00:00
00:00
Newgrounds Background Image Theme

Crakie20 just joined the crew!

We need you on the team, too.

Support Newgrounds and get tons of perks for just $2.99!

Create a Free Account and then..

Become a Supporter!

Michelangelo

2,685 Views | 28 Replies
New Topic Respond to this Topic

Michelangelo 2016-02-13 01:45:25


What do you all think of Michelangelo, Il Divino as he was often called? I believe he has unrivaled artistic skills and is undoubtedly the greatest artist of all time. He could draw, paint, sculpt AND was an architect. I would also be interested to get your guys opinions just in general on classical and classically inspired European art, such as greek sculpture and Renaissance paintings. There are so many great masters-Rubens, Rafael, Bernini, Michelangelo, Rembrandt, Praxiteles, etc. Does anyone here take influence from any of these particular artists? I believe this kind of art is superior to all others, and I for one am not a a fan of postmodernism or impressionism as I believe it takes much less or no talent, but is for some reason compared to the likes of Michelangelo. There are lots of really great artists on Newgrounds who produce actual good art and not this modern art nonsense, and I really value that. Please share your opinions, guys. Thanks!

Michelangelo

Response to Michelangelo 2016-02-13 02:10:39 (edited 2016-02-13 02:15:34)


All 'bout dat Pollock up in dis bizznatch wassssuuup?!?! AUTUMN RHYTHM MA'UH' FUKAH!!!!!

Michelangelo


Not the worst, but close.

BBS Signature

Response to Michelangelo 2016-02-13 02:12:34


Eh. Not really a fan of classical artists. I mean, I respect that artists like Michelangelo were good at what they did, I just don't like that style.


Argh, kill it!

SEND HATE MAIL HERE: DaKramps@gmail.com

Pls Follow so I can feel good about myself.

Response to Michelangelo 2016-02-13 02:30:27


At 2/13/16 02:12 AM, Kramps wrote: Eh. Not really a fan of classical artists. I mean, I respect that artists like Michelangelo were good at what they did, I just don't like that style.

I can appreciate that. I think it's often more important to acknowledge the skill and talent that went into something rather than whether or not you like it. Thanks for the input.

Response to Michelangelo 2016-02-13 03:09:17 (edited 2016-02-13 03:11:32)


For me, if I'd like to see realistic art, then I'd just go out and see real people or google search images of real people. I want to see something new and original. I want to disengage myself from this reality that I see everyday.
Only reason why I'm studying realistic art right now is to further compliment my stylized drawings, or further simplify my drawings. The better understanding of real life I get, the further I can bend reality- in art form.

And on another note, a reason why you see a lot of new art, is well, it's new. People have seen classical art already. It's not something new. They went and did that already, and it reached its peak. It has been said and done. Would you be impressed in seeing the same thing again and again? I would not think so.

Art is evolving just like we did.

I'm not close minded as I appreciate all kinds of art.
Though I do have preferences just like you do and I prefer more thought provoking art, like H.R. Giger's art and not just art that makes me go, "Hm, that's good. Moving along now~." But the point remains the same, I appreciate it for what it is.

Response to Michelangelo 2016-02-13 12:56:16


At 2/13/16 03:09 AM, littleyuri wrote: For me, if I'd like to see realistic art, then I'd just go out and see real people or google search images of real people. I want to see something new and original. I want to disengage myself from this reality that I see everyday.
Only reason why I'm studying realistic art right now is to further compliment my stylized drawings, or further simplify my drawings. The better understanding of real life I get, the further I can bend reality- in art form.

And on another note, a reason why you see a lot of new art, is well, it's new. People have seen classical art already. It's not something new. They went and did that already, and it reached its peak. It has been said and done. Would you be impressed in seeing the same thing again and again? I would not think so.

Art is evolving just like we did.

I'm not close minded as I appreciate all kinds of art.
Though I do have preferences just like you do and I prefer more thought provoking art, like H.R. Giger's art and not just art that makes me go, "Hm, that's good. Moving along now~." But the point remains the same, I appreciate it for what it is.

