Da Vinci VS Michelangelo: Who WINS?

[froggy]

Personally I find Da Vinci being a dick here. Insulting Michelangelo like he did, was uncalled for. Shows his level...

you do understand that what you posted is fiction, right?

More input Jill.lol

 

[alpine]

Personally I find Da Vinci being a dick here. Insulting Michelangelo like he did, was uncalled for. Shows his level...

you do understand that what you posted is fiction, right?

No it is not. We have been through this before.

These people are the celebrities of their time. There are records of these events. Maybe not 100% accurate at times, but pretty much gives us the general idea what was going on.

"Gossip" predates "writing", you know that...

 

[jillian]

Personally I find Da Vinci being a dick here. Insulting Michelangelo like he did, was uncalled for. Shows his level...

you do understand that what you posted is fiction, right?

More input Jill.lol

what was there to give "input" to, dear? something that was fiction but the o/p is too vapid to understand that?

nah.

 

[jillian]

Personally I find Da Vinci being a dick here. Insulting Michelangelo like he did, was uncalled for. Shows his level...

you do understand that what you posted is fiction, right?

No it is not. We have been through this before.

These people are the celebrities of their time. There are records of these events. Maybe not 100% accurate at times, but pretty much gives us the general idea what was going on.

"Gossip" predates "writing", you know that...

which has zero to do with what you posted.

sorry. i don't legitimate stupidity

 

[alpine]

Personally I find Da Vinci being a dick here. Insulting Michelangelo like he did, was uncalled for. Shows his level...

you do understand that what you posted is fiction, right?

More input Jill.lol

what was there to give "input" to, dear? something that was fiction but the o/p is too vapid to understand that?

nah.

So you are asking for "source"?

 

[froggy]

Personally I find Da Vinci being a dick here. Insulting Michelangelo like he did, was uncalled for. Shows his level...

you do understand that what you posted is fiction, right?

More input Jill.lol

what was there to give "input" to, dear? something that was fiction but the o/p is too vapid to understand that?

nah.

Personally I find Da Vinci being a dick here. Insulting Michelangelo like he did, was uncalled for. Shows his level...

you do understand that what you posted is fiction, right?

More input Jill.lol

what was there to give "input" to, dear? something that was fiction but the o/p is too vapid to understand that?

nah.

Personally I find Da Vinci being a dick here. Insulting Michelangelo like he did, was uncalled for. Shows his level...

you do understand that what you posted is fiction, right?

More input Jill.lol

what was there to give "input" to, dear? something that was fiction but the o/p is too vapid to understand that?

nah.

OOPS!

 

[alpine]

Personally I find Da Vinci being a dick here. Insulting Michelangelo like he did, was uncalled for. Shows his level...

you do understand that what you posted is fiction, right?

No it is not. We have been through this before.

These people are the celebrities of their time. There are records of these events. Maybe not 100% accurate at times, but pretty much gives us the general idea what was going on.

"Gossip" predates "writing", you know that...

which has zero to do with what you posted.

sorry. i don't legitimate stupidity

You calling me a "stupid"?

And so that makes you "smart"?

 

[skye]

stop it children

lol

be good

 

[Alex.]

They were artists who pursued their own individual artistic drives. It is futile to compare them on any serious level.

"Michelangelo and Leonardo were too different, both as artists and men, to remain on friendly terms long. Leonardo was handsome, urbane, eloquent and dandyishly well dressed. In contrast, Michelangelo was neurotically secretive; he had a badly broken nose and extremely sharp tongue. Leonardo was by no means the only older fellow artist he insulted. According to Vasari, Michelangelo called Perugino a "fool in art" to his face (the older painter tried to take legal action for defamation but was laughed out of court)."

Was Michelangelo a better artist than Leonardo da Vinci?

 

[froggy]

stop it children

lol

be good

I've had a few rounds with Jillian here. Way back when. Lol

 

[alpine]

They were artists who pursued their own individual artistic drives. It is futile to compare them on any serious level.

