easy to tell the INTJ had more emphasis on the technical structure of the narrative, and his approach to space had an obviously cold and impersonal style. Contrast that with Tarkovsky's Solaris, treating space as a testing ground for a suffering soul-very, obviously, full of philosophical musing, and very personal/subjective speculations and predicaments. So overall, what I'm saying is, before modern secular art, much of the art was funded by and based on the Christian Church - so it is harder to tell if the artist was being (INTJ)impersonal/critical in their work or, if their work had a formal presentation but imbued with subtle personal or even subversive hidden meanings(INFJ).

The Mona Lisa, a mysterious and haunting portrait with clues to a backstory that have been the source of many wild controversies and conspiracy theories for ages - I just can't see an ISFP, INFP, ExFJ, or any other type to be able to pull this off other than an INxJ:

View attachment 89915

And The Last Supper, which would be an inspiration for the filmmaker (INTP) Christopher Nolan's Prestige. It suggest a controversial notion that the person on the cross, who everyone in the Christian faith worships, was actually Judas Ischariot, and that the Jesus of Nazareth, although a real person and crucifixion a real event, was actually the greatest magic trick in history. The two were twin brothers, and Jesus' motives weren't really to "save souls" but to find some way to "destroy" the Roman Empire for killing Jews(Jesus was a Jew, btw). How does someone do the impossible without an army better than the Roman army? How does someone's paradigm changing mission be taken seriously if, at that time, he's not a King or Ruler of any kind? And what about the kind of controversies(Pharisees and Sadducees) within the Jewish religion at the time? According to the conspiracy, Jesus pulled it off. [I'm not saying that is the truth or that I fully believe that story, but I'm giving some background into the controversy, which was studied by scholars for a long time. And that Da Vinci, per his work, had some insight into this underground version of the story of Jesus).]

View attachment 89916

All in all, I'm not sure, but I am torn between INTP and INxJ. His quiet irreverence and insistence on "historical truth" without overt disrespect, makes me lean towards INTP. However, the sheer conspiratorial nature of his work, but with an acceptable/formal presentation(a kind of "cloaking") makes makes my gut accept he was most likely an INFJ or INTJ.

I’d go more for P than J. Like Michelangelo, Leonardo winged most everything and started far more than he could finish. He left a lot of stuff incomplete and a lot of frustrated clients who never got what they commissioned from him - this isn’t really consistent with a J type.

I have one really major reservation to trying to type him this way though. Jung pointed out long ago that people of genius tend to be possessed by a collective personality that transcends their own. Leonardo was this to an extreme. It may make more sense to see the personality embodied in his public genius as that of the Renaissance rather than his own.

 

[Asa]

I’d go more for P than J. Like Michelangelo, Leonardo winged most everything and started far more than he could finish. He left a lot of stuff incomplete and a lot of frustrated clients who never got what they commissioned from him - this isn’t really consistent with a J type.

This is consistent for artists. Happens all the time, no matter the type due to a number of factors. It tracks that he would lack follow through with completing some of the extraordinary ideas he had that had not been done before. He was an inventor and an artist and had those two very different talents (technical and artistic) battling in his brain. He was definitely an ideas person more than a doer, too. Sometimes his ideas worked on paper but not when constructed. Unfortunately for us, he wasn't that prolific an artist, likely because he had too many ideas firing at once. Knowing him in person would have been profound.

IMO, he is difficult to type because he was unique. Studies suggest all parts of his brain lit up at once and he was able to access all parts of his brain at once –– an extremely uncommon trait. His brain was more balanced than the average person's. This causes me to ponder whether he could be typed because unlike average people, competing cognitive functions may have been of equal strengths in his brain. It's fascinating.

I'm also pondering the idea that Leonardo was neurodivergent. Considering scientists believe his brain worked in a way most human brains do not, he can be classified that way, but he was in a group of one. Some claim he was autistic, too. How does that factor into his known behaviors?

If I had to type him I'd choose INTP because of the level of openmindedness that INTPs have combined with being a deep Thinking dom. INXPs are more open-minded than INXJs. Ne keeps many options open, while Ni sticks to one idea. Ni types are more willing to die on a hill, while Ne types are more willing to switch to a different idea when one doesn't work. (This can also make some Ne types seem a little scattered.) I don't know if there is evidence that he could have been Ti or Te.


