The brain on the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel

[Evo]

Michelangelo was neoplatonic and christian.

I've read biographies about him and seen a documentary about him and not once was there a mention about him being "neoplatonic". It's possible there was influence, but how much is questionable, and even if he was neoplatonic, the brain symbolism from the standpoint of it having any meaning at this time in history is extremely doubtful.

 

[Moonbear]

All this, yes, and it might have to do with purely mechanical considerations like how big an area he could reach to paint without moving his scaffold. Planning things within this form may have simply made them easier to paint.

I hadn't thought of that, but that makes a lot of sense. Having painted walls and ceilings from ladders, it's true that it's a heck of a lot easier to paint in arcs than straight lines.

No one has mentioned it also could be a kidney outline. What do people have against kidneys?

Actually, I was just thinking that myself, but I personally find brains more interesting. When the National Kidney Foundation has their annual meeting, you can suggest they look for the kidneys in the paintings at the nearest art museum. Actually, maybe that's why the shape appealed to him; you do see similar shapes in a lot of places in nature: brains, kidneys, beans, some trees (think about the overall shape of branches of a big oak tree), animals curled up to sleep, etc.

 

[zoobyshoe]

I hadn't thought of that, but that makes a lot of sense. Having painted walls and ceilings from ladders, it's true that it's a heck of a lot easier to paint in arcs than straight lines.

He wrote quite a bit about what a physically uncomfortable thing it was to paint the ceiling. This general shape may well have been what his arm could reach in comfort.

Actually, maybe that's why the shape appealed to him; you do see similar shapes in a lot of places in nature: brains, kidneys, beans, some trees (think about the overall shape of branches of a big oak tree), animals curled up to sleep, etc.

YOU'RE SO RIGHT! I didn't even think about trees and curled up animals! There are so many non-brain sources of inspiration for this shape.

 

[Huckleberry]

I've read biographies about him and seen a documentary about him and not once was there a mention about him being "neoplatonic". It's possible there was influence, but how much is questionable, and even if he was neoplatonic, the brain symbolism from the standpoint of it having any meaning at this time in history is extremely doubtful.

It was in Florence, Italy at the church of Santo Spirito that Michelangelo dissected corpses to study human anatomy. He was also a personal acquantance and admirer of one of the leaders of the neoplatonic philosophy. They held their meetings in Florence, Italy. He was already an accomplished sculptor at this time. I would say he was involved enough in neoplatonic philosophy to be considered a neoplatonist. Not only do his writings and art reflect this philosophy, but he was involved with the leaders of the movement.

In some quotes from Michelangelo it is apparent that he considers brains to be the intelligent part of man. Neoplatonic philosophy states that God is inexpressible and any expression of God is a product of the human mind, or his brain. Hence the possibility that Michelangelo might encase the image of God in a human brain.

 

[Moonbear]

YOU'RE SO RIGHT! I didn't even think about trees and curled up animals! There are so many non-brain sources of inspiration for this shape.

When I first looked at that painting of Zecchariah, it made me think far more of someone curled into the fetal position than it reminded me of a brain. The closed form, at least to me, suggests insecurity (especially with the hunched back look). It also helps the few outstretched forms to stand out as the more significant figures when they are represented that way, such as the representation of God in the first painting MIH posted. Sometimes the actual shape isn't important as much as the contrast: large vs small, closed vs open, dark vs light.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Here's a few figures from the ceiling to give a more comprehensive picture (there are tons more, though):

The Cumaean Sibyl by MICHELANGELO di Lodovico Buonarroti Simoni
Address:http://gallery.euroweb.hu/html/m/michelan/3sistina/4sibyls/05_6si3.html

Candy colored man:
Ezekiel by MICHELANGELO di Lodovico Buonarroti Simoni
Address:http://gallery.euroweb.hu/html/m/michelan/3sistina/3prophet/05_1pr4.html

Yet another non-brainy God:

Separation of Light from Darkness by MICHELANGELO di Lodovico Buonarroti Simoni
Address:http://gallery.euroweb.hu/html/m/michelan/3sistina/1genesis/9light/09_3ce9.html

This one has the "brainy" overall curve to it:
MICHELANGELO. Delphic Sibyl, Sistine Chapel
Address:http://daphne.palomar.edu/mhudelson/WorksofArt/13HighRen/0371.html

Libyan Sibyl:

The Libyan Sibyl by Michelangelo at FulcrumGallery.com
Address:http://www.fulcrumgallery.com/print_26265.aspx

 

[zoobyshoe]

When I first looked at that painting of Zecchariah, it made me think far more of someone curled into the fetal position than it reminded me of a brain. The closed form, at least to me, suggests insecurity (especially with the hunched back look).

