What is Michelangelo saying in The Creation of Adam?

[kylixguru]

No, I don't want you to just take my word for it. I just expect the same respect in return.

If you are refusing to acknowledge pertinent information in a matter, don't be surprised if people call you out on it and dismiss your opinion.
Retorting back with baseless insults really isn't going to help you regain your credibility either.

 

[Storm]

If you are refusing to acknowledge pertinent information in a matter, don't be surprised if people call you out on it and dismiss your opinion.
Retorting back with baseless insults really isn't going to help you regain your credibility either.

Pot, have you met my friend kettle?

As for credibility, what was the name of Michelangelo's "guilded order," again?

 

[Infinitum]

Since Storm took it up again I'll drop in to tell that I've read the most important surviving occult material from Antiquity onwards and none of it addresses anatomy. Had Michelangelo been part of an esoteric order he'd have been taught about memory techniques, Jewish numerology and astrology - not too useful for a painter.

As for the OP, I looked up a better picture of the painting and sure it could be a brain. Does it allow us to draw the conclusion that Michelangelo as an Atheist? No. The symbolism could just as well refer to how God communicates with people, which is via the brain. If you look at the picture, God stands out from the other characters inside the brain, and also stretches outside it.

 

[kylixguru]

Since Storm took it up again I'll drop in to tell that I've read the most important surviving occult material from Antiquity onwards and none of it addresses anatomy. Had Michelangelo been part of an esoteric order he'd have been taught about memory techniques, Jewish numerology and astrology - not too useful for a painter.

He'd most likely have been...

My point isn't that he actually did, it's that he could have and there is no definitive way we can know for sure that he didn't. The burden of proof that Michelangelo could not possibly have known what a brain cross section looked like is upon Storm, not upon me to prove that he did.
The evidence that he did is actually sufficient to stand on its own if a person actually takes the time to notice the details that I cannot fathom as merely coincidental.

As for the OP, I looked up a better picture of the painting and sure it could be a brain. Does it allow us to draw the conclusion that Michelangelo as an Atheist? No. The symbolism could just as well refer to how God communicates with people, which is via the brain. If you look at the picture, God stands out from the other characters inside the brain, and also stretches outside it.

I suppose there is the possible argument that he actually had no intention of that but that some kind of an inspiration guided him to paint it the way he did such that centuries later we could all wonder about it.

 

[Storm]

Or, you know... he just had no intention to paint that.

 

[Infinitum]

He'd most likely have been...

My point isn't that he actually did, it's that he could have and there is no definitive way we can know for sure that he didn't. The burden of proof that Michelangelo could not possibly have known what a brain cross section looked like is upon Storm, not upon me to prove that he did.
The evidence that he did is actually sufficient to stand on its own if a person actually takes the time to notice the details that I cannot fathom as merely coincidental.

If you reread Storms posts you will notice you misunderstood her points. Please take a minute to reread the first pages.

Nothing points in the direction that Michelangelo would have had anything to do with the esoteric. I don't understand where you got the idea and how it has anything to do with anything, but I'll settle on telling you that he didn't. There are a number of sources he could have gotten the cross section of the brain from. My guess would be medical writings from his time or before him.

I suppose there is the possible argument that he actually had no intention of that but that some kind of an inspiration guided him to paint it the way he did such that centuries later we could all wonder about it.

Among other things in life I've also picked up some training in art history. Any credential source will tell you that Michelangelo didn't need a supernatural force to know how to paint and how symbolism works. Actually symbolism was in a much bigger role in ancient art than it is today.

 

[kylixguru]

If you reread Storms posts you will notice you misunderstood her points. Please take a minute to reread the first pages.

Nothing points in the direction that Michelangelo would have had anything to do with the esoteric. I don't understand where you got the idea and how it has anything to do with anything, but I'll settle on telling you that he didn't. There are a number of sources he could have gotten the cross section of the brain from. My guess would be medical writings from his time or before him.

