Michelangelo's final chapel is a revelation

[emad]

The Times
From Richard Owen in Rome



MICHELANGELO’S last architectural masterpiece is to be unveiled in Rome next week after two years of restoration which reveal it to have been a visionary work which prefigured the Baroque era.

Biographies of Michelangelo suggest that he entrusted his final architectural commission, the Sforza Chapel in the Basilica of Santa Maria Maggiore, to an assistant and pupil, Tiberio Calcagni, who constructed it after Michelangelo’s death. In fact the chapel, named after Cardinal Guido Ascanio Sforza, took shape in the two years before Michelangelo’s death in 1564, according to documents recently recovered.

Georg Satzinger, Professor of Art History at the University of Bonn, who is an expert on Michelangelo, said that documents found in the archives — including the contract for the chapel, dated August 1562 — proved not only that the design of was Michelangelo’s own but the great artist had personally supervised “every detail, day by day” until his death. The documents also refer to a scale model of the Sforza chapel made by Michelangelo himself.

Professor Satzinger said the chapel, which is in the left-hand nave of the Basilica and is dedicated to the Virgin Mary of the Assumption, was begun in 1562. After Michelangelo’s death Calcagni and Giacomo Della Porta, another of his pupils, had put the finishing touches to it. But by then Michelangelo had already put the imprint of his genius on it.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-1376207,00.html

[mbperrin]

1. Always funny when the visual is the focus of the story, and not

a single picture of any kind! Like listening to the radio on TV!

[emad]

2. Times online never has any pics alas...

[ananda]

3. Pic?

Great article and good news for a change.

Can you provide a picture of the Sforza chapel showing Michelangelo's design? Pleeezze. (I didn't see one with the article.)

Sue

[UpInArms]

4. found a pic of the tomb

Chapel, tomb

Attributed to Buonarroti, Michelangelo

http://www.artandarchitecture.org.uk/images/conway/ee136161.html

and here are some of Michelangelo's writings:

The following are poems written by Michelangelo,
taken from the book: The Agony and the Ecstasy

The Lover and the Sculptor
The best of artists hath no thought to show
which the rough stone in its superfluous shell
doth not include; to break the marble spell
is all the hand that serves the brain can do.

The Artist and his Work
How can that be, lady, which all men learn
by long experience? Shapes that seem alive,
wrought in hard mountain marble, will survive
their maker, whom the years to dust return!

Beauty and the Artist
Beauteous art, brought with us from heaven,
will conquer nature; so divine a power
belongs to him who strives with every nerve.

If I was made for art, from childhood given
a prey for burning beauty to devour,
I blame the mistress I was born to serve.

----- Michelangelo Buonarroti

(edited to add pic)

[aquart]

5. Anybody else find the picture jarring?

Those two casually-posed angels up top with the dangling legs just above those rigid whatever-the-hell-they-are figures flanking the columns?

[420inTN]

6. nope. n/t

[Whoa_Nelly]

18. Those rigid whatever-the-hell-they-are figures flanking the columns?

are called caryatids...columuns carved in the shape of a person.
Something I learned within the last year...geez...once again, college pays off :crazy:

[barb162]

33. not typical of him IMO: "those rigid whatever-the-hell-

they-are figures"

I can't think of anything else in his artwork I have seen that style; his work usually has a sense of a lot of "energy" and "movement" versus stationary, standing figures

[sakabatou]

19. Beautiful (n/t)

[leftchick]

7. Wasn't Mike Homosexual?

Apparently that wasn't an issue with Catholics in the 1500s?
:shrug:

[UpInArms]

8. no, he was just unmarried

and as such, all his wages were paid to his family. He had a womanfriend for many of those years, but never married her.

The Agony and The Ecstasy was a great read :)

[leftchick]

9. I never knew that! Thanks...

I wonder where I got the idea he was gay? I have thought that for years. Perhaps I am confusing him with Leonardo?

[UpInArms]

10. I don't know about Leonardo -

I really enjoy studying his drawings and plans - he made the first draft for what is now the helicopter -

He and Michelangelo studied human anatomy together - they used corpses in secret as it was frowned upon -

the resulting artworks were astounding - especially the marble sculptures (how in the world did they do those :awedbythebeauty:

The Pieta





Michelangelo's 465 year old (in 1964) masterpiece in carved Carrara marble, the Pieta. The Pieta represents the body of Christ in the arms of His mother just after he was taken down from the cross. The work, six feet long by five feet nine inches high,

[thecrow]

20. ... and Michelangelo did it when he was only EIGHTEEN!!!!