Well, I understand what you are saying about realistic art and how it is boring because you can go out and see real things everyday. But, what I admire so much about artists from long ago is their ability to bring life and creativity to their art. None of the old masters did photo-realistic art, they used creativity and put a spin on things with subtle exaggerations and curves, contrapposto and all sorts of other techniques. I see photo-realistic art becoming popular today, especially celebrity portraiture. I understand this takes skill, but it takes nowhere near the amount of skill that something like the Sistine Ceiling would have required. In addition, there's no real creativity to photo-realistic art. The goal is to copy things EXACTLY as you see them, which doesn't take as much skill as a lot of people think, and does not allow any sort of creative license, which is one of the most important aspects of all art. If everyone's art just looked the same, that would be very boring. Michelangelo knew this. By looking at his art, you can see he wasn't trying to copy things exactly as he saw them. He looked at the human form and made certain things more interesting, gave more definition, and really just had a lot of genius ideas that propelled art forward after it had been stagnant for almost 1400 years since the Catholic Church halted the progress of art. So, you mentioned bending reality, in art form, and THAT is the reason I love Michelangelo's artwork so much. Also, I do believe you are correct about how people don't wish to see classical art anymore because people get bored with things quickly and want to move on to something new. I, for one, have never gotten bored of classical art!
Classical art is just as thought provoking as any other, in my opinion. Take the Sistine Ceiling, for example. There are tons of hidden secrets and messages everywhere in Michelangelo's masterpiece. So many, in fact, we are still discovering new secrets today! I think that's fascinating and really shows the genius of Michelangelo. Many other classical artists have messages in their art too. I think the great masters have thought provoking art, as well as creativity, and I wish people wouldn't be so bored with it.
Thank you very much for your response, it's nice to hear other people's opinions on this topic.

Response to Michelangelo 2016-02-13 13:48:06 (edited 2016-02-13 13:49:59)


See, classical art is largely, largely based on reality though. That's what I'm saying. Strictly talking about human forms and proportions, and their setting. I don't want to see reality. I want to see something new. Sculptures of humans takes skill and I admire that and there's no doubt to the effort that goes along with that, but those human figures- we already see that daily. Furthermore, real people have even more variety than classical art. If a new person searches classical art on google, they see, what? At least 2 same body types? Male and female respectively. A not so muscly man and a tad chubby woman. For an outsider's perspective, it looks the same a couple hundred pictures after. There's almost no variety in body types.

Sistine ceiling took somewhere between 3-5 years to do, man. Don't take it as if I'm discrediting anything, okay? But great things can be done with time. I'd say the artist Kim Jung Gi can do an artwork that huge if given 5 years.

See, that's the thing. Again, strictly talking about human body proportions, classical art is realistic. I really want to not SEE realism because I already see that everyday! There's so much more variety in art now and it's colorful and refreshing to see NEW things.

No, they weren't bored that quickly about classical art. It's just that people moved on because they've already seen it before. We also have the technology to see art that's been made on the other side of the globe! New things!

What do you think if people made "classical art" today? They'd just get compared to the masters before, no? They won't get their own identity. They would get ridiculed more so than they would get praised. They'd just be passed off as a 2nd or 3rd (insert name of classical artist here). And I reckon that that's not a very good feeling. People have moved on and they're making NEW art today and are making a name for themselves. Their own identity.

Response to Michelangelo 2016-02-16 13:26:54


At 2/16/16 01:00 PM, DhomynO wrote:
People have moved on and they're making NEW art today and are making a name for themselves. Their own identity.
Reading everything you said, all I have to say is... you have alot to learn and much to appreciate neigh Respect. It's nice to see what you're passionate about though.

Neigh respect?

Response to Michelangelo 2016-02-16 14:06:09 (edited 2016-02-16 14:06:37)


At 2/16/16 01:49 PM, DhomynO wrote:
At 2/16/16 01:26 PM, littleyuri wrote:
At 2/16/16 01:00 PM, DhomynO wrote:
People have moved on and they're making NEW art today and are making a name for themselves. Their own identity.
Reading everything you said, all I have to say is... you have alot to learn and much to appreciate neigh Respect. It's nice to see what you're passionate about though.
Neigh respect?
Sorry I just woke up, and wrote that. I meant it like... more importantly you need to have respect, which I'm sure you do. Alot of classical art was interpretation and studies, trying to understand the human form, much as we do today, and not much different. Also their "jobs" We're to interpret fictional(I say this for the sake of argument) stories (the bible) and create and bring to life the stories from it. No different than what we do still(fanart?).