Is all I mean by saying occult is that it was information not readily available to the masses. Occult simply means hidden to me. I'm just saying he could have had access to information that ordinarily would have been kept hidden.

Among other things in life I've also picked up some training in art history. Any credential source will tell you that Michelangelo didn't need a supernatural force to know how to paint and how symbolism works. Actually symbolism was in a much bigger role in ancient art than it is today.

I definitely agree with this point.
My assessment is he was being wilfully deliberate.
And, that said, I also accept the possibility I could be mistaken.

I just find it highly interesting because it confirms so much of what I have discovered on my own independently. It's uncanny.

At the same time, I need to leave room for those who perceive it differently to see something else and to simply not see at all what I can see in it. It's just sad to me when people put on the skids instead of just being carefree like a child and explore something with a healthy dose of curiosity.

 

[kylixguru]

Or, you know... he just had no intention to paint that.

If you are trying to annoy me, you are doing a very effective job of it.

 

[Storm]

If you are trying to annoy me, you are doing a very effective job of it.

Actually, I wasn't there.

Seriously, what is with people insisting that their interpretation MUST be the artist's intent?

 

[kylixguru]

Here are most of the "contributions" Storm has blown into this thread.

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

If he meant to paint one I'm sure he would have taken measures to paint one accurately.

They studied anatomy for the purpose of understanding how the shapes fit together. I'm pretty sure they didn't dissect cadavers to study internal organs.
Come on, you've got to know you're stretching here. It's just an oval with some decorations.

I am pretty sure if he intended to paint one, someone at some point would have dissected a cadaver and made drawings of such that he gained access to.

Even if he did, saying that the shape of God's throne or whatever being vaguely reminiscent of a brain means he was secretly an atheist planting subversive imagery in the Sistine Chapel is such a bizarre, ludicrous conspiracy theory that Dan Brown would be embarrassed to put in a book.
Even your tamer options are unfounded. There IS such a thing as coincidence, you know. Especially when the only connection between one idea and another is "hey, this slightly altered oval bears a slight resemblance to that slightly altered oval."

You would only see it like that if you willfully gloss over the numerous details where it goes way beyond slight similarities.

Look, I'm not commenting on his religion one way or another. But this is just sad. Artists draw references from EVERYWHERE, and making a mythological reference is not in any way indicative of their beliefs.
Could Michaelangelo have been an atheist? Sure. Can you find proof of it in a work of art? No.
Now, if you have something he SAID, like a letter or diary, you might be able to build a case.

Whose to say someone making a painting as this would then have to be considered an atheist?
Have you yet actually gotten any alleged believer to give you a definitive explanation of what God is?
Far as I can tell, the field is wide open when it comes to the practical mechanics and details in plain and practical terms.

I just love how you totally ignored my point that even if an artist does make a deliberate reference, it doesn't necessarily express personal views.

I didn't ignore this point.

I think it looks more like a seashell, myself, which might make it a reference to The Birth Of Venus.

Tee hee. So funny.

Not really. It looks like an oval. The fact that brains also look like ovals doesn't mean much, considering that it's a very basic shape.

If you gloss over all the details then you could say this.

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.

This is a discussion about what his intentions COULD have been. You are storming into this thread like a bull in a china closet and you refuse to actually fully address all of the details present in it. You throw a wet blanket on people's ideas and then snidely insult them when they try and engage you with substantive reasons that support their views. And, they present reasonable things to consider that would show your objections to be lame.

You read way too much into smilies.
Not really, no. I said it's based on a basic shape of geometry.
Seriously, dude. Is this REALLY important enough for veiled insults, or are you just playing ***** Queen?
Where did I scoff? Did I not say flat out that my only issue is applying personal interpretation to the artist?

The whole point of the OP is to discuss what Michelangelo was trying to communicate by painting God and His host in the likeness of a human brain. I don't think the originator of the thread appreciated you barging in and trashing what was obvious to them and derailing what they were looking for.

