Da Vinci VS Michelangelo: Who WINS?

[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...

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

Did you know that he was NOT a part of the original painting?

While he depicted Da Vinci as Plato, one of the most well known famous and accomplished philosophers of all time, he decided to include Michelangelo as Heraclitus, a philosopher nick named as "The Obscure", as an add on project, sitting in the middle by himself, staring at his wiener...

And he did this because,.... he had respect for Michelangelo?

Of course not. Rafael hated Michelangelo. He even got him fired, using his "special" ties with the Pope of the time.

Come on people, just stop thinking these people like gods or angels for a second, and think about them just like ordinary humans. Their talent and genius dont make their basic human instincts and behaviors disappear. What is happening to nowadays celebrities with immense talent and genius, happened to these individuals hundreds of years ago.

 

[alpine]

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?

Correct, these stories are all over the place, but the main source would be Anonimo Magliabechiano, a gossip magazine of the time, more or less...

 

[Syriusly]

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?

Correct, these stories are all over the place, but the main source would be Anonimo Magliabechiano, a gossip magazine of the time, more or less...

I couldn't find it in Anonimo Magliabechiano.

Can you provide the link and the page number?

 

[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

Did you know that he was NOT a part of the original painting?

While he depicted Da Vinci as Plato, one of the most well known famous and accomplished philosophers of all time, he decided to include Michelangelo as Heraclitus, a philosopher nick named as "The Obscure", as an add on project, sitting in the middle by himself, staring at his wiener...

That you think that this is Michelangelo 'staring at his wiener' really pretty much destroys any possible credibility you might have had.

 

[alpine]

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?

Correct, these stories are all over the place, but the main source would be Anonimo Magliabechiano, a gossip magazine of the time, more or less...

I couldn't find it in Anonimo Magliabechiano.

Can you provide the link and the page number?

I don't have Anonimo Magliabechiano, I have this book that is referencing to Anonimo Magliabechiano for the source of this story.


Michelangelo


I don't think Anonimo Magliabechiano is like a book you can reference with page numbers or anything like that, it is more like a manuscript, is it not?

 

[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...

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

Did you know that he was NOT a part of the original painting?

While he depicted Da Vinci as Plato, one of the most well known famous and accomplished philosophers of all time, he decided to include Michelangelo as Heraclitus, a philosopher nick named as "The Obscure", as an add on project, sitting in the middle by himself, staring at his wiener...

That you think that this is Michelangelo 'staring at his wiener' really pretty much destroys any possible credibility you might have had.

So who is it?

Why did Rafael add him to this painting after he has it complete?

What is the story?

You tell me....

 

[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

Did you know that he was NOT a part of the original painting?

While he depicted Da Vinci as Plato, one of the most well known famous and accomplished philosophers of all time, he decided to include Michelangelo as Heraclitus, a philosopher nick named as "The Obscure", as an add on project, sitting in the middle by himself, staring at his wiener...

That you think that this is Michelangelo 'staring at his wiener' really pretty much destroys any possible credibility you might have had.

So who is it?

Why did Rafael add him to this painting after he has it complete?

What is the story?

You tell me....

So who is who?

Why do you imagine that that is Michelangelo looking at his 'wiener'?

 

[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?"..

Does that 'explanation' also come from "Michelangelo: his epic life"?

If not- from where?

 

[alpine]

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

Did you know that he was NOT a part of the original painting?

While he depicted Da Vinci as Plato, one of the most well known famous and accomplished philosophers of all time, he decided to include Michelangelo as Heraclitus, a philosopher nick named as "The Obscure", as an add on project, sitting in the middle by himself, staring at his wiener...

That you think that this is Michelangelo 'staring at his wiener' really pretty much destroys any possible credibility you might have had.

So who is it?

Why did Rafael add him to this painting after he has it complete?

What is the story?

You tell me....

So who is who?

Why do you imagine that that is Michelangelo looking at his 'wiener'?

