Skip to comments.The Michelangelo code: The genius of the Sistine Chapel was rude, puerile and a tad pornographic
Posted on 03/18/2006 4:40:46 AM PST by billorites
You know that famous Adam on the Sistine Chapel ceiling whose fingers are nearly touching Gods but not quite? Well, Ive stroked him. Ive run my hand along his naked body, and Ive slapped that big, muscled thigh of his. Not a hard slap, mind you. Just a soft slap of affection that ended on a rub. Ive even stroked his sweet little willy. I know I shouldnt have done. But I couldnt stop myself. And it was probably the single most exciting moment I have had in art.
How did I come to touch the naked Adam high up on the Sistine ceiling? Well, a couple of decades ago the ceiling was being cleaned in a huge restoration campaign that lasted many years and cost many zillions of yen. Why yen? Because the cleaning was being paid for by a Japanese television station. How did a Japanese television station get involved? Thats a long story. Basically, the Japanese were charmed out of their money by the last pope, the one before Uncle Fester. While planting kisses on the airport tarmacs of the world, the Polish pope fetched up in Japan, where he met the wife of the owner of a local cable-television station who happened to be a Catholic. Japan has a tiny but fierce Catholic population left over from the days of St Francis Xavier, the apostle of the Indies. The owners wife was one of those. She pestered her husband, a Buddhist, until finally, in the name of eternal peace, he agreed to fund the entire Sistine restoration.
As it happens, I had some projects on the go at the time with the same television station, and with a bit of ruthless wheedling of my own was able to persuade the man at the Vatican who was in charge of Japanese TV access to let me climb the scaffold while the cleaning was in progress.
I sneaked up there a few times. And under the bright, unforgiving lights of television, I was able to encounter the real Michelangelo. I was so close to him I could see the bristles from his brushes caught in the paint; and the mucky thumbprints hed left along his margins.
The first thing that impressed me was his speed. Michelangelo worked at Schumacher pace. Adams famous little penis was captured with a single brushstroke: a flick of the wrist, and the first man had his manhood. I also enjoyed his sense of humour, which, from close up, turned out to be refreshingly puerile. If you look closely at the angels who attend the scary prophetess on the Sistine ceiling known as the Cumaean Sibyl, you will see that one of them has stuck his thumb between his fingers in that mysteriously obscene gesture that visiting fans are still treated to today at Italian football matches. It means something along the lines of: how would you like this inserted into your rectum, ragazzo?
Another figure I touched while the restorers backs were turned was a biblical character called Booz, who appears in the Old Testament as a kindly Jew who marries a much younger woman, Ruth, from a different tribe.
Michelangelo didnt see Booz as kindly. Michelangelo saw him as stupid and senile. His Booz has escaped from an episode of Steptoe and Son where he played the dad. With his Jimmy Hill chin and a nose like a bottle opener, this orrible little man gibbers away at a miniature version of himself stuck onto the end of a stick. Its a seriously rude piece of characterisation.
I remember all this now because a chance to know the real Michelangelo better is also heading your way. Opening soon at the British Museum is the largest Michelangelo exhibition of recent years: an extravagant selection of his drawings. Getting close to Michelangelo is tricky because so little of what he did is portable. You obviously cannot move the Sistine ceiling, or the giant David, or that thunderous Moses embedded in the tomb of Julius II in Rome. The extra-large scale of a typical Michelangelo commission makes it terribly difficult to put him into exhibitions. Unless you feature his drawings. Britain is lucky to possess lots of them. The Queen owns some choice ones. The Ashmolean Museum in Oxford has a funny little sketchbook for the Sistine Chapel. But the biggest depository of all is the British Museum, which is sitting on a basement full of Michelangelo sketches. Something like 600 pages of his drawings have survived, and about 100 of these are going on show in London. These drawings wont only emphasise his thrilling skill as a draughtsman although God knows theyll do that; they will also reveal how his mind works. Which isnt necessarily a good thing. Because as his letters home to his family make hilariously clear, the divine Michelangelo could be devilishly mean, grumpy, possessive, sneaky, suspicious and paranoid.