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.

My objection wasn't silly and you never addressed it. You summarily dismissed it.

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

The point here wasn't to discuss whether or not that was a brain.
The OP was to discuss what was meant by the painter using the brain in his art.
I would have enjoyed a meaningful discussion of that, but you had to storm in and make a mess of 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.
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.
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.

Perhaps here you are finally getting a bit of a grip on yourself.

We aren't forcing anything onto him.
We are discussing what his intent was for doing what we clearly see that he did.
Paint God and His angelic host inside of a human brain.

Considering the hang ups about dissecting human corpses that exist to this day? I think it may well have been quite difficult.
Assuming, of course, that he cared at all. Most artists imx are only interested in anatomy as it affects their renditions of the human body.

You are just continuing to dig a deeper hole for yourself.

That's not what you asked.
There's enough speculation to make a tabloid blush. Bit of a difference, that.

Going deeper still.

If you want to claim it was a simple matter, I expect you to support that claim.
Don't put words in my mouth.
You have no authority over my statements. Especially given your own blatant refusal to admit that your opinions are not the word of God. I've considered every detail mentioned, while you seem to forget anything said more than 2 posts ago.

All the support for my claim you willfully ignored.
There was ZERO acknowledgement of the details I tried to draw your attention to.
Then, you turn around and say I have no support for my claim.
That's called setting someone up for failure. Aka, toying with people.

I ignored nothing. I addressed each, and found them irrelevant.
Willfully ignorant of what? Your delusional authority? I'm sorry that you find it so distressing when people don't sycophantically accept every word that drips from your lips. Perhaps, if it's so unbearable, you shouldn't participate in debate.
Sorry, wrong again.

Your hole appears to be a bottomless pit of abysmal darkness of mind.

 

[Storm]

Selective illiteracy. That's a new one.

 

[Storm]

Very convenient, how you totally missed my actual argument:

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.

 

[ChristineES]

Boy oh boy. I have been speed reading through this thread- if one person sees a brain and another person doesn't, why does it have to be such a big deal? If Storm doesn't see a brain then she doesn't see a brain- it's not an insult to the person (people) who does (do). The fact remains is that I don't really see a brain either. It looks more like a sofa with cushions on it. I mean, Michelangelo could have been drawing something that looked like brain- I just don't see it myself.

 

[NIX]

Here I've highlighted several structural similaritites.

That is really neat! (regardless of anything else)

 

[kylixguru]

Boy oh boy. I have been speed reading through this thread- if one person sees a brain and another person doesn't, why does it have to be such a big deal? If Storm doesn't see a brain then she doesn't see a brain- it's not an insult to the person (people) who does (do). The fact remains is that I don't really see a brain either. It looks more like a sofa with cushions on it. I mean, Michelangelo could have been drawing something that looked like brain- I just don't see it myself.

If someone will not pay attention to details and be careful in a matter, then their judgment in the matter should be considered accordingly.
If they want to walk away quietly after ignoring those details, that's ok too. But to persists in saying I have nothing in support of my positon when they refuse to go into details is entirely disengenuous.

 

[kylixguru]

Selective illiteracy. That's a new one.

I was asked to review your posts and there was only one part where it seemed like you might be getting a clue.

 

[kylixguru]

Very convenient, how you totally missed my actual argument:

A blind "expert". Lovely.

 

[Storm]

Gee, no attempt to address my points? How shocking.

 

[kylixguru]

Gee, no attempt to address my points? How shocking.

You refused to address mine so how about we just call it even now because I have no further desire to do any more wrangling with you.

 

[Storm]

You refused to address mine so how about we just call it even now because I have no further desire to do any more wrangling with you.

OK, really? So, precisely where did all those rebuttals you just quoted come from?

If you want to "go away quietly," no one's stopping you. If you want to make false accusations, don't be surprised when I respond.