Look, this is not something new. Art community have been debating this for a long time. If you were in that community, you would have an idea who was who, and what was going on here, but obviously you are not, you don't even have the slightest idea...

I don't like to be personal, but on this forum, everybody is personal at all times, even in an art debate. It is impossible to debate anything for more than a page, before they start shelling their ready to go personal attacks.

So I am not going to go any further. If you are really interested to know "who is who?", then GOOGLE IT!!!

 

[Syriusly]

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

Did you know that he was NOT a part of the original painting?

While he depicted Da Vinci as Plato, one of the most well known famous and accomplished philosophers of all time, he decided to include Michelangelo as Heraclitus, a philosopher nick named as "The Obscure", as an add on project, sitting in the middle by himself, staring at his wiener...

That you think that this is Michelangelo 'staring at his wiener' really pretty much destroys any possible credibility you might have had.

So who is it?

Why did Rafael add him to this painting after he has it complete?

What is the story?

You tell me....

So who is who?

Why do you imagine that that is Michelangelo looking at his 'wiener'?

Look, this is not something new. Art community have been debating this for a long time. If you were in that community, you would have an idea who was who, and what was going on here, but obviously you are not, you don't even have the slightest idea...

I don't like to be personal, but on this forum, everybody is personal at all times, even in an art debate. It is impossible to debate anything for more than a page, before they start shelling their ready to go personal attacks.

So I am not going to go any further. If you are really interested to know "who is who?", then GOOGLE IT!!!

LOL- no- I will leave the Googling of Michelangelo's wiener to you.

I have seen the School of Athens in person several times- and no- nobody suggests that anyone is looking at a wiener.

If that makes me an 'outcast' from whatever 'art community' you believe you belong to- so be it.

 

[alpine]

Did you know that he was NOT a part of the original painting?

While he depicted Da Vinci as Plato, one of the most well known famous and accomplished philosophers of all time, he decided to include Michelangelo as Heraclitus, a philosopher nick named as "The Obscure", as an add on project, sitting in the middle by himself, staring at his wiener...

That you think that this is Michelangelo 'staring at his wiener' really pretty much destroys any possible credibility you might have had.

So who is it?

Why did Rafael add him to this painting after he has it complete?

What is the story?

You tell me....

So who is who?

Why do you imagine that that is Michelangelo looking at his 'wiener'?

Look, this is not something new. Art community have been debating this for a long time. If you were in that community, you would have an idea who was who, and what was going on here, but obviously you are not, you don't even have the slightest idea...

I don't like to be personal, but on this forum, everybody is personal at all times, even in an art debate. It is impossible to debate anything for more than a page, before they start shelling their ready to go personal attacks.

So I am not going to go any further. If you are really interested to know "who is who?", then GOOGLE IT!!!

LOL- no- I will leave the Googling of Michelangelo's wiener to you.

I have seen the School of Athens in person several times- and no- nobody suggests that anyone is looking at a wiener.

If that makes me an 'outcast' from whatever 'art community' you believe you belong to- so be it.

Looking at a fresco doesn't makes you an expert, it makes you a jack ass, who have seen a fresco... Nothing more...

 

[Syriusly]

That you think that this is Michelangelo 'staring at his wiener' really pretty much destroys any possible credibility you might have had.

So who is it?

Why did Rafael add him to this painting after he has it complete?

What is the story?

You tell me....

So who is who?

Why do you imagine that that is Michelangelo looking at his 'wiener'?

Look, this is not something new. Art community have been debating this for a long time. If you were in that community, you would have an idea who was who, and what was going on here, but obviously you are not, you don't even have the slightest idea...

I don't like to be personal, but on this forum, everybody is personal at all times, even in an art debate. It is impossible to debate anything for more than a page, before they start shelling their ready to go personal attacks.

So I am not going to go any further. If you are really interested to know "who is who?", then GOOGLE IT!!!

LOL- no- I will leave the Googling of Michelangelo's wiener to you.