The creator of this show is a jolly British Museum scholar called Hugo Chapman, who used to work at Christies, and who has about him that pleasingly crumpled air that you get with English eccentrics who are too busy thinking great things to worry about the stains on their tie.
I met with Hugo in the bowels of Hogwarts sorry, I meant in the staff corridors of the British Museum and he led me down into the cellars, where theres a vault in which the Michelangelo drawings are stashed. Hugo pulled out one after another and we examined them at our leisure. It was just the two of us in there.
When you go to see this show, one of the first things youll notice is that it is not packed with obvious masterpieces. Rather, its full of scraps, fragments, quick ideas. Most of the sheets came directly from Michelangelos studio. The Buonarotti family kept them together after his death for 300 years, and only began dispersing them in the 19th century, when the art market soared to the first of its crazy peaks. Michelangelo used these drawings to work out his ideas for bigger works theres a stupendous sequence of studies for the figures on the Sistine ceiling or sometimes as teaching aids for his students.
Hugo Chapman, who giggles a lot, likes particularly to giggle at the notion that Michelangelo was a very bad teacher. Some of the most fascinating pages in the exhibition show Michelangelo correcting the work of his pupils, and its immediately clear that his main teaching technique was to outshine them at every stage in order to make them feel feeble and inadequate. To prove this, Hugo picks out a sheet with lots of staring eyes on it, in which the various weak hands having a go at drawing an eye are shown up by the two eyes Michelangelo adds. Why were all of Michelangelos pupils mediocrities? Because thats how he preferred it. Read his letters, and youll see this same thunderous insecurity and meanness of spirit being directed at his family.
The puerile streak that I had noticed on the Sistine ceiling is also in evidence in the drawings. Peep into the corner of a sheet covered with heroic warriors heads and youll find a cheerful little chappie, as Hugo puts it, having a dump. Michelangelo hasnt only captured perfectly the contentment on his happy little face, but also the fresh curl of his excretions, brought to a point like ice cream in a cone.
Because he was so parsimonious, the great man would invariably draw on both sides of the paper, or in the margins, or over the top of other things. Some of the drawings have poems worked out on them, or drafts of his notoriously grumpy letters, or even his expenses. They convey a fantastic sense of a real and busy life, and have none of that unshakable sense of purpose to them that distinguishes the drawings of Leonardo da Vinci. One sheet from Oxford has a song on it, a skull, a horse, a rider, a vase, a ladder, a pyramid, and finally another little chap in the corner with his legs around his neck, showing you his tackle. What are those phallic-shaped knobs and balls further up the page? Why, theyre knobs and balls.
Among the most striking of the drawings is the famous portrait of Andrea Quaratesi, with whom the ageing Michelangelo is said to have fallen in love. Its such a beautiful thing a black chalk head-and-shoulders of a pretty boy made noble and deep by the introspection in his eyes. Whatever did or didnt happen between them, Michelangelo in his drawing has given Andrea the ultimate lovers gift: an immortal presence. Andrea was one of the great mans most useless pupils, and seems to have been responsible for some of the most cack-handed efforts preserved in the show. Andrea abbi patientia, writes Michelangelo in his lovely script beneath the many bad attempts to draw an eye. Andrea, have patience.
All this is fascinating. It brings a genius to life, and makes him human, and tangible. But thats not why you need to see this show. You need to see this show because it will take your breath away again and again. Around the time he was painting the Sistine ceiling, Michelangelo also began drawing with red chalk, and with this gorgeous medium, with its heightened tinge of drama, he produced some of his most stunning figure studies. Theres one here for Adam, the familiar reclining pose so naturally achieved, even though, if you try it, its impossible to do.