"Michelangelo and Leonardo were too different, both as artists and men, to remain on friendly terms long. Leonardo was handsome, urbane, eloquent and dandyishly well dressed. In contrast, Michelangelo was neurotically secretive; he had a badly broken nose and extremely sharp tongue. Leonardo was by no means the only older fellow artist he insulted. According to Vasari, Michelangelo called Perugino a "fool in art" to his face (the older painter tried to take legal action for defamation but was laughed out of court)."

Was Michelangelo a better artist than Leonardo da Vinci?

Let me explain in more details;

The people were discussing Dante's Inferno, about the passage that describes the level of hell reserved for homosexuals.

They called Leonardo over and asked him to explain the passage they were puzzling over, but just at that moment Michelangelo happened to come along. Leonardo asked Michelangelo to explain it, a slur against Michelangelo's homosexuality.

Michelangelo replied, "Why don't YOU explain it? And while you're at it, explain to the Duke of Milan why you wasted a decade trying to build him an impossible horse?"




As like this was not enough; the duke of the "orgies", Rafael, was making fun of Michelangelo on every opportunity. He even painted Michelangelo in "The School of Athens" as staring at his own wiener, just to make fun of him and his homosexuality!



I hope this makes things much more clear for everyone...

 

[Alex.]

They were artists who pursued their own individual artistic drives. It is futile to compare them on any serious level.

"Michelangelo and Leonardo were too different, both as artists and men, to remain on friendly terms long. Leonardo was handsome, urbane, eloquent and dandyishly well dressed. In contrast, Michelangelo was neurotically secretive; he had a badly broken nose and extremely sharp tongue. Leonardo was by no means the only older fellow artist he insulted. According to Vasari, Michelangelo called Perugino a "fool in art" to his face (the older painter tried to take legal action for defamation but was laughed out of court)."

Was Michelangelo a better artist than Leonardo da Vinci?

Let me explain in more details;

The people were discussing Dante's Inferno, about the passage that describes the level of hell reserved for homosexuals.

They called Leonardo over and asked him to explain the passage they were puzzling over, but just at that moment Michelangelo happened to come along. Leonardo asked Michelangelo to explain it, a slur against Michelangelo's homosexuality.

Michelangelo replied, "Why don't YOU explain it? And while you're at it, explain to the Duke of Milan why you wasted a decade trying to build him an impossible horse?"




As like this was not enough; the duke of the "orgies", Rafael, was making fun of Michelangelo on every opportunity. He even painted Michelangelo in "The School of Athens" as staring at his own wiener, just to make fun of him and his homosexuality!



I hope this makes things much more clear for everyone...

What you just described is the same kind of nonsense that goes on at any internet messageboard and does not speak to the brilliance, talent and innate qualities each artist possesses. It does not matter who they were having sex with and whether they were homosexual.

 

[alpine]

They were artists who pursued their own individual artistic drives. It is futile to compare them on any serious level.

"Michelangelo and Leonardo were too different, both as artists and men, to remain on friendly terms long. Leonardo was handsome, urbane, eloquent and dandyishly well dressed. In contrast, Michelangelo was neurotically secretive; he had a badly broken nose and extremely sharp tongue. Leonardo was by no means the only older fellow artist he insulted. According to Vasari, Michelangelo called Perugino a "fool in art" to his face (the older painter tried to take legal action for defamation but was laughed out of court)."

Was Michelangelo a better artist than Leonardo da Vinci?

Let me explain in more details;

The people were discussing Dante's Inferno, about the passage that describes the level of hell reserved for homosexuals.

They called Leonardo over and asked him to explain the passage they were puzzling over, but just at that moment Michelangelo happened to come along. Leonardo asked Michelangelo to explain it, a slur against Michelangelo's homosexuality.

Michelangelo replied, "Why don't YOU explain it? And while you're at it, explain to the Duke of Milan why you wasted a decade trying to build him an impossible horse?"




As like this was not enough; the duke of the "orgies", Rafael, was making fun of Michelangelo on every opportunity. He even painted Michelangelo in "The School of Athens" as staring at his own wiener, just to make fun of him and his homosexuality!



I hope this makes things much more clear for everyone...