It's my favorite sculpture.
I saw it in NYC up close when I was a young teen and again last year in Rome(alas! after a vandal's hammer attacked it... now it is repaired but behind bulletproof glass and quite far from the public)

If you read Michelangelo's diary you will also find out that he was somewhat of a curmudgeon pinchpenny.... always suspicious that his apprentices were stealing brushes and things from him. He wrote to his father a lot and that is what the "diaries" consist of.
His lover was an older, married woman.
Mainly his love was for the arts. He was not just a sculptor and painter, but an architect as well. He designed St. Peter's Basilica in Rome, the heart of the Vatican.

[happyslug]

11. One Statement by an Enemy of Michelangelo

The only record of homosexuality of Michelangelo is a report by someone who was trying to defame Michelangelo. Most historians dismiss this accusation do to the known hatred of the reporter to Michelangelo. In many ways Michelangelo was to anti-social to be a Homosexuals (The Homosexuals I have known tend to be much more outgoing than me, thus the mere fact someone is single does not make him homosexual, people with social phobias also tend to be single). Michelangelo was to much into his art to develop his Human interactions, thus the reason he was single (Confirmed by his long term relationship with his noble girlfriend who kept him in the last years of his life).

As to De Vinci, we have more evidence of his Homosexuality and it was clear he was Homosexual, but the connection between De Vinci And Michelangelo was weak, De Vinci was a generation before Michelangelo, and died 44 years before Michaelangelo. Some Overlap but probably less than 20 years in actual competition.

For more on Michelangelo(1475-1564) see:
http://www.michelangelo.com/buonarroti.html

For more on De Vinci (1452-1519) see:
http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Mathematicians/Leonardo.html

[leftchick]

12. Thank You!

Excellent links! :)

[leftchick]

13. Just this afternoon on Discovery Channel... ( for UIA) !

There was a British team examining Leonardo's underwater apparatus drawings to find if they would actually work. Brilliant mind!

edit:... woopsies.. this was meant for UIAs...

[UpInArms]

14. it is at moments like this that I wish I had cable

but alas and alack, my television receives only one channel here in the middle of nowhere - and it is local and fuzzy - it is also, unfortunately A(lways)B(roadcasting)C(rap) and the snews is with Peter Spinnings. :eyes:

Oh well, enjoy such a great show and think of me :D

:hi:

[regnaD kciN]

34. Have you considered the Dish Network?

You can supposedly pick it up from just about anywhere...plus, if you live as far away as you claim, you can probably get your nearest "local" channels sent to you that way.

(Just make sure you get Dish Network. Its rival, DirecTV, is owned by Rupert Murdoch.)

[DemBones DemBones]

24. Please, it's Leonardo DA Vinci, not "De" Vinci. Da is Italian, de is

French, or Spanish.

[theHandpuppet]

16. Um... no, you're not confused.

Here are a few llinks for you:

http://www.infopt.demon.co.uk/michela.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michaelangelo
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/pwh/index.html
http://www.glbtq.com/arts/michelangelo_art,4.html
http://www.artpromote.com/buonarroti_michelangelobio.shtml
http://www.suphawut.com/gvb/gayly/gay_history4.htm

[theHandpuppet]

15. If I may ask...

On what scholarly reference do you base your assertion that Michelangelo was not gay, other than a recommendation for "the Agony and the Ecstasy"?

[UpInArms]

17. no scholarly reference at all theHandpuppet

just years of being raised by an artist, being married to an artist, being an artist and reading so many books that I have forgotten their titles, looking at every piece that I can find (either through museums or pictures).

JMHO I guess - but since you are the expert, I defer to you much broader and more learned opinion.

[JitterbugPerfume]

21. The Agony and The Ecstacy

is a wonderful book It is one of my favorites
I have a whole shelf of art and art related books and they all say pretty much the same thing concerning Michaelangelo

not that it matters about him or Leonardo

what matters is the beauty that was born of their indescribable talent(s)

[UpInArms]

22. somehow when reading or studying Michelango's work

I never questioned anything but the work and the way in which it was made - always awed and astounded at the beauty that this person wrought from his heart and hands and left for us to aspire to.

