|
ART... But it is a work of popular fiction! It incorporates art-history, physics, religious symbology, etc, into a plot meant to carry a story along that ultimately required glossing over certain issues. Coming from someone who studied physics in college, my main critique of his other book "Angels and Demons" was the wishy-washy job he brought up the subject of anti-matter and the err.. ending flight... (those who have read it probably know what I mean). I can see how you, as someone I take to have a great interest in art and its symbology, would be put off by a book that places the meanings of good art work into strictly defined pigeon holes. But, coming from my perspective, I learned a lot about the ways art can be interpreted as well as a lot of historical context in when the art was made. I imagine others view the physics in the book the same way; it is not any where near a substitute for a text book on the matter, but at least it generates interest and possibly presents new information to the reader. I certainly can't say that about much of the popular fiction I read. I would commend Brown for taking some rather obtuse and difficult subjects such as physics and art-symbology to the popular reader.
I would also point out that Langdon through out the book made mention of the fact that there were many ways to interpret the art work, and that it was only the necessity of the plot that Da Vinci's works were boiled down to conveying simplistic "go there next" types of messages.
|