I have seen the School of Athens in person several times- and no- nobody suggests that anyone is looking at a wiener.

If that makes me an 'outcast' from whatever 'art community' you believe you belong to- so be it.

Looking at a fresco doesn't makes you an expert, it makes you a jack ass, who have seen a fresco... Nothing more...

Wow- looking at a fresco makes you a jackass?

I don't claim to be any art expert. I merely enjoy great art. I have been to most of the major art museums of Europe, all but a few of the major art museums in the United States and was admiring viewing a Raphael last weekend.

Michelangelo's works are fantastic- from the Sistine Chapel (bring binoculars with you for the best viewing) to David- but my favorite of his is Moses with horns.

I am an art enthusiast.

 

[alpine]

So who is it?

Why did Rafael add him to this painting after he has it complete?

What is the story?

You tell me....

So who is who?

Why do you imagine that that is Michelangelo looking at his 'wiener'?

Look, this is not something new. Art community have been debating this for a long time. If you were in that community, you would have an idea who was who, and what was going on here, but obviously you are not, you don't even have the slightest idea...

I don't like to be personal, but on this forum, everybody is personal at all times, even in an art debate. It is impossible to debate anything for more than a page, before they start shelling their ready to go personal attacks.

So I am not going to go any further. If you are really interested to know "who is who?", then GOOGLE IT!!!

LOL- no- I will leave the Googling of Michelangelo's wiener to you.

I have seen the School of Athens in person several times- and no- nobody suggests that anyone is looking at a wiener.

If that makes me an 'outcast' from whatever 'art community' you believe you belong to- so be it.

Looking at a fresco doesn't makes you an expert, it makes you a jack ass, who have seen a fresco... Nothing more...

Wow- looking at a fresco makes you a jackass?

I don't claim to be any art expert. I merely enjoy great art. I have been to most of the major art museums of Europe, all but a few of the major art museums in the United States and was admiring viewing a Raphael last weekend.

Michelangelo's works are fantastic- from the Sistine Chapel (bring binoculars with you for the best viewing) to David- but my favorite of his is Moses with horns.

I am an art enthusiast.

I said; looking at a fresco, makes you a jack ass, who looked at a fresco.
Because you were being a jack ass to me on this topic here, before you mentioned you looked at a fresco.
Purposely distorting my point...
Asking for a page number from something that's not even a book...
Discarding many legit arguments just to discredit the "person" you are having the argument with...

Forgive me if I don't share your enthusiasm with you... but I think I have enough reason not to do so...

 

[Syriusly]

So who is who?

Why do you imagine that that is Michelangelo looking at his 'wiener'?

Look, this is not something new. Art community have been debating this for a long time. If you were in that community, you would have an idea who was who, and what was going on here, but obviously you are not, you don't even have the slightest idea...

I don't like to be personal, but on this forum, everybody is personal at all times, even in an art debate. It is impossible to debate anything for more than a page, before they start shelling their ready to go personal attacks.

So I am not going to go any further. If you are really interested to know "who is who?", then GOOGLE IT!!!

LOL- no- I will leave the Googling of Michelangelo's wiener to you.

I have seen the School of Athens in person several times- and no- nobody suggests that anyone is looking at a wiener.

If that makes me an 'outcast' from whatever 'art community' you believe you belong to- so be it.

Looking at a fresco doesn't makes you an expert, it makes you a jack ass, who have seen a fresco... Nothing more...

Wow- looking at a fresco makes you a jackass?

I don't claim to be any art expert. I merely enjoy great art. I have been to most of the major art museums of Europe, all but a few of the major art museums in the United States and was admiring viewing a Raphael last weekend.

Michelangelo's works are fantastic- from the Sistine Chapel (bring binoculars with you for the best viewing) to David- but my favorite of his is Moses with horns.

I am an art enthusiast.

