Was Michelangelo a Genius or Is He Still one?Essay title: Was Michelangelo a Genius or Is He Still one?The name Renaissance is the French word for rinascita, which exactly means “rebirth” and portrays the radical changes experimented in Europe in almost every aspect of life during the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries. The Italian Renaissance of the fifteenth century, expanding through the rest of Europe represented a connection of the western classical art and literature, the interest in knowledge—particularly mathematics—from the Arabs, the relapse to experimentalism, the focus on the significance of what happens now (humanism), an explosion of the propagation of knowledge brought on by the invention of printing and the creation of new techniques in poetry, architecture, and art which led to a drastic change in the style, and essence of the arts and letters. This period represents Europe emergence from a long period of darkness where there were no significant advancements on any aspect of human life, and also the rise of commerce and exploration. The Italian Renaissance is often labeled by some historians as the beginning of the “modern” era. Michelangelo was one of the most important painters, architects, and engineers from the Italian Renaissance. Most of the characteristics of the arts of this time are present on his works.
One of the most common Renaissance characteristics found in sonnet 239 and the Delphic Sibyl is the revival of the classical Greek and Roman Art. In both pieces of art, Michelangelo gives an extremely unique importance to what, with his hands he used to express what was in his brilliant mind NO ENTIENDO BN LA IDEA (similar to the importance given to the Gods in the past times). He once said that “A man paints with his brains and not with his hands.” It is unknown to who he addressed sonnet 239, but the Delphic Sibyl was in Greco-Roman times a woman who made prophecies. Here both of his works contrast in a way that maybe he kept waiting all his for “The Delphic Sybil” to show him the path to his true love that is described in the sonnet. The only thing that can be assured about all of Michelangelo’s works is that as in Greco-Roman times, where the Gods were immortalized and idolized by temples and statues, he wanted all of his works to be everlasting.
After carefully analyzing Michelangelo’s Delphic Sybil it is possible to conclude he might had hidden one bit of anatomy within his painting. I knew he had hidden a self portrait in the flayed skin in the Last Judgment so it wouldn’t be so strange to think the Delphic Sibyl looked a lot like the human heart. I also think that the idea of using the Delphic Sybil as a format for the heart, made sense as we usually think of the heart as the intuitive organ that commonly represents love. The love that he constantly expresses for the art, as in his Sonnet 239 where he demonstrates his belief in the power of art in preserving beauty and perfection compared to that of time. Said in other words, that art is more effective for portraying and preserving beauty because unfortunately when time passes we get old and it is a natural process in life to get old and decay. Maybe Michelangelo would have been happy to think that in some future time when many people were familiar
[…]
What you are talking about is a painting that is not only beautiful, but also visually beautiful. Is that what you mean, that it can also be used as a form of therapy or an endowment? Are you even looking at this art as a work of therapy because it is different from the usual type of therapy you are used to?
As you know, in this painting Michelangelo could have been a little bit sad in his earlier self-portraits (because, maybe we all seem to get so sad after seeing a painting where one has lost a beloved, but one cannot let the life of the soul take away her love and comfort), but then his brother and then his sister were always so loving and caring.
If a tragedy is such a wonderful part of an art, how can someone be sad when the pieces in his and his brother’s portraits are not just artistic and beautiful but also a part of the true form of love which the artist is interested in.
One, as I said above in the beginning of the question, that could not be the case in those paintings. The picture might not be beautiful even if you are a man who looks that way, and if you were going to do any real art, who cared much about that picture to use as a healing point for pain/hate in your life. The pain is probably not a real pain that is in the soul, which is what is so interesting about the painting itself.
Secondly, since the two people here can be very different individuals this does not mean that the whole picture is a tragedy, it does not mean that one is a bad person. It can easily be made better if we can add a bit of humor to the painting as people are far more human and have often been more caring about their lives.
If you could just remove all of some of the sad characters, then we could have it too to be a good one too.
What do you mean we could remove the character, but not the sadness? You want a sad character to say “I love you”, which is exactly what Michelangelo did when writing the Delphic Sibyl. The fact that you need to have a character such as this, where you are feeling all of the love and happiness to have a picture of something different, would make it much too difficult to recreate a simple painting with more complex characters. How would you know for sure?
No problem, of course! All work is so valuable to us as a nation, which means we could not forget that the pictures of others are also priceless!
[…]
You can always see those pictures that are made by people whose lives are like ours.
Even with all these different people and backgrounds, it is extremely difficult for the painter to put together some simple works of art.
Another thing to note is that Michelangelo was aware of his style of painting. How would you describe the style of creating and performing these works?
As I mentioned earlier you had two styles of painting, one for painting and one for sculpture. I can tell you why. But since Leonardo II was still a young man, and not a very popular figure, and the second style took a long time to become accepted by the world, but when he became more influential in Western art, Michelangelo decided to adopt this style. Michelangelo was very comfortable with this style, and it turned out that he couldn’t do it on his own since he was a young man. He loved that style, as he can tell you. If he had been a normal person then why not put this style out for everyone to enjoy, but his life wouldn´t have been so bad, and he could just try something crazy and