I drew this image several years ago, inspired, of course, by Leonardo daVinci’s famous Vitruvian Man, executed in 1492. Can you see the obvious differences and similarities?
My drawing is, most evidently, a woman and Leonardo’s is a man.
Mine is filled with objects of nature (plants, animals, forms and squiggles) while Leo’s is a study of simplicity, design, and sacred geometry. Lordflea’s Shakti-woman has 11 chakras, centers of spiritual energy, while Leo’s defining fulcrum of power, from my visual evaluation at least, is from the figure’s naval, his so-called solar plexus area, that spot from which he entered his human existence. Leo’s figure is devoid of any other detracting symbolism, such as the emanating, profuse natural growth of organisms I surround my female with. My woman’s glance is downward (humility) and inward (reflective) whereas Leo’s is forthrightly outward (aggressive) and in-your-face (proud and sure).
When I did this drawing I was thinking, I suppose, as all artist do, about what I was feeling. As if I were the model I was drawing I’d suppose you’d say. Of course this is NOT a self-portrait, but … why not think of how we feel as how we truly are, rather than how we look?
Because yes, I do feel that the female energy (which is my birthright, this time around) is the most healing, the most naturally-inclined to compassion, the most nurturing. and therefore, the most likely (out of the male population) to be heading the phase of enlightenment that now beckons all of us on planet Earth.
What do you think? I’d love to hear your opinion. Thanks for joining my thinking about this one.
In Spirit, with much love, your pal