Why 'Vitruvian man' is problematic
colonialism, diversity and eugenics
In 1490, Leonardo da Vinci drew the ‘Vitruvian man’, to illustrate the perfect balance and proportions found in the human anatomy. Vitruvian Man is based on an even older text written by Roman architect and engineer Vitruvius between 30 and 15 BC. Vitruvian man bears many similarities with the drawings in many cultures, particularly the Vedic, likely because Vitruvius lived at a time when the Western world had much closer ties to Eastern philosophy.
Le Corbusier created modular man from da Vinci’s. Drawing, making the perfect stylised man a 6 foot tall. Both of these systems are reasonably arbitrary, to begin with, and represent less fact than the ideal imaginary of masculinity. Da Vinci continues the tradition of classical sculpture. At the same time, Le Corbusier represents the modernist aesthetic.
Why are they problematic in 2023,
If you have ever studied art or architecture, you are likely familiar with both works. Right now, both are displayed in an exhibition where I work. They are ubiquitous in the field. In the opening address, the architect said, ‘We can all relate to Vitruvian man.’ I assume he meant, ‘We are familiar with Vitruvian man’. I shook my head in frustration because, in reality, very few people relate to the Vitruvian man. That slip of the tongue is so telling of the underlying narratives that these images carry with them. The idea of the perfect human is a Western ‘man’; the ideal body is masculine and muscular. The fact that in 2023, we are still subjected to these ideals is troubling. However, my questioning them is less about the increasing binaries placed upon people. Around issues of gender and identity, our societies swing back toward conservative binary gender politics—my concern centres on their relationship to diversity, body, and mind. The kind of eugenicist thinking they were the forbearers of. This type of thinking lurks in the shadows of modern medicine and casts long shadows on Neurological and Mental health studies. The idea that there is a typical human. A Typical Neuotype. A typical body. Anyone who does not fall into that ‘typical form’ is rendered - atypical.
In many cases, to be brought in line, corrected. Or to take eugenics to their extremes, eliminated. We see this play out in research around Neurodivergance, which aims to eradicate divergence in genetic manipulation rather than to remove the barriers. We now know that. This kind of divergence has made humans robust and thriving as a species. It may be essential for our continued success and overcoming our changing climatic issues,
Concerning the question of gender binary. (Please note I am differentiating sex from gender here.) The reality is that assuming a scale on one end, the most masculine man and the most feminine woman, with a graph depicting where people fall on this continuum. It would like to be a bell curve, with most people falling into the muddly middle, particularly regarding gender interests and personality traits. It is worth remembering that many societies, businesses and politicians construct the idea of a gender-based binary for political and financial gain. These are imaginary constructs; they can be unmade.
The unmaking must be deliberate by thoughtful and open-minded people of all genders. I suggest we not re-think the Vitruvian man but instead leave him in history, within the context in which he emerged. A context 532 years ago was very different from the society we now live in.
Yours
Brigs
Ps. If you enjoyed this read, please consider subscribing; it’s free. click no pledge. or share this post with friends
Further reading :
Vitruvius. Ten Books on Architecture. The Project Gutenburg, 2006. https://www.gutenberg.org/files/20239/20239-h/20239-h.htm.