Sorry man, that was a legitimate question. On my time here in the internet, that's the first time I heard that. I spent like 5 minutes on google trying to find other meanings for that word. I just got it, you meant, maybe, 'nigh'?

Oh, dude, you have no idea. I even took hum 121 in college because I was trying to understand their philosophy, where they came from etc. I respect them alright. A whole ton of respect. I was just pertaining to the question asked by the OP. He's wondering why it isn't that popular anymore, or why new art 'types' are popping up and forgetting classical art. That seems to be the gist of it, and yes, sometimes things get old, you know? Art evolves just like everything else. That doesn't mean the respect is gone.

That's why I said strictly talking about the human body and proportion. It's realistic more so than it is fiction, there's no argument about that. OP asked for our opinion on it, and if I'd like to see realistic stuff? I'd just look at realistic stuff... That's MY take on it. Furthermore, in my time studying their art, I got tired of the body types. (That's my main interest.) The reason I can say this is because I love their art more than you think. That's the reason why I can point out stuff I hate on the things that I love- is because I pay attention to it. Nothing more, nothing less.

Response to Michelangelo 2016-02-16 14:48:54 (edited 2016-02-16 14:52:44)


Call me the party pooper, but this thread has gone from "share your opinions" to "let's discuss our opinions on each others previously stated opinions". How about you AT LEAST post one of those art pieces you love and talk about the details you like and why? Colors, composition, technique, subject/scene... you know, just anything that makes the piece of art great for you.


BBS Signature

Response to Michelangelo 2016-02-16 17:13:29


At 2/16/16 03:38 PM, DhomynO wrote:
Why does that matter to you, it's called discussion. Regardless if it's about the topic at hand or offtopic. Don't take this the wrong way either, I get what you are sayin. I'm a lazy bastard and I don't feel like, Flippin around Google to find artwork to post to a thread. If people are curious about the conversation, they will look into it?

Thanks for telling me what a discussion is. People will look into what? The vague description of "classical art"? Or the vague description of "modern art that you can find via google"? So far we have a passionate post about Michelangelo & the Sixtine Chapel, the interesting question what kind of art and artists everyone else likes and a picture by Pollock. It pretty much went downhill from there, with empty phrases why or why not somebodies opinion was good.

I, for example always loved Nighthawks by Edward Hopper. I liked it before I knew the least thing about art. Now that I know a thing or two, it's the great composition and mood that captures me. The kinda geometric buildings in contrast to the unorganised way the people are set up in the bar. The way the people are painted and especially their coloring is somewhere between a cartoon and reality. And of course how the light draws your eyes into the bar is executed perfectly. I am aware that it's one of the most generic paintings to chose as one of your favorites, but I just like it so much.

Michelangelo


BBS Signature

Response to Michelangelo 2016-02-16 18:24:44 (edited 2016-02-16 18:30:41)


Because "post your favorite artwork and talk about it" was not the intention of the OP as far as his post says and unless he says otherwise, I won't.

"I would also be interested to get your guys OPINIONS just in general ON CLASSICAL AND CLASSICALLY INSPIRED EUROPEAN ART" - Renaissance paintings and sculptures.

^Which I gave my opinion on and that's the end. I respect it, I studied it in college, I look at dark classical art sometimes as inspiration- but I'm not limiting myself to only look at one 'type' of art. I try to look everywhere for inspiration.

OP believes that classical art is superior to others which I respect fully. He wonders why modern art is getting compared to classical art. How about you cater to what OP had asked for?

I already gave my opinion about that, what's yours? Why is modern art getting compared to classical art? What do you think Luwano?

Response to Michelangelo 2016-02-16 18:38:29 (edited 2016-02-16 18:40:33)


At 2/16/16 06:24 PM, littleyuri wrote: Because "post your favorite artwork and talk about it" was not the intention of the OP as far as his post says and unless he says otherwise, I won't.

"I would also be interested to get your guys OPINIONS just in general ON CLASSICAL AND CLASSICALLY INSPIRED EUROPEAN ART" - Renaissance paintings and sculptures.

^Which I gave my opinion on and that's the end. I respect it, I studied it in college, I look at dark classical art sometimes as inspiration- but I'm not limiting myself to only look at one 'type' of art. I try to look everywhere for inspiration.