If you look at the ones I just posted you can get a sense of how he was doing variations on the seated posture. I think I have answered my own question about why he has most of them seated. It was probably much easier to reach all the parts of a seated figure, at the scale he was working, without moving his scaffold. He milks every possible variation out of the seated position he can.

 

[zoobyshoe]

If you reread the post it clearly states that matter itself is not corrupt.

But it says that becoming involved with matter is corrupt. This suggests to me that they wouldn't be happy with an association of the One with a physical, anatomical brain.

Neoplatonists believe that the One (God) is inexpressible. Any representation of the One is a product of the human mind.

And, therefore, of little worth.

This makes the image of a brain very appropriate in 1. A representation of God, 2. The endowment of intellect upon Adam.

I don't think so. Not for a neoplatonist.

Michelangelo was neoplatonic

No. He was conversant with it, to be sure. Influenced, yes. But if you read forward from the part where it talks about him knowing the neoplatonists it goes right into his being influenced by Savanarolla, a rabid kind of fundamentalist-Catholic preacher. He wasn't BOTH a neoplatonist and a fan of Savanarolla, he was his own kind of hybrid. And that would only be true of him for a limited period of his life. We have to mention that he was also a student of classical art, which was, religiously, pagan. He used images from classical art and myth as easily as those from the Bible. Whatever caught his fancy. He was ecclectic.
The only thing we can say about Michelangelo that was always true was that he was an artist.

And looking at the goals of the organisation he was involved in it seems that the opportunity to put neoplatonic philosophy into the heart of the catholic church would be a great opportunity.

"...the organization he was involved in" You make it sound like he was a card carrying member of the Neoplatonist Party. Another of your quotes points out how influenced by Petrarch he was. I don't think Michelangelo had any neoplatonic agenda in his art. He was all over the place.

Perhaps Michelangelo's reluctance to take the job is not only due to his dislike for painting, but also to his religious conflict.

Nope. He didn't like painting. He would have been perfectly happy to be sculpting all the same scenes in marble that he painted in the chapel.

And if we look elsewhere in the sistine chapel we see the last judgement. And above the altar is a black pit that is the entrance to hell. Next to it is the river styx and the boatman Charon.

A classical reference, yes. He also once sculpted a statue of Bacchus, god of wine and drunkenness. Not very neoplatonic of him.

Also, did you notice the new brain guy, Zechariah?

 

[Huckleberry]

But it says that becoming involved with matter is corrupt. This suggests to me that they wouldn't be happy with an association of the One with a physical, anatomical brain.

Matter has nothing to do with the divine mind (nous). It says that the desire to leave the One was corrupt. This resulted in the divine mind. The divine mind is not matter. The divine mind is thought. It is the archtypical perfect object that does not exist as matter, but only in the mind of man. As the divine mind is a representration of the One, the world soul is the representation of the divine mind.

This is where the image of a brain might be relevant to The Creation of Man. A brain in this case would not represent the material brain. Adam appears already alive. It would represent the divine mind of man.

And, therefore, of little worth.

The human mind is the divine mind according to neoplatonism. The brain is just the physical matter it is associated with. This is not of little worth to a neoplatonist.

I don't think so. Not for a neoplatonist.

It is appropriate. By receiving the divine mind man is able to contemplate reunification with the One and overcome the flesh. Much of Michelangelo's artwork seems to be struggling in its form. (figurina serpentina)
http://www.faculty.de.gcsu.edu/~dvess/ids/fap/michel.htm#creation

Neoplatonism had a profound influence during the Renaissance. Lorenzo de Medici was a prominent patron of the arts, and supported Marsilio Ficino and the Neoplatonic Academy in Florence. It was in the Medici compound that Michelangelo got his early education, and he was no doubt familiar with Ficino's works and with his translations of Plotinus and Plato.

