The brain on the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel

[zoobyshoe]

It looks like a hollow hemisphere.

I happen to have a book of his work. This panel is enlarged and presented on a fold out page. A closer view reveals that the drapery is of a magenta color, and that the odd shapes dangling off the main bulk are distinctly tentacle-like. Since magenta is very close to purple, it is clear to me that this shape is, in fact, a weird purple jellyfish. Clearly, this is an inside joke that Michaelangelo knew would not be appreciated till today.

 

[JamesU]

I happen to have a book of his work. This panel is enlarged and presented on a fold out page. A closer view reveals that the drapery is of a magenta color, and that the odd shapes dangling off the main bulk are distinctly tentacle-like. Since magenta is very close to purple, it is clear to me that this shape is, in fact, a weird purple jellyfish. Clearly, this is an inside joke that Michaelangelo knew would not be appreciated till today.

fear of purple nocturnal roving jellyfish - Porphyronyctotropocnidariazoobiephobia

memories...

 

[zoobyshoe]

Besides the first sentence, which one of those statements is untrue? What evidence would one need to make a convincing argument?

The truth of each individual statement is not the issue. The issue is the confirmational bias. You have selected a group of statements that tend to confirm your theory, and have excluded anything that might suggest the theory is hollow. Such things include what DocToxyn referred to, our tendency to see patterns in everything. Check all the other panels of the Sistine Chapel. Does he use a similar shape in drapery anywhere else? Could be he just liked that shape for drapery. That sort of thing.

 

[hypnagogue]

I don't know why he put the image of God in what appears to be the image of a human (errr, sheep) brain.

Extending the "finger" theory, perhaps the sheep brain signifies that religious believers are mindless sheep following a herd mentality. Or perhaps the sheep brain is meant to reflect the symbol of the lamb in Christianity.

Seriously though, I don't think I'd put much stock in this. As zooby mentioned, drapery was a common element of paintings in those days, and the amorphous, blobby shapes they take makes them sort ambiguous looking and hence open to projective interpretation, like an ink blot. (Maybe this is a painting about life, and the drapery is supposed to be an amoeba?) This reminds me of those cases where someone bows in awe to a potato or something because it looks like the virgin Mary. Our brains are naturally wired to recognize patterns and also to search for meaning, which can lead to some compelling but ultimately empty illusions.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Extending the "finger" theory, perhaps the sheep brain signifies that religious believers are mindless sheep following a herd mentality.

The "herd mentality" is more easily derivable from viewing it as a weird, purple jellyfish, which are know to rove, nocturnally, in herds.

 

[Evo]

It's an apple. Look at it. Look in the top right corner, do you see the stem? You guys do know it's an apple, right?

 

[Moonbear]

I doubt the shape of the brain had anything to do with a herd mentality. :rofl: If it really is supposed to be a brain, it could just be that people of the time were simply more familiar with the shape of a sheep brain, having likely eaten the things, or it just might not have fit within the overall painting to have a shape that was too realistic of a human brain. The elongation seems necessary for the overall composition.

Does anyone know where people of the time thought the soul resided, or particularly Michaelangelo? I'm wondering if this could be symbolic of the residence of God within the human soul, if it was thought the soul was in the brain.

And I have to also agree with Zooby and DocToxyn that this could also just as easily be us seeing shapes in the clouds. We have a tendency to see what we want to see sometimes. If it hadn't been pointed out to you it was the shape of a brain, would you have seen it? I might have, but that's just because I look at and think about brains every day, but would most people?

 

[Evo]

It also reminds me of a heart.

But I'm hungry and the apple is considered the fruit that imparts knowledge in the adam & eve story, so symbolically, an apple would make sense.

 

[Huckleberry]

A potato that looks like the Virgin Mary was not created by the human mind of a master sculptor. Considering Michelangelo's artistic ability, I think it is likely that he consciously included the brain to accompany the image of God. Symbolism in art is very common, especially during the Renaissance period.

This site suggests that Michelangelo at one time was a neoplatonist. This does not fit well with the standard christian philosophy of good and evil. He may have worked this concept into his art, as many artists of that era did.

In his last years, Michelangelo renounced all his Neoplatonist ideals in favour of an ascetic piety, and turned away completely from the figurative arts. In one sonnet, he wrote:

"Thus I now know how fraught with error was the fond imagination which made Art my idol and my king, and how mistaken that earthly love which all men seek in their own despite ... no brush, no chisel will quieten the soul."

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Delphi/5600/renart.html
http://www.answers.com/topic/neoplatonism

Somebody's term paper. Interesting, and looks well documented.

In conclusion, it is possible that Michelangelo incorporated Neoplatonic philosophy into several works of his art. In a few of his artworks, he used figura serpentia and the expression of Neoplatonic ecstasy, which depict the Neoplatonic concept of divine light enrapturing the soul. He linked the physical state of his figures with their moral state, which is another theme in Neoplatonic philosophy. Also, certain interpretations of his artwork express the similarities and differences between Neoplatonism and Christian doctrines.

http://writing.fsu.edu/oow/2003/neoplatfinal.htm

 

[Moonbear]

It also reminds me of a heart.

