What is Michelangelo saying in The Creation of Adam?

[Storm]

Why shrug your shoulders. That's a cop-out.

You read way too much into smilies.

You said that beyond being oval shaped that there is no further similarity.

Not really, no. I said it's based on a basic shape of geometry.

I pointed you to look at the pictures in post #23 to look at the green ribbon in the top picture and the red artery in the lower picture. Did you do that or not?
Surely your mind has the capacity to make an assessment of that aspect.
Please do so and then let me know if you agree the similarity goes beyond just an oval.

Seriously, dude. Is this REALLY important enough for veiled insults, or are you just playing ***** Queen?

Of course, you are welcome to yet scoff at my notion, but you should at least take into consideration the level of detail that is actually present.

Where did I scoff? Did I not say flat out that my only issue is applying personal interpretation to the artist?

 

[fallingblood]

The way it was painted, in general, resembles a brain.
You can be argumentative and nit pic and be impossible about it.
Or, you can admit that the painter appears to be deliberate in his efforts.

I'm sure the painter was deliberate in his efforts. I'm sure he placed many interesting symbols within this painting. However, there is no evidence he was drawing God on a brain, and that he was trying to imply that humans made up God or anything such as that. This object could be a shell. It could be a number of things. However, none of those can be supported without additional evidence. Such as what Michelangelo stated.

And really, I think it resembles a jelly fish.

 

[Storm]

Interesting story about interpretation and the dynamic between artist and audience.

A few years ago, there was an exhibition on American themes. One of the pieces featured the flag pouring out of a toilet.

Understandably upset, a group of veterans began staging daily protest, in which they put on their full dress uniforms, entered the gallery, and ritually folded the flag.

The ARTIST prevented the gallery from pressing charges, on the basis that they had become part of the piece. IIRC, he actually assisted them in contacting other groups to continue the demonstration when it went on tour.

I don't recall any of the names, but I'll try to find an article on it.

 

[kylixguru]

You read way too much into smilies.

I did take notice of the two appendages to each side of that smile going up and down as if it has shoulders it was shrugging. Perhaps I just pay attention to details?

Not really, no. I said it's based on a basic shape of geometry.

And, that shape you said was "oval". Do I need to quote you exactly?

Seriously, dude. Is this REALLY important enough for veiled insults, or are you just playing ***** Queen?

Apparently it is serious enough that you decided to go there in order to avoid paying attention to detail.
How about you go ahead and honor my request to take notice of that aspect of detail?
That would be more in keeping with the OP than dodging to the side to accuse me of being some kind of ***** Queen.

Where did I scoff? Did I not say flat out that my only issue is applying personal interpretation to the artist?

Perhaps scoff was a bit too strong of a word, but that was the tone I sensed in your dismissive comment earlier.

It isn't just personal interpretation to take notice of the similarity in detail between the green ribbon and the red artery. It's a rather objective similarity between the two.

Of course, you are welcome to claim it is meaningless, but at least your claim would be based on a more thorough analysis.

 

[kylixguru]

I'm sure the painter was deliberate in his efforts. I'm sure he placed many interesting symbols within this painting. However, there is no evidence he was drawing God on a brain, and that he was trying to imply that humans made up God or anything such as that. This object could be a shell. It could be a number of things. However, none of those can be supported without additional evidence. Such as what Michelangelo stated.

And really, I think it resembles a jelly fish.

I also request of you to take notice of the green ribbon and the red artery in post #23.

Is that just an accidental coincidence or do you think the painter was deliberate?

 

[Renji]

Hey Reptillian! It kinda look more of a cloak to me than the brain. Though yeah, I can see that its shape is like a portion of a brain. But I think it's not, IMO.

 

[kylixguru]

Interesting story about interpretation and the dynamic between artist and audience.

A few years ago, there was an exhibition on American themes. One of the pieces featured the flag pouring out of a toilet.

Understandably upset, a group of veterans began staging daily protest, in which they put on their full dress uniforms, entered the gallery, and ritually folded the flag.

The ARTIST prevented the gallery from pressing charges, on the basis that they had become part of the piece. IIRC, he actually assisted them in contacting other groups to continue the demonstration when it went on tour.

I don't recall any of the names, but I'll try to find an article on it.

What artist who is an attention *** wouldn't want all that ruckus?

 

[Storm]

I did take notice of the two appendages to each side of that smile going up and down as if it has shoulders it was shrugging. Perhaps I just pay attention to details?

And, that shape you said was "oval". Do I need to quote you exactly?

To what point and purpose? Ovals ARE a basic shape of geometry. OK, not as basic a circles, but your objection here is pretty silly.

Apparently it is serious enough that you decided to go there in order to avoid paying attention to detail.

Go where? The fact that I don't think it's a brain doesn't mean I'm blind.

How about you go ahead and honor my request to take notice of that aspect of detail?
That would be more in keeping with the OP than dodging to the side to accuse me of being some kind of ***** Queen.

I already noticed it, but I'm not inclined to honor any request that comes with an insult.

Seriously, if you're pathologically incapable of civility, just don't talk to me. Everyone will be happier.

 

[kylixguru]

To what point and purpose? Ovals ARE a basic shape of geometry. OK, not as basic a circles, but your objection here is pretty silly.

Go where? The fact that I don't think it's a brain doesn't mean I'm blind.

I already noticed it, but I'm not inclined to honor any request that comes with an insult.

Seriously, if you're pathologically incapable of civility, just don't talk to me. Everyone will be happier.

I would just appreciate having a discussion where people take all of the detail into account.
I get frustrated when people willfully gloss over details that are clearly present.