I don't know if they used card identification, but he was trained in his art at a neoplatonic school. He was friendly with neoplatonic leaders. He held neoplatonic beliefs that are represented in his art and writing throughout his life. It appears that he struggled in his philosophical perspective for much of his life, but only near the end does it appear that he turns away from neoplatonism.

That is another interesting site.

A classical reference, yes. He also once sculpted a statue of Bacchus, god of wine and drunkenness. Not very neoplatonic of him.

Not necessarily. Greek mythology refers to the creation of man coming from the blood shed by the titans in their war against Zues. Plato has referred to the 'titanic nature" of man in his writings. Scholars debate whether this is equatable with the original sin. Odd that this would come back to creation and sin. But in any case, Greek mythology could be appreciated by a neoplatonist even if drunkenness is not. Maybe Michelangelo had creation and sin on the brain. He does seem to have lived a tormented existence.

Also, did you notice the new brain guy, Zechariah?

I noticed Zechariah. The shape does seem brainy to me. Are any regions of the brain detailed in it? More brainy figures doesn't make the one in the Creation of Man any more or less likely.

Michelangelo also put the master of ceremonies of the Vatican in his Last Judgement. He is being tortured by devils. Michelangelo also put his own picture in that painting.

 

[zoobyshoe]

I noticed Zechariah. The shape does seem brainy to me. Are any regions of the brain detailed in it? More brainy figures doesn't make the one in the Creation of Man any more or less likely.

It clearly demonstrates that an inadvertantly "brainy" shape can accidently get into a painting. There have been remarks to the effect Michelangelo was such a master that the brain shape had to be deliberate, which is just plain not true. I hope you read our conversation about the variation on that shape throughout the ceiling. Get a book with a good over-view and good details of the whole work, and you'll see what we're talking about. He just has a thing for that shape, and variations of it. I've been doing artwork all my life and I can instantly see this is a compositional consideration, not a conceptual one. The building blocks of art are line, form, rhythm, and color, and artists always pay attention to these before anything else. This ceiling must have been a massive, massive compositional problem for him. Non-artists usually don't have a clue. That shape is developed and redeveloped around the ceiling in exactly the same way a composer might write variations on a theme. I really think this has something definite to do with the fact he had to be up on a scaffold, leaning back and painting above his head. Hovering close to this shape-theme probably was the easiest way for him to handle the figures he was painting.

If you look at the Last Judgement on the wall, the first thing you notice is that almost all of the figures are of standing people. The contrast with the ceiling where the majority of the figures are seated, is quite striking.
-------------
Food for thought: If you gave me the assignment of drawing the physicist of my choice, I would instantly chose Einstein, no contest. If you were to suppose that is because he's my favorite physicist you would be dead wrong. My favorite is Michael Faraday. I would much rather draw Einstein, though, because he has a much more interesting face. In fact, I have drawn Einstein three times, and Faraday not once. Einstein has a cool face, and is very satisfying to draw. People to whom I show my drawings see the three drawings and consistantly jump to the conclusion I am a big fan of Einstein's physics, which is not true. Every artist you ever meet will tell you a similar story: people are constantly misinterpreting the content of your art, and what it is you're concerned about when you undertake an artwork. This is why I am very, very leary of any particular philosophy you ascribe to any artist unless the artist him/herself has said somewhere they mean for their work to reflect that philosophy.

 

[Mk]

I wish I could draw

 

[zoobyshoe]

I wish I could draw

Why? Everything you drew, people would be looking at it and saying "Ah, a brain!"

 

[Moonbear]

Why? Everything you drew, people would be looking at it and saying "Ah, a brain!"

Yeah, they say that to me all the time when they look at my drawings. Then again, they'd be right.

 

[Huckleberry]

It clearly demonstrates that an inadvertantly "brainy" shape can accidently get into a painting. There have been remarks to the effect Michelangelo was such a master that the brain shape had to be deliberate, which is just plain not true.