:hi:

[theHandpuppet]

23. Just what I thought

And you're not the only artist here, nor the only one raised by an artist, nor the only one with an MFA (if you have one), or one who has read so many scholarly books that their titles are long forgotten. I'm not questioning your taste in art, but your expertise in matters regarding the sexuality of historical figures such as Michelangelo. The fact that his sexuality was, for hundreds of years, whitewashed by the Church and art history texts should come as no surprise to anyone -- gay historical figures have long been "hererosexualized" as to erase our contributions to society.

Rather than get your back hairs up, why not see this as an opportunity to open your eyes and see the man behind the fictionalized portraits. It was YOU who jumped in and presented yourself as an expert on Michelangelo's sexuality, so quick to denounce anything that might hint that he was gay -- I must wonder why that is.

[DemBones DemBones]

25. Maybe it's a reaction to the "All great men were gay" argument

I've heard touted since college in the sixties, always by gay men. I know I've gotten tired of hearing those assertions. ALL great men? And any evidence of heterosexuality should be written off as a cover-up?

Maybe Leonardo and Michelangelo were gay, maybe they weren't. Who cares? Their art is what is important, not their sex lives.

[QC]

27. No worse than the "all great men were straight" argument

that has been going on for centuries now. Some of us find that very tiresome.

And sexuality is a lot more than one's "sex life."

[DemBones DemBones]

30. I've never heard anyone say "All great men were straight,"

though, and that's the difference. And I found the constant theme of "All great men are gay" very tiresome." As a woman, I suggest that all the talk of great men is tiresome in itself. "Some great men were women, or stole women's ideas," is a fact rarely mentioned, unless a woman brings it up. Yet, I am to understand that "mankind" includes me.

I also contend that "Some great men were gay, some great men were straight, and some great men were women, or got their ideas from women" is a true statement while "All great men were gay" is a silly exaggeration, as silly as if I were to say "All great men were women."

OK, their *sexuality* is not as important as their art, from an art historical viewpoint. Neither is their *sex life*, though it was obviously important to them, personally.

So much crap is talked about artists and other historical persons; Michelangelo and Leonardo are two who are heavily mythologized. Everyone "knows" Michelangelo lay on his back on high scaffolding to paint the Sistine Chapel ceiling. Except that he didn't. I've seen the actual letter he wrote which includes a sketch he made, showing himself standing on a scaffold, head bent back, painting on the ceiling.

Similarly, I've read a lot of arguments and "proofs" re: sexual orientation of those two geniuses in particular. Perhaps the truth is that their sexuality wasn't set in stone, that they had sex with men and women. Did people then even conceive of such a thing as the concept of sexual orientation, of being exlusively homo- or hetero- sexual?

[QC]

32. There has been a long tradition of "inning" gay and lesbian historical

figures. I wrote a seminar paper in grad school on how Whitman's admirers have created a whole series of sometimes-preposterous heterosexual Whitmans in order to avoid confronting the possibility that their idol was an "invert." The degree of wishful thinking involved is not to be believed and demonstrates that sometimes artists who are clearly not heterosexual are mythologized into it.

You raise a good point about sexual orientation--as a concept it's pretty new. The idea that there are two teams and everyone has to pick one or the other is just over 100 years old. Still, though, it's easy to point to figures from the distant past who were primarily drawn to members of their own sex, and while it might be a bit ahistorical to call them gay or straight, that's nowhere near as ridiculous as arguing that something doesn't exist until a person comes along and names it.

OK, their *sexuality* is not as important as their art, from an art historical viewpoint.

But an artist's sexuality, along with many other factors, shapes his or her art. That's never a controversial point--people have been discussing, say, T.S. Eliot's marriages for years--unless the artist in question happens to be gay or lesbian, in which case we politely draw the curtain and proclaim that sexuality is irrelevant.

[theHandpuppet]

35. Sure you have...

... heard "all great men are straight", that is -- you just never heard it out loud.

You heard it every time a film about a gay historical figure portrayed him as a lusty heterosexual.

You heard it in every history book and biography that could publish scholarly texts detailing every facet of a great man's life -- unless he was gay.