I said; looking at a fresco, makes you a jack ass, who looked at a fresco.
Because you were being a jack ass to me on this topic here, before you mentioned you looked at a fresco.
Purposely distorting my point...
Asking for a page number from something that's not even a book...
Discarding many legit arguments just to discredit the "person" you are having the argument with...

Forgive me if I don't share your enthusiasm with you... but I think I have enough reason not to do so...

Oh you are forgiven.

I am still chuckling about how you want to be taken seriously while you post about Michelangelo looking at his wiener.

 

[alpine]

Look, this is not something new. Art community have been debating this for a long time. If you were in that community, you would have an idea who was who, and what was going on here, but obviously you are not, you don't even have the slightest idea...

I don't like to be personal, but on this forum, everybody is personal at all times, even in an art debate. It is impossible to debate anything for more than a page, before they start shelling their ready to go personal attacks.

So I am not going to go any further. If you are really interested to know "who is who?", then GOOGLE IT!!!

LOL- no- I will leave the Googling of Michelangelo's wiener to you.

I have seen the School of Athens in person several times- and no- nobody suggests that anyone is looking at a wiener.

If that makes me an 'outcast' from whatever 'art community' you believe you belong to- so be it.

Looking at a fresco doesn't makes you an expert, it makes you a jack ass, who have seen a fresco... Nothing more...

Wow- looking at a fresco makes you a jackass?

I don't claim to be any art expert. I merely enjoy great art. I have been to most of the major art museums of Europe, all but a few of the major art museums in the United States and was admiring viewing a Raphael last weekend.

Michelangelo's works are fantastic- from the Sistine Chapel (bring binoculars with you for the best viewing) to David- but my favorite of his is Moses with horns.

I am an art enthusiast.

I said; looking at a fresco, makes you a jack ass, who looked at a fresco.
Because you were being a jack ass to me on this topic here, before you mentioned you looked at a fresco.
Purposely distorting my point...
Asking for a page number from something that's not even a book...
Discarding many legit arguments just to discredit the "person" you are having the argument with...

Forgive me if I don't share your enthusiasm with you... but I think I have enough reason not to do so...

Oh you are forgiven.

I am still chuckling about how you want to be taken seriously while you post about Michelangelo looking at his wiener.

One question: did you know that figure, which I claim to be a Michelangelo staring at his wiener, was added to the fresco, after the completion of the fresco?

 

[Harry Dresden]

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?

Correct, these stories are all over the place, but the main source would be Anonimo Magliabechiano, a gossip magazine of the time, more or less...

the key word here being GOSSIP......2 guys walking down the street 400 years ago etc etc.....yea right.....

 

[alpine]

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?

Correct, these stories are all over the place, but the main source would be Anonimo Magliabechiano, a gossip magazine of the time, more or less...

the key word here being GOSSIP......2 guys walking down the street 400 years ago etc etc.....yea right.....

Half of the treads on this board are gossip treads...

Wanna stuck with the mediocre gossip for retards, well, be my guest. There are tons of them, feel yourself free to dig into any of those.

This tread here however, is the mother of all gossips, regarding some of the most famous, talented, genius, influential people that has ever lived on this planet.

You can go gossip about Palin and his son Track now...

 

[Harry Dresden]

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?

Correct, these stories are all over the place, but the main source would be Anonimo Magliabechiano, a gossip magazine of the time, more or less...

the key word here being GOSSIP......2 guys walking down the street 400 years ago etc etc.....yea right.....

Half of the treads on this board are gossip treads...

Wanna stuck with the mediocre gossip for retards, well, be my guest. There are tons of them, feel yourself free to dig into any of those.

This tread here however, is the mother of all gossips, regarding some of the most famous, talented, genius, influential people that has ever lived on this planet.

You can go gossip about Palin and his son Track now...

you are the one defending this gossip....this is a story,you understand a hearsay story that no one can verify....no one,but yet here you are trying to tell us it happened...now why dont you go and rent the TV show "Da Vinci's Demons"....they say Leo sailed across the Atlantic and met the Incas in that show....are you going to buy that shit to?...