OP believes that classical art is superior to others which I respect fully. He wonders why modern art is getting compared to classical art. How about you cater to what OP had asked for?

Fair enough, you are right. I have no general preference, since there is shitty and genius art in both classical and modern art. Overall there are more modern pieces that I know well and like a lot. Saying one or the other takes more or less (or little to no) skill is nonsense. I think if Michelangelo lived in the 20th century he would have drawn one of the many types of modern art and if Edvard Munk lived in the 16th century he probably would have tried making a living with biblical scenes. To answer more of OP's questions: I don't draw inspiration from one specific artist, simply because I am not skilled enough to try to use adapt anything from them. But yes Michelangelo's work is amazing and my favourite fresco from the Sistine Chapel is probably The Last Judgement.

Michelangelo


BBS Signature

Response to Michelangelo 2016-02-17 14:33:24


He's definitely a great artist and master of 3D form. Michelangelo and I are kind of similar, not in the talent department, but the fact that he wasn't a very social guy and I'm pretty sure he hated painting. Being skilled in drawing/sculpting 3D form is extremely vital to improving your artwork. Then using that knowledge to create your own style makes for some great artwork.


Cartoonist, Animator, and Tweeter

BBS Signature

Response to Michelangelo 2016-02-17 21:47:20


Michalangelo's nude figures and semi nudes were all grotesque monster slabs of lumpy meats and chub. So he's pretty cool I guess.


Not the worst, but close.

BBS Signature

Response to Michelangelo 2016-02-21 02:14:05


At 2/13/16 02:12 AM, Kramps wrote: Eh. Not really a fan of classical artists. I mean, I respect that artists like Michelangelo were good at what they did, I just don't like that style.

I understand and respect your opinion. I'm not saying everyone should love classical art, but I believe it is at least important to realize the great master's talents, which you do, and I am grateful for that. Thank you very much for your contribution!

Response to Michelangelo 2016-02-21 02:21:18


At 2/16/16 12:34 PM, metal-daze wrote: they are the masters they train like crazy to get that level also for some reason people think its boring but you can use the same skills to make fiction like frank mother fucking frazetta. anyways i prefer artist like j.c leyendecker and Norman Rockwell to study.

I would agree with you that the old masters trained like crazy to acquire their skills. I don't understand why people would find it boring! Furthermore, I as well admire the work of Frank Frazetta and Norman Rockwell. They were very talented and had a very good grasp on anatomy. I greatly admire your contribution to the conversation!

Response to Michelangelo 2016-02-21 02:31:16


At 2/17/16 02:33 PM, XSigmaShawnX wrote: He's definitely a great artist and master of 3D form. Michelangelo and I are kind of similar, not in the talent department, but the fact that he wasn't a very social guy and I'm pretty sure he hated painting. Being skilled in drawing/sculpting 3D form is extremely vital to improving your artwork. Then using that knowledge to create your own style makes for some great artwork.

Indeed, Michelangelo did not really like painting as he considered it an art form below sculpting. He believed hard sculpting was the highest of all art forms. As much as I love Michelangelo, I would have to disagree with him there. I feel as if painting and sculpting are equal art forms that both require lots of skill as well as their own skill sets. For example, you don't need to have a very advanced understanding of lighting to sculpt, but when painting, you don't need to know how the figures work in 3d space quite as well as when making a sculpture. Regardless of his opinions, he was still a truly amazing painter! I do as well agree with you that sculpting improves your artwork. I thank you for taking time out of your day to chime in on this conversation!

Response to Michelangelo 2016-02-21 02:39:04 (edited 2016-02-21 02:41:34)


At 2/21/16 02:21 AM, yodaddyo wrote: I don't understand why people would find it boring!

I don't know. For some artists that dabble in reality and fantasy, they say that they've seen reality too much that it has lost its novelty. That's, I guess, the best way to put it. We've seen it too much that it has lost its novelty. Well, that's the case for me regarding classical art. If that makes sense.

Furthermore, again, strictly speaking with the human body the old masters did, it's too chained up to reality that it's too predictable now.

I just want to say that you have to be open minded on this subject. There will be people who will find it boring. It's just preference. Nothing more, nothing less, man. It's not a jab at the 'old masters'.

I will probably regret saying that, but whatever.