Red chalk is particularly suited to the evocation of naked flesh, and it is in the suite of male nudes, stretching, rearing, gliding, that Michelangelos genius is most clearly revealed. The whole show is a love song to the masculine muscle. Thighs, torsos, six-packs, pecs those are the bits of the body that thrilled him most. But tear your eyes away, if you can, from these red chalk masterworks, and other aspects of his genius become easier to spot. He had an instinctive ability to see a pose in three dimensions. Its a sculptors talent. Very few artists have it. The other day at Kenwood House I was looking at a wonderful Turner of some fishermen pulling their catch from a boat. Everything about this fine painting the rough sea, the sense of climate, the moist atmospherics was perfectly done. But the fishermen werent really leaning, or pulling. The figure in motion was beyond Turner. But its never beyond Michelangelo.
Although he complained ceaselessly about the scrounging of his family, it was from these Buonarottis that he received his most precious inheritance: the constitution of a horse. The 89 years Michelangelo spent on Earth were a lot more than most artists of his times were granted. This unusually long life enabled him to have many phases, all of which are recorded in the drawings. Near the end of his life he produced a series of crucifixions. I held the most moving of them up to the light and saw immediately that the man who drew this could barely hold his quill. His hands were shaking. He couldnt finish a straight line. So he broke the cardinal artistic rule and used a ruler for Christs cross. But the shadowy Jesus that this old man was trying to draw is one of the most moving sights in Michelangelos art. What love there is in this shaky effort. What fire. What sadness.
That's a good point. Many of the great men and women of history happened to be at the right place at the right time. It doesn't detract from their accomplishments, but it does add an element of luck.
Had George Washington been born in Thailand, for example, odds are we'd never have heard of him and he might not have ever accomplished anything noteworthy.
Exactly - and I doubt his name would've been "George Washington", lol!
It's every bit as much the setting the person lives in and grows up in as the person themself that influences their work. It's been shown again and again in history. :)
"Anyone who knows the details of the Nagasaki mission, original target
was Kokura, knows that that claim is bulls***."
OK, I'm wrong.
The cathedral was not the aim sight.
I went back and spent about a hour googling and it seems that the
aiming sight falsehood grew from the story of the Catholic chaplain that went
pacifist after WWII. (an example of the chaplain's POV is at
So that my error won't be repeated by others, here's plenty of
documentary evidence that the cathedral was NOT the aiming sight.
At 11:02, a last minute break in the clouds over Nagasaki allowed Bock's Car's bombardier, Capt. Kermit Beahan, to visually sight the target as ordered. The "Fat Man" weapon, containing a core of ~6.4 kg of plutonium-239, was dropped over the city's industrial valley. It exploded 469 meters (1,540 feet) above the ground almost midway between the Mitsubishi Steel and Arms Works, in the south, and the Mitsubishi-Urakami Ordnance Works (Torpedo Works), in the north, the two principal targets of the city.
The "Fat Man" weapon, containing a core of ~6.4 kg of plutonium-239, was dropped over the city's industrial valley. It exploded 469 meters (1,540 feet) above the ground about halfway between the Mitsubishi Steel and Arms Works in the south, and the Mitsubishi-Urakami Ordnance Works (Torpedo Works) in the north, the two principal targets in the city.
Well, someone's ignorant. Check Matthew 1:5. You'll find old Booz there in the geneology leading to Jesus.
It's always good to check before writing.
Oh, really. In the book of Ruth which is the author's reference the name in the KJV as well as other popular translations is always rendered Boaz. Only in Mt and Lu is the Gr name Boes or Boos translated Booz in a few renderings of the KJV. But Booz sounds so much more clever.
"Oh, really. In the book of Ruth which is the author's reference the name in the KJV as well as other popular translations is always rendered Boaz. Only in Mt and Lu is the Gr name Boes or Boos translated Booz in a few renderings of the KJV. But Booz sounds so much more clever.
See, the thing is that I know that, already. It's one of those funny little things about the KJV. Those old Elizabethans just couldn't keep their names straight.
I've seen the Booz error, or mistransliteration, in every copy of the KJV I've owned. It's just an amusing thing...not even an error. Just a mistyping. It does make you wonder a bit how many more little "goofs" there are in the KJV.