What you just described is the same kind of nonsense that goes on at any internet messageboard and does not speak to the brilliance, talent and innate qualities each artist possesses. It does not matter who they were having sex with and whether they were homosexual.

I agree, sexuality is nobodys business.

So I don't find it amusing when Davinci and Rafael bullying Michelangelo because of his sexuality...

But, on the other hand, being so, they probably contributed to his great art, that surpassed the bullies in every aspect...

And probably by seeing this, Michelangelo was the least of the humanists between the 3, seeing what a real human is capable of...

 

[Alex.]

They were artists who pursued their own individual artistic drives. It is futile to compare them on any serious level.

"Michelangelo and Leonardo were too different, both as artists and men, to remain on friendly terms long. Leonardo was handsome, urbane, eloquent and dandyishly well dressed. In contrast, Michelangelo was neurotically secretive; he had a badly broken nose and extremely sharp tongue. Leonardo was by no means the only older fellow artist he insulted. According to Vasari, Michelangelo called Perugino a "fool in art" to his face (the older painter tried to take legal action for defamation but was laughed out of court)."

Was Michelangelo a better artist than Leonardo da Vinci?

Let me explain in more details;

The people were discussing Dante's Inferno, about the passage that describes the level of hell reserved for homosexuals.

They called Leonardo over and asked him to explain the passage they were puzzling over, but just at that moment Michelangelo happened to come along. Leonardo asked Michelangelo to explain it, a slur against Michelangelo's homosexuality.

Michelangelo replied, "Why don't YOU explain it? And while you're at it, explain to the Duke of Milan why you wasted a decade trying to build him an impossible horse?"




As like this was not enough; the duke of the "orgies", Rafael, was making fun of Michelangelo on every opportunity. He even painted Michelangelo in "The School of Athens" as staring at his own wiener, just to make fun of him and his homosexuality!



I hope this makes things much more clear for everyone...

What you just described is the same kind of nonsense that goes on at any internet messageboard and does not speak to the brilliance, talent and innate qualities each artist possesses. It does not matter who they were having sex with and whether they were homosexual.

I agree, sexuality is nobodys business.

So I don't find it amusing when Davinci and Rafael bullying Michelangelo because of his sexuality...

But, on the other hand, being so, they probably contributed to his great art, that surpassed the bullies in every aspect...

And probably by seeing this, Michelangelo was the least of the humanists between the 3, seeing what a real human is capable of...

Perhaps but that is too far reaching to be a determinative factor. Pissed him off sure but to change his focus in art?

 

[alpine]

They were artists who pursued their own individual artistic drives. It is futile to compare them on any serious level.

"Michelangelo and Leonardo were too different, both as artists and men, to remain on friendly terms long. Leonardo was handsome, urbane, eloquent and dandyishly well dressed. In contrast, Michelangelo was neurotically secretive; he had a badly broken nose and extremely sharp tongue. Leonardo was by no means the only older fellow artist he insulted. According to Vasari, Michelangelo called Perugino a "fool in art" to his face (the older painter tried to take legal action for defamation but was laughed out of court)."

Was Michelangelo a better artist than Leonardo da Vinci?

Let me explain in more details;

The people were discussing Dante's Inferno, about the passage that describes the level of hell reserved for homosexuals.

They called Leonardo over and asked him to explain the passage they were puzzling over, but just at that moment Michelangelo happened to come along. Leonardo asked Michelangelo to explain it, a slur against Michelangelo's homosexuality.

Michelangelo replied, "Why don't YOU explain it? And while you're at it, explain to the Duke of Milan why you wasted a decade trying to build him an impossible horse?"




As like this was not enough; the duke of the "orgies", Rafael, was making fun of Michelangelo on every opportunity. He even painted Michelangelo in "The School of Athens" as staring at his own wiener, just to make fun of him and his homosexuality!



I hope this makes things much more clear for everyone...

What you just described is the same kind of nonsense that goes on at any internet messageboard and does not speak to the brilliance, talent and innate qualities each artist possesses. It does not matter who they were having sex with and whether they were homosexual.

