User talk:Amandajm/Archives/2021/October

Sistine Chapel

Hi, I see you removed not only my clarifying addition on the Arch of Constantine but also the entire point about Botticelli's earlier paintings in the Chapel influencing the composition of Michelangelo's scheme for the ceiling. I did not add this information, but the reason you gave for removing it is wrong; there plainly is gold used on the tondi in Botticelli's painting on the wall, and it's perfectly reasonable to mention that in the article on the ceiling. It's also reasonable to add mention of the Arch of Constantine (which does not have visible gold remaining on it) since it is almost exactly copied on the Sistine Chapel wall, and moreover has been put there because it intimates the pope's succession to Constantine (see: Donation of Constantine) and through him to the fondly remembered emperors of the past: Hadrian, Trajan, and Septimius Severus whose sculptured roundels, friezes, and statues of prisoners were reused in the Arch and thus adapted by Botticelli for the Papal Palace's chapel. GPinkerton (talk) 17:33, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

GPinkerton (talk) 17:33, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

The text says-

".......notably those by Perugino, has been 'most expertly used not just to detail the robes but to highlight the folds by subtle graduation in the density of golden flecks. It is this technique that Michelangelo has picked up on and carried a step further, inspired also perhaps by the medallions that appear on a Roman triumphal arch - modelled on the Arch of Constantine - in Botticelli's episode from the Life of Moses, showing the Punishment of the Rebels.

Note the part that is in bold. It refers very specifically to the way that the gold has been used in the subtle gradation of the density of gold flecks.'

This is not a general statement that Michelangelo used gold like the other artists who painted the walls of the chapel used gold.

The is about one specific technique for using gold, that was employed by Perigino and carried furth by Michelangelo.

So the additon "inspired also perhaps by the nedallions that appear etc " is completely out of place.

It has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that Michelangelo carried Perugino's specific technique a step further.

Why, because the medallions do not display the same use of gold that Perugino employed, and Michelangelo carried a step further.

It cannot go in the same sentence, because it is making a very basic statement- Perhaps the round medallions innspired Micheangelo to paint round shields."

When a fairly simple statement is tacked onto the end of a much more complex idea, as if it belonged there, then the sense of the original is lost. Or else the addition becomes completely misleading. I have no idea who made the addition, but I do know that the details of the arch of Constantine, and Botticelli's use of it in his painting do not go onto the end of a sentence that says that Michelangelo used flecks of gold in a very complex and highly developed technique.

Michelangelo's roundels are closely based on Renaissance parade shields. A number of them still exist. They are black lacquer,decorated with gold, exactly like those painted on the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel.

It is possible that the roundels carved on the Arch of Constantine also represent parade shields of the Roman period. They do not seem to represent sheilds because they deep moulding around then has nothing to do with what might be found on a shield. However, it is possible that Michelangelo picked up this circular motif and used it entirely to his own device.

The Arch of Constantine represents the glory of the Roman empire, and the Emperor in particular. The motifa on the shield on the ceiling represent exactly the opposite. They are some of the least glorious and most degrade moments in the early Biblical narratives.

There is no reference to the statement.

And also, there is no gold on the roundels of the Arch of Constantine.

Amandajm (talk) 20:28, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

@Amandajm: You have not understood. No-one is saying there is gold on the Arch of Constantine (at least, not anymore). It is more than obvious that there is gold on Botticelli's depiction of it in the Sistine Chapel. Moreover, it is also plain that the roundels of the real Arch, which are marble, are depicted by Botticelli as having little vignettes painted in gold on them, just like the roundels on Michelangelo's ceiling. The tondi on the Arch do not represent shields and no-one is claiming that they do. I will remove the claim that that has been suggested. There is no reference anywhere for the claim that the roundels on Michelangelo's ceiling represent shields at all. In any case they are certainly not black. Your point (if there is one) about "the glory of the Roman empire" and "degrade moments" seems contradicted by the fact that the Arch was chosen by Botticelli for the illustration of a Biblical scene of punishment close to the start of the Pentateuch, and there is in any case no reason to imagine Renaissance artists considered Roman motifs inappropriate for Old Testament scenes as you seem to suggest. I'd like to see a reliable source for the claim Michelangelo's use of gold leaf was influenced by Perugino, or the claim that the roundels on the ceiling represent parade shields, which they do not at all resemble. GPinkerton (talk) 03:29, 18 March 2020 (UTC).