But I'm hungry and the apple is considered the fruit that imparts knowledge in the adam & eve story, so symbolically, an apple would make sense.

:rofl: Yes, it was looking more like an apple before I ate dinner too.

Here's the picture with an overlay of a sheep brain outline over it, just for fun.

 

[Evo]

:rofl: Yes, it was looking more like an apple before I ate dinner too.

Here's the picture with an overlay of a sheep brain outline over it, just for fun.

You're right, it's a perfect match for a sheep brain! This makes even more of a statement! :tongue:

 

[Huckleberry]

Upon reading the title and seeing the painting, I can definitely see the "brain" in the image. Of course this is coming from a neuroscientist who also knows that the brain "likes" to make associations between recognizable images and the abstract.

The brain likes to make associations between recognizable images and the abstract. So do artists' brains.

If it hadn't been pointed out to you it was the shape of a brain, would you have seen it? I might have, but that's just because I look at and think about brains every day, but would most people?

Most people would not. It wasn't until 1990 that someone made the conclusion and brought it into the public eye. But as Moonbear might look at it and see a brain, Michelangelo might as well. He had the anatomical knowledge. He had the artistic capability. And he may have had the religous motive.

Evo brings up a good point. It kind of does look like an apple, or a heart maybe. Both would be images that could be appropriate in a religous context. What else does it look like?

 

[Moonbear]

You're right, it's a perfect match for a sheep brain! This makes even more of a statement! :tongue:

I don't know about a perfect match, but closer than it is to a human brain. I like your apple idea too. Maybe it's all of the above. He might have just been having some fun painting stuff in just to see if anyone noticed. I can't believe Dan Brown missed this one in his books. :rofl:

 

[Huckleberry]

The pituitary gland doesn't seem to fit in the overlay. Besides that the shape is very close. What's up with the pituitary gland?

 

[Moonbear]

The pituitary gland doesn't seem to fit in the overlay. Besides that the shape is very close. What's up with the pituitary gland?

Well, between that green drape and the leg sticking out, those are sort of in the right place. The front foot overlaps well with the optic nerve. The brain I had to create the line drawing from had the optic nerve cut close to the optic chiasm, so you don't really get the effect you would if a longer section of nerve were left intact sort of dangling down.

But, to be honest, if he had included the pituitary, people would have been more likely to think the image included a scrotum than notice that it resembled a brain with a pituitary attached.

 

[Huckleberry]

A scrotum would be another appropriate image of the creation of man. It would also be one that would be far more recognizable to people.

 

[hypatia]

Oh jeez, now all I see is scrotum! Thanks Huckleberry

 

[Huckleberry]

Oh jeez, now all I see is scrotum! Thanks Huckleberry

Oh, sorry about that. Should I move out of the way?

 

[Evo]

Why does danger keep coming to mind?

 

[Moonbear]

Oh, sorry about that. Should I move out of the way?

No, no, it's okay, you can stay right where you are. Well, could you maybe turn to the left a bit?

 

[JamesU]

Watch Out!

 

[zoobyshoe]

Considering Michelangelo's artistic ability, I think it is likely that he consciously included the brain to accompany the image of God.

It is clear that you like the idea, but that doesn't make it the least bit more likely. Find me some quotes where he somehow compares God to the brain. That would make it likely.

You have also ignored the fact that he used a similarly shaped drapery in the deluge panel around a woman's head. You are operating on confirmational bias.

 

[zoobyshoe]

A scrotum would be another appropriate image of the creation of man. It would also be one that would be far more recognizable to people.

So, which is it?

 

[JamesU]

Was Michealangelo a zoobie? Whos the zoobie god? Is he the same as ours? I have an Idea...

 

[zoobyshoe]

Was Michealangelo a zoobie? Whos the zoobie god? Is he the same as ours? I have an Idea...

There is no zoobie god. The closest thing we have is ancient hero, Zoobos the Zoobonian. Zoobies look up to him.

Mikey was not a zoobie.

 

[JamesU]

K NM then. I had a plan that spiraled towards many things including the pure existence of god himself! *bratty tome* But mike was nt a zooby

 

[Huckleberry]

You don't find it likely that a man known for symbolism in his art would put symbols in his art? It could be a brain, or an apple, or a heart, or a scrotum, or whatever you want it to be. Maybe it was just put into confuse people. Maybe it is pure coincidence. Unless someone asks the man himself or he wrote it down somewhere then the world may never know for certain. All I know is that he has the knowledge, the talent, and the motive. It wouldn't stand up in a court of law, but it is enough for me to form a loose opinion, just as many art historians already have. I'm not claiming fact here, just opinion. Maybe Michelangelo won't mind?

Here are some quotes that may have come from Michelangelo. They show a little of the mind of the man.

Already at 16, my mind was a battlefield: my love of pagan beauty, the male nude, at war with my religious faith. A polarity of themes and forms - one spiritual, the other earthly.

I cannot live under pressures from patrons, let alone paint.

I live in sin, to kill myself I live; no longer my life my own, but sin's; my good is given to me by heaven, my evil by myself, by my free will, of which I am deprived.