I don't make many mistakes in referencing Matthew. I once had it, and the other three Gospels commited to memory. I can't recite them any more, but I can tell you chapter and verse for any KJV quote from them. How's that for a useless skill?
In his day he was known as old Boozie
"In his day he was known as old Boozie"
Careful. Those Old Testament guys were pretty good at smiting folks. Heck, one Old Testament prophet, Elisha, called up a bunch of she-bears to tear some young boys limb from limb. Their crime? They taunted him with "Go up, bald one." They were referring, of course to Elijah, Elisha's mentor, who had been taken up into heaven in a cloud. But Old Elisha took serious offense to their taunts and cursed them. Boy, I'll bet those boys were surprised when the she-bears showed up and killed them. That'll teach children not to tease their elders, I bet.
Read all about it in II Kings. One of the good stories in the Old Testament. A cautionary tale with which to caution disobedient and insolent children. "Cut that nonsense out, you kids, or the she-bears'll getcha!" Bet you didn't learn that one in Sunday School.
And I didn't even know there were bears in that part of the world.
I was threatened with a pit of lions
Yah, that's pretty scary, too. My parents, atheists that they were, just stuck with the run-of-the-mill bogeyman, and skipped all the cool Old Testament stuff.
Here we see a talented author so suffused in his petty spite that damning with faint praise is not near enough, no, he finds it necessary to shout it to the very heavens above.
All the famous people were gay, where's the fun in laying it off on your lazy brother-in-law?
Willie Green lecturing on his willie, isn't that famous.
[fragments of a discussion of righteous outrage regarding
the use of something rumored to be spelled had've]
>>>What makes this usage especially fatuous, to my mind, is that you can't
>>>even spell it (had've?....had of?) ....
>>Because you can't spell it, it's worse? Speaking came before writing,
>Considerably worse. If it were just a solecism that could rationally be
>spelled, then its use would merely indicate ignorance of the correct usage
>(for example, "would've" when the subjunctive "had" should be used). But
>"had've" - presumably short for "had have" or "had of" - is an error that
>can't make any sense at all when reduced to writing, which only highlights
>its total absurdity.
There are lots of words you can't spell (that's a generic you; nothing personal :-) because they're essentially part of the spoken language and haven't received an Official Spelling.
They're frequently contractions of phrases that have become so ossified that they're effectively single words, some nonce forms like whatchamacallit, others hyphenation flamebait like flame-bait, some too naughty to use in ordinary writing, like /jÍz@m/; and a select few that are actual ongoing changes in the grammar of English, like woulda, shoulda, gotta, couldna, wanna, gonna, hafta, usta and the like.
There are some new suffixes and prefixes getting ready to be grammaticalized, and in (what used to be) the normal course of events these would generate some new inflectional morphology for English to replace some of what it lost over the last millenium. Technological society, however, is a totally new environment for language propagation and change, and all bets are off.
One of these new suffixes is apparently what gets spelled variously as -'ve, of, or -a, as in should've, should of, shoulda, representing a pronunciation that loses the /v/ almost all the time in rapid speech (listen to what others actually say for a while and then you'll be ready for the shock of listening to what you say instead of what you think you (ought to) say), coming out as a shwa suffix /-@/.
This seems to be tied up in many people's minds with the subjunctive, which is reasonable because it appears most often with modal auxiliary verbs, the lexical instantiation of modality. I've been puzzling over had've since the first post, but in fact I can't remember encountering it in the affirmative. I have encountered hadn't've or hadna in speech, but only in the negative; I think it's a polarity item.
If you hadn't've gone and insulted him, there wouldn't've been any trouble.
I suspect much of the rancor that greets spellings of had've is compounded by the fact that it's extraordinarily strange in an affirmative context. In a negative context, it's a mimic or variation of the more literate if you hadn't insulted him produced by adding an epenthetic shwa (i.e, one little uh - had-n-a instead of had-n), possibly just to link with the following past participle, and it sounds fairly normal because it sets up a parallelism between the clauses.
