The Meaning of Michelangelo's "David"

Capitalism Magazine ^ | September 5, 2004 | Lee Sanstead

[dangus]

I wouldn't read into it too deeply. Michelangelo may simply have not known what circumcision looked like. Even if he did, he may not have wanted his audience wondering, "what the hell is that?"

[prion]

And what, exactly, is the point of your pointing out that you believe Michelangelo to be gay?

Errr...that his talent and his orientation are, together, enough to explain the fantastic quality of his nudes, without recourse to a sociopoliticobiblical pile of blather. Ever seen his female nudes? They're guys with oranges stuck on their chests.

[SoCal Pubbie]

Who's saying he could not have been? I'm simply saying he may not have been. Other than the fact that he never married, that a rival contemporary accused him of it, and the letters to other men, none of which actually states specific sexual desire, what other evidence was there?

[presidio9]

This, you cannot possibly claim to know.

Of course I can. I "know" Michelangelo was celibate because he said he was. You are prepared to go along with the buttsex crowd because his enemies dropped veiled hints. There is no concrete evidence that Michelangelo was gay. Produce some, or leave the man alone.

[SoCal Pubbie]

And you cannot possibly know that he ever had sex with anyone.

[presidio9]

Ever seen his female nudes? They're guys with oranges stuck on their chests.

Because he never had the opportunity to dissect a female cadaver. I will not bother claiming that he actually DID dissect a male cadaver, but he certainly had the opportunity to do so, and evidence points to the fact that he did. We know that several of his contempotaries did.

[prion]

Who's saying he could not have been?

Well, I think that's what presidio9 meant by "Homosexuals define themselves by their perversion and can not relate to people who have more normal interests." He seems to be of the opinion that Michelangelo couldn't have been gay because he was really very good. Apologies if that isn't your opinion or if I'm misreading what presidio9 meant.

Frankly, I'm surprised at how unstrung people are coming by this very old bit of art scholarship.

[prion]

Because he never had the opportunity to dissect a female cadaver.

Now, that's just bizarre. The greatest draughtsman who ever lived couldn't draw girls because he'd never flayed one?

[SoCal Pubbie]

Here's a thought. Can you concede that hundreds of years from now someone might write "It has long been held that President George W. Bush once used cocaine. At least one person stated that they had seen him use the drug, and rumors spread of the existence of a video tape showing him dancing on a bar top in a drug crazed stupor. Certainly this is possible given his self admitted problems with alcohol, and it is a fact that many substance abusers partake in both liquor and hard drugs"

[presidio9]

Apologies if that isn't your opinion or if I'm misreading what presidio9 meant.

Frankly, I'm surprised at how unstrung people are coming by this very old bit of art scholarship.

Nope. I'm saying that Michelangelo never made an issue of his sexuality, and you certainly have no way of knowing who he was or was not sleeping with. So, in fairness to a man who can not defend himself, we have to take what he told us at face value. The slander that he was gay was originated by jealous cometitors with less talent. It has been perpetuated by homosexuals and those sympathetic to their cause ever since. This does not make it true, and you are doing their work by repeating it.

[prion]

Of course I concede the point! In fact, I'm not sure it isn't true. Are you?

He admits a wild youth, he got over it, and I'm not the least bothered by it.

[presidio9]

Now, that's just bizarre. The greatest draughtsman who ever lived couldn't draw girls because he'd never flayed one?

No, because he never had the opportunity to study one disrobed. The man was celibate, get it? Mary in the Pieta has possibly the most beautiful feminine face in art history.

[Oberon]

It seems that everyone thru the 500 years since has beleived that this David is THE David of Biblical history.

Michelangelo knew his Jewish history as well as anyone at the time. It's a telling point that his "David" is uncircumcised. Had it been a representation of David ben Jesse, he would have been otherwise...unless the artist was trying to make a point...

...Uh...to coin a phrase...

[joesnuffy]

And that apart from the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob...

he was just another shepherd boy......

[zeugma]

Photographs of David simply don't do it justice. The incredible detail of this sculpture is breathtaking.

[SoCal Pubbie]

I'm not unstrung. I was an art major. I work in design. Many artists are gay. Not all of them are, though. And it is a fact that today, any evidence that a famous person was gay is accepted to the exclusion of all else.

The climate of art patronage in Renaissance Italy was very competitive. I'm sure there was much rumor mongering and backstabbing to gain advantage, and it would be no surprise that some lesser talents tried to bring down one on the two or three top artists of the time (he was given the Sistine Chapel commission with the idea that he would fail, and then Raphael would be given the job). I will go so far as to say it is LIKELY he was gay. We cannot be certain unless more compelling evidence is brought forth, IMHO

[prion]

Nope. I'm saying that Michelangelo never made an issue of his sexuality, and you certainly have no way of knowing who he was or was not sleeping with.

Actually, I remember some of his poetry as pretty erotic, though it's been some time since I read it. Though I'm sure he was celibate throughout much of his life, because he was so insanely work-obsessed, it's worth pointing out that "celibate" does not equal "virgin."

I don't know who he was sleeping with but, then, I don't know who anyone has ever slept with, other than me.

[aruanan]

The Renaissance was the rebirth of man’s life on earth. Freed from the shackles of authority, man’s mind was viewed as able to understand the universe. Far from being a tortured soul trapped in a deformed bodily prison, man was regarded as rational, beautiful and heroic--worthy of happiness and capable of great achievement. Man, in the Renaissance view, need not bow down in passive resignation, praying for salvation. He can choose to undertake great challenges in the face of seemingly impossible odds; he can actively pursue success, fight for victory--even slay a giant.

Well, this is a good summation of the myth, though it's poor history.

[SoCal Pubbie]

I personally wouldn't read to much into the fact that the statue of David was uncircumcised. Most Renaissance art shows Roman soldiers wearing 1400- 1500 era armor, and likewise he simply portrayed the young shepherd as a contemporary Italian. It was bad enough with all the nudity but why poke a stick in the Pope's eye by saying we should all be circumcised like the Jews are?

[TopQuark]

For great many centuries it was forgotten that even Jesus was Jewish...

Actually, this reminds me of a Texas school principal. A few years ago, frustrated with a Mexican pupil speaking Spanish to another, he exclaimed: "You are in America now, speak English! If English was good enough for our Lord and Savior, it should be good enough for you!"