A brainy shape can inadvertantly make its way into a painting. The one in the creation of man, as far as I know, may be completely inadvertant, but it does appear particularly brainy to me. If a person looks for brainy shapes then they will find them anywhere they choose to look.

Assuming every brain-like form is deliberate would be error. I was saying that the one in the creation of man may be deliberate and was trying to show that he had the knowledge, talent, and motive. If Michelangelo decided he was going to put an intentional brainy shape into his art then it doesn't matter how many unintentional brainy shapes are in the Sistine Chapel.

You could be completely right. It may be complete coincidence. I find this to be part of the beauty of it. People can walk away with different impressions from seeing the same artwork, or reading the same literature, or smelling the same perfume. People are opinionated, but I suspect our opinions have little to do with what Michelangelo himself believed.

I think I've found everything I will be able to find to support my opinion. I may eventually read some books about him and buy his writings, but not any time soon. I have learned a lot about Michelangelo, the time in which he lived, and philosophies that are new to me from participating in this thread. Hopefully the effort we put into expressing our opinions will help others to clearly form one of their own. The beauty of it is that their opinions could be completely different from ours. That's art.

 

[zoobyshoe]

"I was saying that the one in the creation of man may be deliberate and was trying to show that he had the knowledge, talent, and motive."

Actually, all your efforts were limited to showing he had motive. You didn't dig up any info to prove he had actually dissected heads and seen brains. In other words, you completely neglected the "knowledge" part of your alleged efforts. In addition, falsly alluding to some proof you made of his talent is just plain insidious padding. His talent is not in question by anyone, and isn't something you had to exert yourself to prove.

"I think I've found everything I will be able to find to support my opinion."

Why do you even have this opinion in the first place? I think it has far less to do with Michelangelo than with your affection for the idea that someone might use a subtle device like this in their art. It is such a very neat idea that you are bending over backward to try to substantiate it, however indirectly.
I wish you wouldn't waste your time, because you'll miss what Michelangelo is really about, and that will be gleaned primarily from looking at his work, not reading about what other people have seen in it. If you like secret messages and hyper-symbolism in art, you really should be looking at the graphic art of Albrecht Durer, or the paintings of Hieronymous Bosch. Those are frankly packed with that sort of stuff.

In the meantime:

confirmation bias

From The Skeptic's Dictionary:

Confirmation bias refers to a type of selective thinking whereby one tends to notice and to look for what confirms one's beliefs, and to ignore, not look for, or undervalue the relevance of what contradicts one's beliefs. For example, if you believe that during a full moon there is an increase in admissions to the emergency room where you work, you will take notice of admissions during a full moon, but be inattentive to the moon when admissions occur during other nights of the month. A tendency to do this over time unjustifiably strengthens your belief in the relationship between the full moon and accidents and other lunar effects.
This tendency to give more attention and weight to data that support our beliefs than we do to contrary data is especially pernicious when our beliefs are little more than prejudices. If our beliefs are firmly established upon solid evidence and valid confirmatory experiments, the tendency to give more attention and weight to data that fit with our beliefs should not lead us astray as a rule. Of course, if we become blinded to evidence truly refuting a favored hypothesis, we have crossed the line from reasonableness to closed-mindedness."


"Individuals have to constantly remind themselves of this tendency and actively seek out data contrary to their beliefs. Since this is unnatural, it appears that the ordinary person is doomed to bias."

Complete article:
confirmation bias
Address:http://skepdic.com/confirmbias.html

 

[Huckleberry]

ARGH!

I'm not making proofs here zoobie. Never claimed such a thing.
I couldn't care less if there is a brain there or not. I'm not confirming anything.

 

[Mk]

I am stunned to find this hasn't morphed into a franzbear by the fourth page!

 

[JamesU]

We'd have to give this a different name, how about franzick?

 

[Mk]

Thranznick would suit be better actually.

 

[JamesU]

allright, this is now thranzick. Who is franzbear's first cousin...

 

[JamesU]

and here's thranzick. (he would never get tattoos or piercings like his cousin, he's extremely safe)

http://gladstone.uoregon.edu/~dpeters2/Croix/Being%20crazy.JPG