> The man with a mad whirlpool in his hair, looking at the world from a bulging eye, is a figure of loneliness and isolation: Leonardo feels for him. Even identifies with him. Far from cruel mockery, this is a sympathetic study of an outsider.

What part of this article reads as discrediting or decoupling?

Exactly the vibe I'm getting. I think it's important being aware of this current craze.

Ah yes, the current craze of Da Vinci art exhibitions that show him humanising unconventional subjects. It's very important to be aware of this craze!

Oh hell, this might turn into a renaissance. What's next? A growing interest to understand the natural world?

What are you talking about? This is completely unrelated whining to what the article actually talks about, which is Da Vinci's artistic interest in humanising the traditionally "grotesque". Very far from discrediting.

You're not only ignoring the link, but you're going out of your way to write up an irrelevant sanctimonious comment.

Deliberately misinterpreted? The article is titled in a pejorative way. The article represents him as laughing at the disabled, the disfigured, and speculates on how we should not think kindly of him today for his cruelty.

Then it dips its toe into the pool of accuracy and mentions he never actually said anything cruel (or wrote).

First off... The authors of articles doesn't come up with the title. If you want to gripe about the headline writer, fine, but it's not relevant to the substance of the article that was actually written. I don't see the title as pejorative, but then again I'm also not seeking to feel performatively offended.

Never once in the article is it suggested we should think unkindly of Da Vinci. From the very first paragraph onward, the article is sympathetic to him. You wanted to be offended and wanted to read into the article that this was something akin to Da Vinci being cancelled or criticized according to modern norms, but that's literally the opposite of what is written.

That's just ... all wrong. The author writes the title. The article is laced with insinuations that Da Vinci was mean e.g. "Leonardo’s chateau in Amboise during his last years, laughing over drawings of ugly people."

Talking about the straw man you wish it was

What? If anything, this article is playing up what is most likely DaVinci having fun sitting around sketching. It's very much a relief to start distorting and adding in lots of over the top details since nothing needs to be "right".

I don't think that's the purpose of the article. If someone would like to discredit Leonardo they could bring up the fact that, when judged under today's optics, he could be considered a pedophile.

Jesse, what the fuck are you talking about