/haedn.@/ || /wUdn.@/
hadn't'a || wouldn't'a
This is a Perfective construction; that is, it uses -- or overuses -- the perfective auxiliary have. Like the perfect, the English subjunctive is ripe for such a restructuring. We have occasions where we'd like to use it, like speakers of any language, but what's left of the English subjunctive morphology is close enough to useless that many people don't bother with it, or misunderstand it when they hear it used, or read it. Certainly they're not taught about it in school. So they go with what they know.
What other choice do they have? After all, they're alive and so is the language they're speaking. And this is not a mere metaphor. There's no such thing as a mere metaphor.
It's not entirely clear whether we speak a language or it speaks us.
Working real hard to remain an atheist, wre we?
"Working real hard to remain an atheist, wre we?"
Well, if you left out an "e", those days were the days when I was working really hard to stay a believer.
If you substituted a "w" for an "a", then no, it's not hard. I find the scriptures of all religions interesting now. I'm not trying to memorize them anymore, though. Nobody's handing out cool plaques like they were when I was 16. Odd that that was enough to convince me of the value of memorizing the four Gospels. Ah, well...it still serves me in good stead occasionally.
As usual, I saw that "w" just as the screen was clearing after hitting "post."
You answered my question so to answer yours, the stinking "a" key and the "w" key are too close together for my clumsy fingers.
Nah... I don't post THAT kind of personal information on the internet...
besides, if I did, it would render Michelangelo's depiction of penile perfection as flawed and immature...
No... such things are best left to the imagination...
We let Satan target for us. We committed a terrible crime, killing innocent men, women and children. It was a Cathedral, not a military target. Satanic.
the first paragraph is a real show-stoppper. If the writer's intent was to alienate, job well done.
Me Too. What a Silly Goose.
Fascinating article- thanks for posting it.
For anyone interested in the era(s) when this remarkable artist lived- The Agony and the Ecstasy (Irving Stone) is required reading.
Lecturing me on my grammar and improper contractions, eh? Lol.
I suppose I should pay more attention to those things.. :)
I must have bought an outlet mall edition of the King James translation that I'm looking at. It's spelled "Boaz" in this one. Oh no! They're all misprints...none of them have "Booz". I'll have to try to find an "authorized" King James version, no doubt.
If it were up to a vote, I'd go for it.
My beloved KJV says "Boaz".
Yup, me, too. And, lo, and behold, right after your post is the "Gay Page Award" rainbow. How did I know that?
Didn't he mean Boaz, from the Book of Ruth, if I recall correctly?
Thank you for your links, VOA. Will read with interest.
At some level I think the author was attempting to rhyme with Michelangelo as a fellow iconoclast, revolutionary or bad boy. I'm not sure he's successful in that.
Still, his riffs on M's art and life are both provocative and evocative and he succeeds best when he's talking about the works specifically.
Not someone I want to go to lunch with probably.
Or to the baths.
I used to do CADD (Computer Aided Drafting and Design), and on many many CADD files there are humorous (and sometimes raunchy or disgruntled) comments or details, reduced by a factor of thousands or on an obscure layer, or as part of a fill pattern. AS I like my job I contented myself to put my initials as a fill element on an architectural detail, but I've seen some things from clients..... That this was all part of such an ancient tradition I did not know.
I don't think that we are capable today of appreciating how shocking Michelangelo was to 16th century sensibilities.
Small is beautiful.
I think you read him wrong.
He came away so affected that he felt compelled to write this conflicted piece.
Says something about the power that 400 year old artwork has to move contemporary people.
As an aside, what 20th or 21rst century artists will be evoking snarky comments 400 years hence?
Some I hope.
I ran it through some very good Bible software and looked at a lot of translations. The KJV and Darby have "Booz" and the others "Boaz".
Regardless I'm still betting on the author's ignorance!
Weird, an insecure, vain gay man...
Eh, well. I call it equivalent exchange - awesome art skills, not so good social skills. :) (Of course, he cou;d've been a bit of an egomaniac :P that would account for the surliness as well! :D)
She was built like an East German female olympian juiced on 'roids