GPinkerton (talk)

I think that you are the person who is not understanding.

You insisted on putting back half a sentence that had nothing whatsoever to do with the statement that it was attached to, or the introductory sentence in that paragraph which made it clear that the whole paragraph related to the use of gold.

1. My comment refering to the gold on the roundels of the Arch of Constantine refers to the arch as painted by Botticelli. In Botticelli's painting, the arch is heavily embellished with gold at verious locations, but not the roundels.

2. Botticelli depicts the roundels as having sculptured figures in fairly high relief, which is the way that they are on the real arch. Thy are not painted similarly to the shields painted by Michelangelo.

3. Michelangelo's round objects are parade shield. You will find a detailed note on them, in the article. Not a great many continue to exist, but there are at least two in the Victoria and Albert Museum. Those in the Victoria and Albert have a reddish ground, with black lacquer and gold ornament.

4. I have nowhere suggested that Renaissance artists considered Roman Motifs to be inappropriate. The arch of Constantine reflects on the Glory of the Emperor who legalised Christianity, and therefore reflects favourably on the Church, as represented in Botticelli's painting by Aaron and Moses. This in turn reflects on the glory of the papacy

5. It is Michelangelo who choses to tell the story of the downfall and disgrace of humanity.

6. Concerning whether Perugino's use of gold influenced Michelangelo... I have no idea what the written source is. However, of all the artists who painted thw walls, Perugino's use of gold is the most complex. (This is not the same as saying that he used it the most.

Here is the passage as you originally wrote it, with all your unsourced claims as you originally composed them back in 2007: This application of gold serves to link the ceiling frescoes to some extent with those around the walls. In the latter, gold leaf has been applied lavishly to many details and in some of the frescoes, notable those by Perugino, has been most expertly used not just to detail the robes but to highlight the folds by subtle graduation in the density of golden flecks. It is this technique that Michelangelo has picked up on and carried a step further, inspired also perhaps by the medalions that appear on a Roman triumphal arch in Botticelli's episode from the Life of Moses, showing the punishment of the "Sons of Corah". If you would like, you can save me the trouble of removing this whole POV section and replacing it with something based on reliable sources, not something you dreamt up in New South Wales. GPinkerton (talk) 22:05, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

@Amandajm: Hi, I have gone ahead and removed the whole business of shields and the Perugino. I'm sorry - it's quite possible you're right about the gold leaf and the fancy shields but it's just not fitting if it's not based on a reliable source. Millions of words have been written about Michelangelo in published, "reliable sources", as defined by Wikipedia, and the WP article should reflect what others have written - a literature review -, not try to add to the sum of all knowledge by adding new research, no matter how apparently uncontentious or self-evident, or by adding yet another descriptive art-historical essay to the multitude there already are. Vast numbers of art critics, historians, and artists have all commented at length on Michelangelo's fresco; the article should present their views and observations, not our own. You have done a lot of work on Wikipedia and I'm sure you can appreciate that this article especially is one consulted by huge numbers of people who will never read the reliable sources themselves, so the information they read desperately needs to be thoroughly and rigorously backed by published evidence, of which there is masses. GPinkerton (talk) 00:06, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Re the anatomical stuff: As an artist and art historian, my thoughts are that the likeness to the shape of a brain is pure co-incidence.

It is no more intentional than a burning candle that resolves itself into an image of the Blessed virgin, or the face of a horrible demon that appeared to a child that I know, glaring fom the mottled tiles in the shower alcove so that he absiolutely refused to take a shower.

But a brain in the robe of God, and the Letters in the eye of the Mona Lisa can both be found online.

Michelangelo.....well, my research has remained unpublished, and has simply been used without acknowledgement by others.

I have to laugh sometimes when people to whom I have sent material have come back at me with direct quotations from some Wkipedia article that I have written, in order to argue their case.

This bloody virus thing is going to keep me inside, possibly for months, so I might try to get some of my Sistine Chapel stuff published. There is a lot more stuff whre that came from.

Don't make any mistake about this- I an very well aware of the importance of the articles to which i contribute.

The fact of the matter is simply this - I am not a "published author" on this subject, but I am also not exactly an amateur. My opinion on Michelangelo is as valid as that of anyone else out there who has written, or lectured about his works. This may not be readily apparent, given that I am a little old lady who makes frequent typos and has difficulty remembering the formatting, but if you knew me, it would be.