 

[alpine]

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?

Correct, these stories are all over the place, but the main source would be Anonimo Magliabechiano, a gossip magazine of the time, more or less...

the key word here being GOSSIP......2 guys walking down the street 400 years ago etc etc.....yea right.....

Half of the treads on this board are gossip treads...

Wanna stuck with the mediocre gossip for retards, well, be my guest. There are tons of them, feel yourself free to dig into any of those.

This tread here however, is the mother of all gossips, regarding some of the most famous, talented, genius, influential people that has ever lived on this planet.

You can go gossip about Palin and his son Track now...

you are the one defending this gossip....this is a story,you understand a hearsay story that no one can verify....no one,but yet here you are trying to tell us it happened...now why dont you go and rent the TV show "Da Vinci's Demons"....they say Leo sailed across the Atlantic and met the Incas in that show....are you going to buy that shit to?...

This is not just a hearsay story to begin with. The story have physical substance to it.

Like;

Rafael painted and finished a masterpiece, "School of Athens". And after finishing his work, he added one lonely man, right in the middle of it. Do you realize this was painted on a huge wall, in huge dimensions, and painters need to draw each detail on the wall before even painting it, and it is an extremely hard process to do add anything once the work is complete? Maybe you are not aware of it, but IT IS!

And yet, he still did go through that and painted a lonely man, siting there alone...

Why did he do that?
Who was that man?
What was the purpose to paint that man in the way he painted him?

These are the questions you should be asking when you encounter such bizarre situations.

And on top of this, we have some manuscripts popping up at a local bookstore in Italy, that is believed to be from the same era, describing some events displaying tension between these artists.

And then you put these together, and come up with a story.

And you would be drooling while watching it if this was a TV SHOW!!!









And on top of all, Rafael was having an affair with the pope, how do you like that now.........................

 

[Harry Dresden]

Does your story come from Anonimo Magliabechiano?

Correct, these stories are all over the place, but the main source would be Anonimo Magliabechiano, a gossip magazine of the time, more or less...

the key word here being GOSSIP......2 guys walking down the street 400 years ago etc etc.....yea right.....

Half of the treads on this board are gossip treads...

Wanna stuck with the mediocre gossip for retards, well, be my guest. There are tons of them, feel yourself free to dig into any of those.

This tread here however, is the mother of all gossips, regarding some of the most famous, talented, genius, influential people that has ever lived on this planet.

You can go gossip about Palin and his son Track now...

you are the one defending this gossip....this is a story,you understand a hearsay story that no one can verify....no one,but yet here you are trying to tell us it happened...now why dont you go and rent the TV show "Da Vinci's Demons"....they say Leo sailed across the Atlantic and met the Incas in that show....are you going to buy that shit to?...

This is not just a hearsay story to begin with. The story have physical substance to it.

Like;

Rafael painted and finished a masterpiece, "School of Athens". And after finishing his work, he added one lonely man, right in the middle of it. Do you realize this was painted on a huge wall, in huge dimensions, and painters need to draw each detail on the wall before even painting it, and it is an extremely hard process to do add anything once the work is complete? Maybe you are not aware of it, but IT IS!

And yet, he still did go through that and painted a lonely man, siting there alone...

Why did he do that?
Who was that man?
What was the purpose to paint that man in the way he painted him?

These are the questions you should be asking when you encounter such bizarre situations.

And on top of this, we have some manuscripts popping up at a local bookstore in Italy, that is believed to be from the same era, describing some events displaying tension between these artists.

And then you put these together, and come up with a story.

And you would be drooling while watching it if this was a TV SHOW!!!









And on top of all, Rafael was having an affair with the pope, how do you like that now.........................

geezus you are lost dude.....prove that 400 years ago leo and angie had that exchange you talked about.....a painting is real that you can see....now get back to that fictional exchange they supposedly had....prove that happened....