I agree, sexuality is nobodys business.

So I don't find it amusing when Davinci and Rafael bullying Michelangelo because of his sexuality...

But, on the other hand, being so, they probably contributed to his great art, that surpassed the bullies in every aspect...

And probably by seeing this, Michelangelo was the least of the humanists between the 3, seeing what a real human is capable of...

Perhaps but that is too far reaching to be a determinative factor. Pissed him off sure but to change his focus in art?

Did not change focus for sure, but didn't add any substance to it?

 

[jillian]

Personally I find Da Vinci being a dick here. Insulting Michelangelo like he did, was uncalled for. Shows his level...

you do understand that what you posted is fiction, right?

More input Jill.lol

what was there to give "input" to, dear? something that was fiction but the o/p is too vapid to understand that?

nah.

Personally I find Da Vinci being a dick here. Insulting Michelangelo like he did, was uncalled for. Shows his level...

you do understand that what you posted is fiction, right?

More input Jill.lol

what was there to give "input" to, dear? something that was fiction but the o/p is too vapid to understand that?

nah.

Personally I find Da Vinci being a dick here. Insulting Michelangelo like he did, was uncalled for. Shows his level...

you do understand that what you posted is fiction, right?

More input Jill.lol

what was there to give "input" to, dear? something that was fiction but the o/p is too vapid to understand that?

nah.

OOPS!

 

[Syriusly]

Michelangelo is the traditionalist and conservative of his time,
While Da Vinci is the progressive and liberal...

Politics

Hmmmm there was nothing 'conservative' or 'traditionalist' about Michelangelo.

Or Da Vinci- or Rafael- they were all 'radicals' of the day- the Renaissance was a radical movement.

Frankly I find this insistence that they be judged- or that one was a 'dick' (both were rather famous for their ill-temper) kind of misses the point.

Michelangelo was an extraordinary artist- and his works are breathtaking.
Leonardo was also an extraordinary artist- who greatly influenced art- especially painting, but even more so than Michelangelo embodies the ideal of a 'renaissance man'- he was a painter, and sculptor, inventor, architect, engineer.

That the two of them and Raphael lived and worked in Florence at the same time shows where the focus of the renaissance was at that point of time.

It seems to me, both Davinci and Rafael were looking down to Michelangelo, because he was a troubled antisocial person, which makes him a more profound artist, rather than an experimenter, which is what Davinci was more or less.

Again it seems to me the argument was between the new school humanism, where humans being in the center of the universe vs old school traditional thinking where the gods and angels being in the center... Michelangelo being a part of the later, as opposed to the other 2 artists...

And when you are thinking you are the center of the universe, then inevitably, you become more of an arrogant selfish dick...

This is an incredibly silly assertion. Michelangelo was probably high functioning Aspergers. That in no way makes his work "more profound" hat is simply ridiculous.

I am curious what makes you think that?

While I am not that well read on Aspergers, the poetry Michelangelo wrote doesn't seem to fit what I know.

Anyway- while I find it interesting to hear anyone's explanation on why they prefer one artist over another, I think the obvious answer is that both Michelangelo and Da Vinci and Raphael were all immensely talented, in somewhat different ways- and I enjoy appreciating their art today.

 

[Syriusly]

They were artists who pursued their own individual artistic drives. It is futile to compare them on any serious level.

"Michelangelo and Leonardo were too different, both as artists and men, to remain on friendly terms long. Leonardo was handsome, urbane, eloquent and dandyishly well dressed. In contrast, Michelangelo was neurotically secretive; he had a badly broken nose and extremely sharp tongue. Leonardo was by no means the only older fellow artist he insulted. According to Vasari, Michelangelo called Perugino a "fool in art" to his face (the older painter tried to take legal action for defamation but was laughed out of court)."

Was Michelangelo a better artist than Leonardo da Vinci?

Let me explain in more details;

The people were discussing Dante's Inferno, about the passage that describes the level of hell reserved for homosexuals.

They called Leonardo over and asked him to explain the passage they were puzzling over, but just at that moment Michelangelo happened to come along. Leonardo asked Michelangelo to explain it, a slur against Michelangelo's homosexuality.