Response to Michelangelo 2016-02-21 02:48:22


At 2/16/16 06:38 PM, Luwano wrote:
At 2/16/16 06:24 PM, littleyuri wrote: Because "post your favorite artwork and talk about it" was not the intention of the OP as far as his post says and unless he says otherwise, I won't.

"I would also be interested to get your guys OPINIONS just in general ON CLASSICAL AND CLASSICALLY INSPIRED EUROPEAN ART" - Renaissance paintings and sculptures.

^Which I gave my opinion on and that's the end. I respect it, I studied it in college, I look at dark classical art sometimes as inspiration- but I'm not limiting myself to only look at one 'type' of art. I try to look everywhere for inspiration.

OP believes that classical art is superior to others which I respect fully. He wonders why modern art is getting compared to classical art. How about you cater to what OP had asked for?
Fair enough, you are right. I have no general preference, since there is shitty and genius art in both classical and modern art. Overall there are more modern pieces that I know well and like a lot. Saying one or the other takes more or less (or little to no) skill is nonsense. I think if Michelangelo lived in the 20th century he would have drawn one of the many types of modern art and if Edvard Munk lived in the 16th century he probably would have tried making a living with biblical scenes. To answer more of OP's questions: I don't draw inspiration from one specific artist, simply because I am not skilled enough to try to use adapt anything from them. But yes Michelangelo's work is amazing and my favourite fresco from the Sistine Chapel is probably The Last Judgement.

I am interested in getting more information on your opinion that classical or classically inspired art doesn't take more talent than modern art. I feel that modern art, by the so called "greats" such as Picasso, for example, is not very good at all. In his early years, Picasso had a lot of potential and was painting in a very classical style. However, he abandoned that, for some reason, and began to make modern art. He said that he wanted to learn to paint like a 6 year old, and I think it showed. His art really did look like it was done by a child. It displayed all of the signs of a beginning artist, such as hard, straight lines, poor understanding of lighting, low contrast, no dynamic figures or exciting exaggerated shapes and generally poorly constructed artwork. Which, he apparently wanted, since he wanted to make artwork like a child. Why is that considered good, though? What if I was to make music that was as if it was made by a six year old? That would sound terrible! I probably wouldn't even be able to read music, I wouldn't know how to play any musical instruments, I wouldn't understand music theory, tempo, chords or anything that is required to make great music. I would be quite a ways from the skill of Beethoven or Bach. In the same way, Picasso's artwork really lacks skill. Some of his stuff is even completely abstract, and has no basis in reality. How are we supposed to know if something is good with no comparison? We can only know happiness with sadness, we can only know light with dark, and we can only know good art with bad art. If something has no real world comparison, how do we know it takes skill? Are we just to take the artist's word for it? And, to top it all off, Picasso had a big ego! He thought he was a lot better than he really was. To be fair, Michelangelo wasn't exactly humble about his artwork, but he easily had the skills to back up his claims. How, can you look at the Sistine Chapel, see the Sistine Ceiling and The Last Judgement, admire the talent and hard work that it took, and then look at Picasso's artwork and say it's also great? It makes no sense to me. Anyway, thanks for posting your opinion, and I'll be interested to hear your response!

Michelangelo

Response to Michelangelo 2016-02-21 02:57:54


At 2/21/16 02:39 AM, littleyuri wrote:
At 2/21/16 02:21 AM, yodaddyo wrote: I don't understand why people would find it boring!
I don't know. For some artists that dabble in reality and fantasy, they say that they've seen reality too much that it has lost its novelty. That's, I guess, the best way to put it. We've seen it too much that it has lost its novelty. Well, that's the case for me regarding classical art. If that makes sense.

Furthermore, again, strictly speaking with the human body the old masters did, it's too chained up to reality that it's too predictable now.

I just want to say that you have to be open minded on this subject. There will be people who will find it boring. It's just preference. Nothing more, nothing less, man. It's not a jab at the 'old masters'.

I will probably regret saying that, but whatever.

Well, I understand what you are saying about how a lot of people find classical art a bit boring because there is not necessarily a lot of fantasy involved in it. I get it. I, of course, don't find it boring at all, but quite the opposite! However, different people like different things and I don't expect everyone to like one thing and never want anything different. I try to be open minded to different kind of art, but it just makes me sad seeing so much of this modern art, which takes no talent, half the time, you can't even tell what it's supposed to be. I like fantasy art, it's very cool and with your mind and and a pencil and a piece of paper, you can create any world you can think of, which is very fascinating! The work of fantasy artists such as Frazetta or Paolo Serpieri is definitely way better than the work of modern artists like cubism or paint indiscriminately thrown onto a canvas. Thanks for contributing your opinion!