Amandajm (talk) 00:37, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

That's as may be, but on a subject so famous and subjective as Michelangelo's aesthetics we really need established facts, cited less vaguely than entire books for whole series of paragraphs, and a neutral point of view, valuable as your observations might be. As far as the anatomy ideas go, I don't think the brain in the Creation of Adam is at all implausible, given the primacy given to Intelligence or Reason in classical and mediaeval thought and dissection in Florentine artistic education. The dissected penis in Job's drapery, the surgically opened cranium of one of the sibyls, the enlarged thyroid and supposed self-portrait (or the rival theory of the diagram of the brain-stem) in the Separation of Dark and Light are clearly absurd. I don't know what I think about the diagram of the chambered heart in Botticelli's Madonna of the Pomegranate or the lungs in his Primavera. Looking at da Vinci's drawings, it's not unthinkable, and very little of Michelangelo's work was co-incidence, but the arbiter of whether it's worthy to appear is whether it appears in "reliable sources", which on this topic (Michelangelo's ceiling) as we both know, are legion. That includes significant minority points of view as well as the major opinions but should weed out the pareidolia and definitely excludes "original research" and subjective statements like "most gruesome in the OT" (how is gruesomeness measured?, which notable figure is quoted as saying so?, aren't there whole genocides in the OT that would have been more gruesome if Michelangelo chose to paint them?, &c., &c.) All Wikipedia editors are amateurs! GPinkerton (talk) 04:22, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

GPinkerton (talk)

Just to nit-pick here, I think you'll find the wording was "some of the most gruesome" rather than "most gruesome". I can't be sure without checking. These events were not necssarily those that involved the most bloodshed. They were those that involved considerable shame. They were wrong-doings rather than battles.

Now, would you mind ceasing lecturing someone who has lectured on this subject about the number of authors who have written, both reliably and not so reliably about Michelangelo.

Have you some idea that I don't know this?

Very few writers have dealt meaningfully with what the scheme on the ceiling is really about.

I want to point out to you that Michelangelo's biographer stated that he frequently read from the Bible in the course of what he was doing. This was highly unusual. But having a Humanist background, he was turning to the original text as his source.

He may have been influenced in the scheme by theological discourse. But then he may not have been.

It seems that Julius had little to do with it. His proposal of twelve apostles on the twelve spandrels was a very simplistic solution. It didn't take the mind of a theologian to poduce that idea.

Most writers on the subject just described it as filling in the Pre-Moses part of the Holy Scriptures.

It is much more complx than that.

Also the idea that it represents some "conflict" in the mind of Michelangelo about his own sexual/sinful nature is Freudian and no doubt popular because it looks at his homosexuality.

But, No, to see this as "personal angst" on a supreme scale, is short sighted.

Michelangelo's message to humanity was much more significant than that.

Amandajm (talk) 17:47, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

@Amandajm: I checked and the wording was "The subjects are the more gruesome or shameful of Biblical episodes". This is unencyclopaedic assertion. Again, statements about the significance of Michelangelo's "message to humanity" [or more precisely to the select individuals that gained access to private papal masses], the short-sightedness or otherwise of evaluations of his angst or internal conflict, the complexity of the subject beyond a sacred history of creation to salvation, your own judgement of the imagination and theological competence of Julius II, and the textual (and artistic) influences on the ceiling's design are all things that Wikipedia users need reliable sources for. My idea is to use published reliable sources rather than anonymous hearsay. GPinkerton (talk) 16:34, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Oh and many were not at all battles, but outright massacres, e.g. And it came to pass, when he began to reign, as soon as he sat on his throne, that he slew all the house of Baasha: he left him not one that pisseth against a wall, neither of his kinsfolks, nor of his friends. (1 Kings, 16:11), or else Now go and smite Amalek, [God said] and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass (1 Samuel, 15:3). GPinkerton (talk) 16:44, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Why are you now carrying on about what I have written on a talk page?

Go and tidy up the mess you have made. Amandajm (talk) 17:12, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

I have not made any mess, only pointed out the mess that already existed. Thanks. GPinkerton (talk) 00:22, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Wells Cathedral

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C6snzF-i5Sw

Return of the Ring

Welcome back. You may be interested in some fresh activity at Talk:Ring of Silvianus which we first discussed exactly 7 years ago. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:56, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Thank you! Amandajm (talk) 16:06, 3 April 2020 (UTC)