You heard it when the church banned, rewrote or burned the works of homosexual artists.

You heard it when centuries of artists, even to this day, locked themselves in closets so deep and dark from the sheer fear of losing a career should their sexuality be discovered.

You hear it every time threads such as this one pop up and folks are practically eager to either deny he was gay/bi or, when it cannot be denied, hear indignant defenses that one's sexuality isn't important anyway so why bring it up.

Yes, we hear it, we've BEEN hearing it, every minute of every day of our lives, centuries of lives. We hear the footsteps of its presence in books, on billboards, in the history texts, in art itself, in societies saturated with the selling of heterosexuality and the demonization of being gay. We hear it and we see it.

As a gay woman, I have to admit I have NEVER heard anyone say, "all great men are gay" but if I were to take even a passing glance about me I would certainly conclude that all great men are/were indeed straight.

Is a discussion of any artist's sexuality pertinent to a discussion of their art? It depends on what fuels their passion and the images they choose or chose to create. How could one discuss Picasso, for instance, without some acknowledgment of his legendary and lusty (if misogynic) heterosexuality? How about Gauguin? Renoir? Degas? I doubt that a similar conversation would ensue were we to discuss Mondrian, for instance. Be that as it may, if their sexuality isn't important, why the eagerness to portray such historical figures as Michelangelo as straight? It must matter to someone, mustn't it.

I do wonder what the world would be like if all the great heterosexual artists had similarly been portrayed as gay in books and film. If any references to their hetrosexuality had been neatly excised from the histories?

Only now is the truth beginning to be told (or retold) about many historical figures who happened to be GLBT. After centuries of invisibility and denial I find it refreshing and long overdue. I welcome it! The truth has just begun to peek out from centuries of existing only in dark places, and already you're tired of it? Will you say as much when the story of great women, likewise ignored by history and a masculine-worshipping society, finally takes a rightful place in our herstory?

Yes, it IS important to hear that some great men (and women) were gay or bi. Not only for those young GLBT persons who feel isolated from friends, family, their churches and their society as whole, but for those straights who have so bought into a portrait of their "civilized" society as unerringly heterosexual that they will go to any lengths to excise us from history and discredit our contributions at every turn. It is important when that same church which condemns us and would deny us communion counts among its most shining examples of God's hand in artistic genius the works of Michelangelo, Raphael, DaVinci (among so many others) that grace their most sacred places.

For some artists such as Micelangelo a discussion of his sexuality is pertinent to a discussion of his life and work, for the man was tortured by the internal war he waged between his love for the church, for God, and his "earthly" passions for men, a battle evident not only in his visual art but in his writings as well.

If only folks were as eager to hear the truth as they are to deny it then discussions of anyone's sexuality might be little more than a side note of passing. Until that day comes, however, when the denials start shoving GLBT persons back in the closet, I will continue to jam my foot in the door and wrest away the key to that lock.

[UpInArms]

28. you're the one making an issue

of something that is a non-issue.

I presented an opinion. Yours may differ from mine. You may have different references.

I studied his art, not his sexuality.

I do not diminish the work that he did regardless of sexuality nor does it raise its estimation in my opinion because of your perceived view.

(edited for grammar)

[theHandpuppet]

36. On the contrary...

If you studied his art and not his sexuality -- and if is indeed a non-issue for you -- why bother with such a quick denial that he might be gay? Why not just a response of "Oh, I didn't know that" or "I really couldn't say, I haven't studied any references to his sexuality"? If your references differ from mine, then please present them, which you have not.

I realize that my posts may seem harsh to you (for which I apologize), but I do hope you realize that gay folks get a bit tired of such quick denials from people who later acknowledge they either a) really weren't aware of the facts pertaining to the person's sexuality or b) declare it, after-the-fact, a non-issue. If my tone seems defensive that's because -- well, it is... and for a good reason.

At a time when the Church is once again making a public crusade against gays I find it wholly ironic that some of their most prized and sacred treasures were created by gay/bi artists. This same church which sought to rewrite Michelangelo's love sonnets to men, the same one that burned almost the entire works of Sappho, the same one which supported laws and edicts which led to centuries of persecution and execution of homosexuals would like us to celebrate their artistic genius whilst "nicely" -- and sometimes not so nicely -- avoiding any mention that many of the most sacred works adorning their chapels were created at the hand of people who were themselves -- horrors! -- gay or bi. That truth can no longer simply be ignored, nor the hypocrisy of the church excused.