Do you have a vested interest in shutting down a more detailed analysis of this art?

 

[Storm]

I would just appreciate having a discussion where people take all of the detail into account.
I get frustrated when people willfully gloss over details that are clearly present.

Do you have a vested interest in shutting down a more detailed analysis of this art?

>sigh<

Of course it's a form of language (well, communication), but it's not limited to expressions of one's beliefs. Art, graphic or otherwise, explores ideas, and real artists aren't afraid to explore ideas they don't hold. For instance, JMS (a staunch atheist) penned one of my favorite quotes: "Faith and reason are the shoes on your feet. You can go further with both than just one."

What's more, inspiration and reference don't even necessarily come from ideas, ESPECIALLY in the visual arts. A Satanic painter might really like the composition of the Chapel's ceiling and be inspired to reference it without intending any theological commentary.

The complex interweaving of self-expression, commentary, and simple aesthetics is precisely what makes art so fascinating.

Please, quote the post in which I denied the validity of any interpretation, as opposed to arguing the stupidity that only one is correct.

 

[Reptillian]

If you think it looks like a brain, more power to you. I don't. It really doesn't matter until someone insists that their interpretation MUST be the artist's intention. That's really the only thing I take issue with.

I agree with you that a piece of art doesn't need to reflect an artist's position, but one could argue that Michelangelo wouldn't risk making such potentially dangerous artistic comments in this time period if he didn't actually believe such things.

Interesting story about interpretation and the dynamic between artist and audience.

A few years ago, there was an exhibition on American themes. One of the pieces featured the flag pouring out of a toilet.

Understandably upset, a group of veterans began staging daily protest, in which they put on their full dress uniforms, entered the gallery, and ritually folded the flag.

The ARTIST prevented the gallery from pressing charges, on the basis that they had become part of the piece. IIRC, he actually assisted them in contacting other groups to continue the demonstration when it went on tour.

I don't recall any of the names, but I'll try to find an article on it.

That does sound interesting, please post a link if you find it.

Hey Reptillian! It kinda look more of a cloak to me than the brain. Though yeah, I can see that its shape is like a portion of a brain. But I think it's not, IMO.

If I can only get one or two other people to think it looks like a brain, maybe I am seeing something that isn't there.

I would just appreciate having a discussion where people take all of the detail into account.
I get frustrated when people willfully gloss over details that are clearly present.

Do you have a vested interest in shutting down a more detailed analysis of this art?

I feel a bit like people are intentionally ignoring the brain in the image because they don't want to believe it too.

Here I've highlighted several structural similaritites.

 

[Reptillian]

Let's just assume that it is a brain and ignore whether or not it actually is. Assuming it's a brain, what are some possible interpretations of God riding on a brain in The Creation? If it is a brain, is "God is a product of the human mind" the only way of interpreting this?

 

[Storm]

I agree with you that a piece of art doesn't need to reflect an artist's position, but one could argue that Michelangelo wouldn't risk making such potentially dangerous artistic comments in this time period if he didn't actually believe such things.

One could, but would it be accurate? I'm not sure it would be dangerous at all, not knowing if the argument that God is all in the mind goes back that far, at least not with sufficient popularity for anyone to care.

That does sound interesting, please post a link if you find it.

Well, I tried, but my Google-fu is weak.

If I can only get one or two other people to think it looks like a brain, maybe I am seeing something that isn't there.

I can see it, I just think it's a mistake to force one's interpretation onto the artist. Also, given the previous points about basic geometry, and the fact that it also looks like other things... meh.

I feel a bit like people are intentionally ignoring the brain in the image because they don't want to believe it too.

Reviewing the thread, I can see how my tendency to rely on the context of previous posts could come across as overstating my case. That and I was kind of annoyed at first. At any rate, it's not that I think you're making things up or seeing things that aren't there, just that I object to projecting that onto Michaelangelo's intent.

 

[Storm]

Let's just assume that it is a brain and ignore whether or not it actually is. Assuming it's a brain, what are some possible interpretations of God riding on a brain in The Creation? If it is a brain, is "God is a product of the human mind" the only way of interpreting this?

OK, I'll play.

I would say that equally valid would be the message that awareness of God is the purpose of the human mind. Or that faith needs reason to keep it in check (shades of the previous JMS quote).

ETA: Also a reference to the doctrine that the human mind is modeled on God's, which is why we're the only (known) sapient species.

 

[Reptillian]

OK, I'll play.

I would say that equally valid would be the message that awareness of God is the purpose of the human mind. Or that faith needs reason to keep it in check (shades of the previous JMS quote).

ETA: Also a reference to the doctrine that the human mind is modeled on God's, which is why we're the only (known) sapient species.

This was the point of the thread. I wanted to discuss other possible ways of thinking about this if it was a brain. (which I think it is)

Another way of interpreting this might be dualism...mind vs. material. That God is reaching out to Adam I think is significant too. God seems to be straining a bit more.

 

[Father Heathen]

Don't overthink it. He probably didn't know what brains look like to begin with.

Edit: foot in mouth

 

[Father Heathen]

And that picture looks nothing like what is being depicted.

Because it's sliced in at completely different angle and direction.

Brains are three dimensional objects, you know.

 

[Storm]

*ahem*

Leonardo Da Vinci anatomy drawing!

Micaelangelo was not Da Vinci.

I'm not being pedantic, I swear. Da Vinci was pretty much in a league of his own, and I'm not even sure when they lived relative to each other.

At any rate, that was (intended to be) a throwaway line, not the crux of my argument.

 

[Storm]

See above.

 

[Storm]

Edit: foot in mouth

Oh, lol.

Pay attention, hon!