Response to Michelangelo 2016-02-21 10:45:19 (edited 2016-02-21 10:56:39)


At 2/21/16 02:31 AM, yodaddyo wrote:

"I thank you for taking time out of your day to chime in on this conversation!"

No problem. I enjoy dissecting art


Cartoonist, Animator, and Tweeter

BBS Signature

Response to Michelangelo 2016-02-24 03:39:04


I've studied his stuff through undergrad and grad and before i make comments i have to ask is this for an assignment? Because this sounds like a question for an assignment lol.


Buy my book: https://www.amazon.com/dp/1686919077 (also available for other countries too, thks ILU <3 )

Response to Michelangelo 2016-02-28 01:26:56


At 2/24/16 03:39 AM, linda-mota wrote: I've studied his stuff through undergrad and grad and before i make comments i have to ask is this for an assignment? Because this sounds like a question for an assignment lol.

Well, I am excited you are studying this, but, no, it's not for an assignment. I just find this stuff fascinating.

Response to Michelangelo 2016-02-28 04:34:53


At 2/28/16 01:26 AM, yodaddyo wrote:
At 2/24/16 03:39 AM, linda-mota wrote: I've studied his stuff through undergrad and grad and before i make comments i have to ask is this for an assignment? Because this sounds like a question for an assignment lol.
Well, I am excited you are studying this, but, no, it's not for an assignment. I just find this stuff fascinating.

Studying this is fun, but it's been hampered down since people won't shut the fuck up about Rothko and how great his lame shit is. No joke the last few years everyone's been shoving his stuff down our throat with his retrospective show and it's a fact most people pay attention to artist more who pulled the "an hero". But I think a lot of these people below me already made a good point, though some argue that Michelangelo had some lopsided women because it was obvious he rarely used women models and you get some post op bad titty job looking girls. Though an argument with that was that he preferred to paint men because he was gay. I have a book with his love letters to some dude it's quiet interesting.


Buy my book: https://www.amazon.com/dp/1686919077 (also available for other countries too, thks ILU <3 )

Response to Michelangelo 2016-02-28 22:12:59


At 2/28/16 04:34 AM, linda-mota wrote:
At 2/28/16 01:26 AM, yodaddyo wrote:
At 2/24/16 03:39 AM, linda-mota wrote: I've studied his stuff through undergrad and grad and before i make comments i have to ask is this for an assignment? Because this sounds like a question for an assignment lol.
Well, I am excited you are studying this, but, no, it's not for an assignment. I just find this stuff fascinating.
Studying this is fun, but it's been hampered down since people won't shut the fuck up about Rothko and how great his lame shit is. No joke the last few years everyone's been shoving his stuff down our throat with his retrospective show and it's a fact most people pay attention to artist more who pulled the "an hero". But I think a lot of these people below me already made a good point, though some argue that Michelangelo had some lopsided women because it was obvious he rarely used women models and you get some post op bad titty job looking girls. Though an argument with that was that he preferred to paint men because he was gay. I have a book with his love letters to some dude it's quiet interesting.