If you want to get an overview of gay history and histories -- with a particular emphasis on GLBT persons in the arts -- a good place to start would be in the many books of Dr Rictor Norton. Many of his essays are also available on the web. I just recently read another interesting one, on lesbian history, at http://www.infopt.demon.co.uk/lesbians.htm

The truth is out there, and it truly is a fascinating tale.

[happyslug]

29. When it comes to Homosexuality I quote J Edgar Hoover.

Homosexuality is the hardest thing to prove to disprove. (A paraphrase not exact quote).

Personally I do not care if someone was a Homosexual or not, the real issue should be what that person did in his or her life. As to "Proving" someone's Homosexuality you can see people will examine someone's life and come to their our conclusion. It is rare to be able to show if a historical someone was a Homosexual or not. Walt Whitman is one of the few Historical Characters that almost all historians will consider "Gay" (He lived with another known Homosexual for decades). Language, poems, writing are often used to show the sexual orientation of someone, but most of these were written for some reason OTHER than love poems to a person.

The reason most such writings survive is that there were written for POPULAR consumption, which means such writing were for the masses, not for one person. Most true "love letters" were often destroyed. For example just before Harry's Truman's widow died, her daughter caught her re-reading her husband's love letters to her. Truman's widow was reading them, and than burning them. When her daughter told her those letters were historically important her mother said "I know" and kept on burning them. Basically Truman's Widow burned those letter for the letters for written for her to read not us.

The same with most other personal correspondence, most disappears. What survives affects out view. Most of what survives were NOT personal correspondence but public Correspondence. As Public Correspondence the writings were intended to be read by EVERYONE, thus not as open as private correspondence.

My point here is the record can be "clear" either way when it comes to Michelangelo. Often people will "find" what they want to find, when it comes to Michelangelo you see this both ways. I lean to him NOT be a homosexual do to lack of direct evidence. Others go by his sonnets etc as evidence of his Homosexuality. I dismiss them as public writings for Public Consumption and as such do not read into them as much as others do, but I have to admit this is one of those "facts" that can really not be proved one way to another given the nature of Historical Records.

[theHandpuppet]

37. Presumed straight until proven gay?

Is that akin to being presumed innocent until proven guilty? Interesting... I wonder how that shoe would fit the other foot.

Nonetheless, I thought you might be interested in some writings pertaining to Michelangelo's sonnets and otherwise dismissed evidence. Makes for an interesting read.

http://homepages.primex.co.uk/~lesleyah/hsxarch4.htm
http://www.infopt.demon.co.uk/michelan.htm
http://www.infopt.demon.co.uk/
http://www.wsu.edu:8080/~dee/REN/MICHEL1.HTM
http://www.infopt.demon.co.uk/gayhist.htm

[QC]

26. Read his sonnets and you will find the answer to this question.

And they are primary sources, not a pop bio made into a Hollywood blockbuster. (After Michelangelo's death, his grand nephew bowdlerized the sonnets by placing more "appropriate" pronouns in them, for the originals were love poems written to a young man. John Addington Symonds restored them to their original form in the late 19th century.)

As someone else has pointed out here, there is a longstanding practice of "inning" homosexual historical figures. Walt Whitman is an interesting case in point--for decades after his death, his admirers made up no end of inventive stories dealing with a "womanfriend" whom he could not marry for family reasons, and even suggesting that he had had a number of children by her. Anything to try to obscure a truth about painfully obvious to anyone who has read one or two of his poems.

[DemBones DemBones]

31. But the sonnets are primary sources written for an audience.

Homosexuality was trendy in Renaissance Italy, particularly in Florence, perhaps partly because they admired the Greeks and Romans, societies in which men had sex with young boys. If Michelangelo wrote his sonnets to appeal to that audience, he might have written them in a "gay" voice.

Five years ago, in Florence, I saw a special exhibit of original manuscripts of Michelangelo's letters and sonnets. It went into some of this; wish I remembered it better.

As far as I know, there are questions about the sexuality of Michelangelo, and that of Leonardo, still unanswered.