Michelangelo replied, "Why don't YOU explain it? And while you're at it, explain to the Duke of Milan why you wasted a decade trying to build him an impossible horse?"




As like this was not enough; the duke of the "orgies", Rafael, was making fun of Michelangelo on every opportunity. He even painted Michelangelo in "The School of Athens" as staring at his own wiener, just to make fun of him and his homosexuality!



I hope this makes things much more clear for everyone...

I think your obsession with Michelangelo is clear for everyone.

You think this is Michelangelo looking at his own 'weiner'?

Michelangelo's figure is front and foremost in the painting- if Raphael really wanted to 'humiliate' Michelangelo- he could have left him out of a painting of the great minds of the ages....but he didnt.

Among the Greek titans, a melancholy figure sits at a desk in the foreground of the image. By placing the distraught Michelangelo front and (slightly) center, as he awaits divine inspiration, Raphael again asserts to the viewer that the artist, does in fact, belong with the philosopher. In a similar, and perhaps more vital fashion, Raphael places a nondescript Renaissance man to the far right of the painting, gazing knowingly at the viewer from behind a group of scientists. Along with Michelangelo, Raphael, too, pictures himself among these titans of thought. Thus, the philosophical art of the Renaissance was born.

The Italian Renaissance | Faith, Imagined

 

[Syriusly]

Did you notice the word "or"? Did you notice how it was italicized? The whole point is that it's not necessarily addressing an inferior. We would presume these two are of equal social standing, therefore "equal". And that invites tu, unless one chooses to be formal. But the mere presence of tu does not necessarily equate to "insult". It isn't that simple.

Michelangelo don't refer back to him with "tu" however. And you know why; because he still respects him, up until this point of course.

But Da Vinci on the other hand; has no respect for Michelangelo, he thinks his art is inferior, his ideas are inferior, therefore, himself is inferior.

I don't find Da Vinci's characteristics appealing.
And his sculpting is horrible, and painting is inferior, compared to Michelangelo, imo...

Again, these are actors, and this is television. Or whatever it is, which means what we're seeing is not Michaelangelo and daVinci, but some scriptwriter's/director's depiction sculpted for TV. And that all by itself makes it dishonest.

And they are not making this up. The dislike between these 2 artists are well known.

Michelangelo and Rafael was not getting along well either. Especially after Rafael's affair with the Pope and getting Michelangelo fired...

We've established that there were no video cameras --- were there eyewitnesses who journaled down every word? Dooon't think so. For the fourth time, what we're seeing is some TV director's idea of what makes for a good scene on television.

When I suggested daVinci hadn't invented video I was being facetious. It was sarcasm to point out that a scene we might watch on TV bears no relation to the world of reality. Ever. If you're actually suggesting that we can catch a glimpse of a historical event from the boob tube, then clearly I'm not the one who is "insane".

You are answering your own questions.
That's not gonna help you on the long rung, of course if you are looking to learn things that you don't have the knowledge of.

Anonimo Magliabechiano - Dictionary of Art Historians

"Anonymous author of a now fragmental history, likely written after 1541. The extent portion includes biographies of Florentine artists between the late 13th century and the 16th. The manuscript was discovered in 1755 in the Magliabechiano manuscript collection but only brought to the attention of scholars in 1892 by Karl Frey. Most recently the scholar Bouk Wierda has argued that the identity of the Florentine humanist and art connoisseur Anonimo is Bernardo Vecchietti (1514-1590)."

So, to answer your question; "were there eyewitnesses who journaled down every word?"
Yes, apparently there were...

Does your story come from Anonimo Magliabechiano?

 

[Syriusly]

Personally I find Da Vinci being a dick here. Insulting Michelangelo like he did, was uncalled for. Shows his level...

you do understand that what you posted is fiction, right?

No it is not. We have been through this before.

These people are the celebrities of their time. There are records of these events. Maybe not 100% accurate at times, but pretty much gives us the general idea what was going on.

"Gossip" predates "writing", you know that...

What is the source of your story?