I am glad you enjoy studying art. That is a shame people keep talking about how great Rothko is. He really was a terrible artist; he was even worse than Picasso. It is true that Michelangelo's women were awfully masculine. In his defense, female models were hard to come by back in the Renaissance and if you look at the work of some other great artists, you will notice a good portion of their female figures are very muscular and often times oddly proportioned as well. Of course, Michelangelo didn't even make an attempt to really define any feminine features on the women in his art other than their oddly shaped breasts. He was inspired to sculpt and illustrate their breasts like that based on women's body he observed in the morgue that had died from breast cancer. I don't know why he chose to illustrate women so masculine. It is true that he was a homosexual, but lots of other great artists who weren't gay drew both men and women, so it really is as mystery as to why he was so closed off to the idea of drawing feminine bodies. Michelangelo really was an interesting figure, he is an enigma. When Michelangelo was getting close to sixty years old, he fell in love with a young nobleman, one in his early twenties, Tommaso de' Cavalieri. He wrote him love letters and gave him drawings, but Tommaso was not a homosexual, and had a wife and a child. He was, however, very respectful towards Michelangelo, even though he knew he was a homosexual, which was very polite, especially in the era in which they were living. Tommaso was quite open minded for the time, as most anyone else would be imbued with contempt and disgust upon receiving such a letter from a man, no less a man of almost sixty. It is sad that Michelangelo never found himself a partner, but perhaps, in a way, it was also for the best. After all, he wouldn't have made so many great works of art if he was busy with a family. His struggle in dealing with his sexuality was in way, also good. While his homosexuality caused a great deal of turmoil within him due to Judeo-Christian societal taboos, it was one of the many things within him that spurred a great disdain for the papacy. He and Martin Luther were some of the early leaders of the reformation, pointing out atrocities performed by the Catholic Church. Michelangelo was even known to throw paint buckets at the pope, but Michelangelo was such a badass, the Papacy couldn't do anything about it. If they were to cancel any of his commissions or punish him, public opinion on The Catholic Church would surely make a 180. If anyone else were to do such a thing to the Pope, they would surely be put in prison for many years. Michelangelo's dislike of the Catholic Church is one of the many reasons I like him so much. The Catholic Church really is terrible, and Michelangelo, with his great genius, was one of the first people to publicly point out the many problems of the Papacy. His genius was in fact so great, many thought he was divinely imbued with Holy Power, and he gained the nickname Il Divino. Whether or not he believed this I don't know, but it really is amazing that a man with no special abilities was so talented that people believed no normal man could have possibly achieved what he did without help from god. Well, thanks for contributing to the conversation!

Response to Michelangelo 2016-02-29 01:50:03


I actually went to that chapel he did by the menial. I saw people loose their shit ( to put it bluntly) and marveled how deep the canvases were. I BS'D a paper on it and his statement behind these are silly to be honest. They're not worth reciting here and yea he's almost as bad as Picasso. I used to be a fan of him, but I have a biography on him and he was just generally a jerk who was full of himself. His work up until he went haywire was cool (up until the mural he did). I think after the 40's he went downhill and lost himself. But that's just my observation.

Oh yea girlie models were hard to come by, but it was obvious who likes women more just by looking at some of the paintings and the biographies of these men. Raphael LOVED women and boy was it obvious. There are also the cases of the women having beautiful faces, but the bodies just obvious it wasn't from a female nude model and making assumptions by the shape the body left on the clothes. The breast thing you mentioned is very interesting I didn't know that. Yes that nobleman he went for I believe there's a pencil drawing of him in one of the books i have. Towards the end of his life he was doing religious pics more frequently due to the conflicts of his sexual nature and the catholic church teachings.

Are you an art history major? The way you express yourself is quite lovely and you mentioned things I haven't heard of! Just a few though but still very interesting. I'm more of a follower of psychological analysis of works and the bru ha ha ha goes along with works and pluralism/post historical. I do like Ren. Art but I find the modern phenomenons of the last 200 years more fascinating with the AGE OF THTE NARRATIVE going on and to push the "proper" way to express your art as high art. Thank you for the conversation it was so wonderful!


Buy my book: https://www.amazon.com/dp/1686919077 (also available for other countries too, thks ILU <3 )

Response to Michelangelo 2016-02-29 12:11:45


The masculinity of Michelangelo's female nudes was purely intentional. It's a misconception that it was because of the scarcity of female models. I mean, think about it, Michelangelo was a master at the human figure, and he was also super prominent in the art community. If he wanted a female model he would have gotten it. It had way more to do with the classical era of thought that the female body was inherently flawed. Up until the Enlightenment, especially in Greco-Roman culture, the female body was seen as the inverted, imperfect version of the male body. The male nude was heightened as a symbol of methodological perfection, compared to the female nude which was seen as a platform for the emotive and irrational. This thought carries on even into the late 19th century, enforced by The Academy and classical traditions.

tl;dr: Michelangelo's masculine depiction of women is just a classical interpretation of the Renaissance's ideal female form.

Response to Michelangelo 2016-03-04 01:15:09


I love classic and classic-style art. I think it takes a considerable amount of skill and attention to detail to produce this sort of work, and I appreciate that.