It is better docration when, in painting, some monstrosity is introduced for variety and a relaxation of the sense and to attract the attention of mortal eyes, which at times desire to see that which they have never seen.

What do you despise? By this you are truly known.

Art is a jealous thing; it requires the whole and entire man.

Beauty is the purgation of superfluities.

http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/m/michelangelo_buonarroti.html
http://www.giga-usa.com/quotes/authors/michelangelo_a001.htm


And an interesting bbc article.

Scholars and art historians have long recognised that Michelangelo habitually made liberal use of symbolism in both painting and sculpture, and perhaps he was also fond of visual puzzles and humour2. For example, the 'supporting cast', and the accompanying embellishments, (the nude figures, the prophets and sibyls3, the scenes in the medallions4 and spandrels5), which adorn the Sistine Chapel ceiling, have never been satisfactorily interpreted.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A681680

 

[zoobyshoe]

You don't find it likely that a man known for symbolism in his art would put symbols in his art?

Don't you see what a pointless question this is? Even if I answer that it is likely he put symbols in, it says nothing whatever about any particular object or shape in question.

It could be a brain, or an apple, or a heart, or a scrotum, or whatever you want it to be.

The question is, "Did Michaelangelo intend it to be a brain?"

Maybe it was just put into confuse people. Maybe it is pure coincidence. Unless someone asks the man himself or he wrote it down somewhere then the world may never know for certain.

The fact it suggested a brain to one viewer is, really, a non-story, and attempts to support the notion Michaelangelo deliberately tried to suggest a brain can't come from indirect trains of logic, like your one about him being homosexual. Something very direct is needed.

All I know is that he has the knowledge, the talent, and the motive.

No, there is no motive, just your speculation that various things could have constituted a motive. Confirmation bias.

It wouldn't stand up in a court of law, but it is enough for me to form a loose opinion, just as many art historians already have.

Why even bother entertaining the idea it's a brain? He used the same shape of drapery in the deluge panel. This one is almost certainly just coincidently more brain shaped.

 

[Huckleberry]

I never intended to imply that it definitely was a brain. I was saying that it was likely a brain. And I'm not the only person who can clearly see it. If that wording offends you then let me rephrase. The image in the painting may have been intended to represent a brain. That seems more balanced.

Usually this is where I would say, let's forget about this and go out for some beers.

 

[Math Is Hard]

My thought is that he may have subsconsciously formed the design in a brain pattern. It was a pattern he had some familiarity with, and given his love of anatomy, he probably spent quite a few hours sketching out this particular organ. Later on, it may have effortlessly emerged as a basic shape for one his great works.
I think that any artist might be inspired by patterns found in nature, but not necessarily have a conscious understanding of why a particular composition or balance of shades and colors is pleasing, only that it is familiar and evokes a certain emotion that is being conveyed.

 

[zoobyshoe]

My thought is that he may have subsconsciously formed the design in a brain pattern. It was a pattern he had some familiarity with, and given his love of anatomy, he probably spent quite a few hours sketching out this particular organ. Later on, it may have effortlessly emerged as a basic shape for one his great works.

This train of speculation doesn't mean much unless we know he actually did sketch brains. He may well not have, since they don't show from the ouside. My understanding is that the reason he dissected cadavers was to get a better view of the muscles and bones in order to draw the body more realistically. A search of his sketches should reveal whether he sketched brains or not.

Da Vinci did sketch brains, but only for anatomical study. He never worked a brain into one of his paintings.

The shape of the drapery behind God could have come from a multitude of visual sources, but was most likely his purely abstract solution to framing the figures after he worked out the composition of how to cluster them there, floating down from heaven. His solution to that compositional problem just happens to resemble the outline of a brain. But a brain isn't such a specific shape that we couldn't find a brain shaped cloud, or that we couldn't spill some milk and get a brain shaped puddle. In other words, it's too easily just an accidental resemblence.

And, everyone is still ignoring the fact that he has some similarly shaped drapery around a woman's head in the deluge panel of the chapel ceiling.

 

[zoobyshoe]

I never intended to imply that it definitely was a brain. I was saying that it was likely a brain. And I'm not the only person who can clearly see it. If that wording offends you then let me rephrase. The image in the painting may have been intended to represent a brain. That seems more balanced.

"Such tricks hath strong imagination,
That, if it would but apprehend some joy,
It comprehends some bringer of that joy;
Or in the night, imagining some fear,
How easily is a bush supposed a bear!"

Theseus
A Midsummer Night's Dream
Act V, scene I

 

[Huckleberry]

"Such tricks hath strong imagination,
That, if it would but apprehend some joy,
It comprehends some bringer of that joy;
Or in the night, imagining some fear,
How easily is a bush supposed a bear!"

Theseus
A Midsummer Night's Dream
Act V, scene I

So I take it you don't want that beer? Why zoob?

 

[zoobyshoe]

So I take it you don't want that beer? Why zoob?

I gave up drinking completely many years ago. It leads to spinning beds and visions of brains on the ceiling.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Looking at more of the chapel ceiling I see there are two more portraits of God. The one right next to this one also looks "brainy" if you're looking for it, but the third one is completely random: God and an angel with drapery.