It's impossible to type these masters by the content of their work, unless we perhaps dig deeper. As @Jexocuha stated, at the time all of these master artists lived, the church was a major client and society was not open to allowing people to be non-Christian. This is why all of these artists made religious art. They hid secular symbolism and themes within their work, and sometimes the symbolism was suspiciously critical of the church and/or Christianity. (In this case, I'm speaking mostly about Michelangelo.) Portraits were also popular because wealthy clients paid for them. Even if an artist made personal work, it was more likely the art would fall into a category that would be accepted by the church and society. Modern people think of artists as creatives who make art about whatever we want, but that wasn't the case then.

The level of symbolism that may have been in his work is certainly appealing to Ni minds, but considering the situation at the time, it doesn't mean he was a Ni dom. (I'm also transfixed by how works of art from all mediums appeal to certain MBTI types, but it doesn't mean a person from that MBTI type made the art.)

Virgin of the Rocks is my favorite by Leonardo. According to historians, there may be a lot of hidden symbolism in the painting. (We can't prove there was hidden symbolism because Leonardo didn't tell us.) For obvious reasons we studied these masters extensively in art school, and not just for technique.

 

[John K]

@Asa that's very interesting and a really great encapsulation of who Leonardo was.

Picking up on one of the films that you mentioned @Jexocuha, I think that maybe Arthur C Clarke is a closer fit to Leonardo than Kubrick, though still only a very partial fit. What is really intriguing and makes it so difficult to type him from his work is his incredible affinity with precise observation of the external world combined with a technical ability to understand it way beyond the wisdom of his era, and the ability to represent it both with equally great technical precision and with such exquisite insight and artistic expression. In almost all these cases, he wasn't just using the required technique and understanding with genius, but actually inventing these things. Polymath is a term as inferior to his achievement as Callisto is to Jupiter!

I haven't read up about him for quite a while, but it wouldn't surprise me if he was a troubled guy - his mind must have been a ferment of new things clamouring for his attention and older things clamouring for expression. There have probably been others with similar gifts over the ages, but whose inner fires consumed them before they could achieve anything.

I'm very fond of Virgin On The Rocks, but the work of his that I'm always drawn to is St John the Baptist. It's like The Mona Lisa on steroids and seems to lie at the heart of Leonardo himself as a symbol as much as a human. Do I like it? I think so, but I'm not sure - but that's beside the point because it goes beyond simple like and dislike into the spaces beyond them.

 

[Asa]

I'm very fond of Virgin On The Rocks, but the work of his that I'm always drawn to is St John the Baptist. It's like The Mona Lisa on steroids and seems to lie at the heart of Leonardo himself as a symbol as much as a human. Do I like it? I think so, but I'm not sure - but that's beside the point because it goes beyond simple like and dislike into the spaces beyond them.

I feel this way about the Mona Lisa, except the only reason I like it is because of his genius. As a painting, I don't like it at all. It's brilliant and it doesn't appeal to me, perhaps because I've been told it is the best painting of all time since before I can remember.
St John the Baptist seems darker (which means it is more emotional) and more symbolic and therefore, it appeals to me.

Polymath is a term as inferior to his achievement as Callisto is to Jupiter!

I haven't read up about him for quite a while, but it wouldn't surprise me if he was a troubled guy - his mind must have been a ferment of new things clamouring for his attention and older things clamouring for expression. There have probably been others with similar gifts over the ages, but whose inner fires consumed them before they could achieve anything.

He would have benefited from a situation where he had a "factory" of people making his ideas into reality. Modern artists like Koons do this, and of course, Elon Musk does this.

I think that maybe Arthur C Clarke is a closer fit to Leonardo than Kubrick, though still only a very partial fit.

It is fun that @Jexocuha mentioned these two films because I just watched the remake of Solaris this week. Space Odyssey is so angular and rigid, while Solaris is emotional. They have similar vibes because of the time periods the originals are from, the fact that they're both cerebral, and the overall theme of space exploration, but that is where it ends. Ridley Scott is thought to be an INTP. Blade Runner dances between Space Odyssey and Solaris. It has the angles and the emotion. To me, it leans a little bit toward the emotional while still being a brainy movie. I know, I am like a broken record referencing this movie, but it fits into this conversation, especially when considering Leonardo may have been an INTP. I don't consider Leonardo either emotional or rigid. His technical ideas and inventions obviously fit into the angular category, but his art can receive such a deep emotional response, perhaps because sfumato is so soft.