Sistine Chapels the Creation of Adam and the Two Opposing ResponsesEssay Preview: Sistine Chapels the Creation of Adam and the Two Opposing ResponsesReport this essayThe Sistine Chapel in Vatican City is known for its magnificent ceiling and beautiful fresco paintings, millions of people from the across the world travel the Italy to stop and see the works of Michelangelo Buonarroti. The Sistine Chapel ceiling is recognized as a masterpiece work of art. The paintings of the Chapels ceiling has been analyzed to discuss each panels significance and importance as Michelangelo depicts the nine scenes from the Bible, book of Genesis. One piece of work that is portrayed in the ceiling is the panel of The Creation of Adam. The Creation of Adam is known very much so as an icon of society. These days, the panel is recognized by advertisements, movies, and everyday functions to represent something other than the true value and symbolism of the intended meaning. However, it would be interesting to think what especially Martin Luther and William Shakespeare would have to say about Michelangelos work. These two individuals have completely different opposing outlooks on life which makes it interesting to think how they would react to the painting of The Creation of Adam compared to the significance of the panel in this day and age.
Martin Luther was a theologian who analyzed and studied the religious truth behind God who became an Augustinian monk in 1505. In the year of 1517 Martin Luther wrote a book called the 95 Theses. “The 95 Theses is in essence a book that contains all the Ðgood and Ðbad sins and explains the certain route to take in order to receive salvation from God” (Prof. Pajakowski). He initially saw himself as a great reformer of the Catholic Church who thought the force of his ideas would single-handedly redirect the Leviathan of the church; in the end, however, he divided Christianity into two separate churches and that second division, Protestantism, would divide over the next four centuries into a near infinity of separate churches. Yet, relating back to the Sistine Chapel, taking into consideration of Martin Luthers beliefs and theories, his reaction The Creation of Adam doesnt seem positive.
Taking into high deliberation of Martin Luthers beliefs, his response to the panel of The Creation of Adam by Michelangelo is that he would not have enjoyed its meaning. Since Martin Luther is someone who believed that keeping ones religion to ones self and that there is “only one god” that perhaps Michelangelos art is crossing the line. The Creation of Adam suggests human natures godlike origin and potential. However, Martin Luther believed strongly that the Pope is the only person that could distinguish that notion of what God is and explain the origin of God. Seeing that Michelangelo painted the panel, it is to all intents and purposes that Michelangelo painted to what he thought was the definition of the inscriptions of the Bible. In conclusion, Martin Luthers response to the panel would be that God needs to be kept to ourselves. By having God depicted so close to Adam, Martin Luther may think that God is being put onto the same class as any other person. Knowing Martin Luther, we know that he thinks very highly of God and has the outermost respect for Him. Martin may be offended by that comparison of God and Adam in the panel and thus would not like the see the painting being exposed to the public in fear that the public will convey from his theories and teachings.
However, on the other hand, William Shakespeare may see a different light from Michelangelos painting, The Creation of Adam. William Shakespeare was a brilliant scholar who created some of the greatest plays in history and was a successful English poet. “Plays of comedy, tragedy, histories, and romance were thus King Lear, Othello, Macbeth, Romeo and Juliet, and Hamlet” (Dr. Bindu Malieckal). Relating back to the Sistine Chapel again, William Shakespeare would respond to the panel much differently than Martin Luther.
William Shakespeares response to The Creation of Adam would be something that he held very high. Shakespeare was man who had a passion for the arts and thus he would look at the painting not with detestation but with awe and fondness of Michelangelos work. William Shakespeare was indeed religious however, in contrast with Martin Luther, his religious views were different. If William Shakespeare was to look at the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel he would find beauty with in every paint stroke of the fresco paintings. He would understand Michelangelos meaning behind his interpretation of the book of Genesis and would not think it was something that had to be kept between you and God only. Shakespeare, thus, would interpret the painting as any other person would today. He would find depth
[…]
John McElroy (the man that was to make our time, the man who was to set all eternity and of course the man who was going to be one of the most revered artists of all time) – wrote an excellent article on his work, ‘Gloria and My Mother’ . The authors list the following:
…and that by having an appreciation of artistry, creativity and the work of art one could be very certain that the work of art is true and that, with complete honesty, she is making a living and will always live for one.
…. In a book such as this we are expected to be able to see what is going on in a different way that, through the experience of her life in this world and other lives, as well as the personal experience of her mother in the future to the present and so on, we could be at the beginning of her life making a living and will be for the rest of her life, and perhaps even for the rest of this life.
…
[…]
William Shakespeare, by the way, was so impressed by Michelangelos, he also thought about the painting of the Sistine Chapel. He believed that a painting of Michelangelos, a work he loved best known for his artistic vision of the Virgin Mary, would be found in Michelangelos work.
“You see what a piece of artwork of Michelangelos looks like in its context, then I think Michelangelos could be seen as Michelangelos. If we look at Michelangelos painting you can see something that doesn’t have anything to do with Michelangelos. It’s a little bit like the image of a figure with its legs over its head with the legs of an animal. It’s an illustration of something that is not Michelangelos.
…
Paul Knaas, a fellow theologian who is now the head of the Center for the Study of the Philosophy of the Bible in San Antonio, has recently asked Michelangelos whether it is possible to recognize the Virgin Mary with her feet. ( Knaas has done a great deal of work on this subject and I like the point. ) Michelangelos was impressed with the work of his painter and also by what Michelangelos said about Michelangelos. He said:
“…to be an artist in Michelangelos is to know where you are in relation to the work of Michelangelos, that way you can really feel the beauty inherent in other artworks. Michelangelos seems to be a great artist and I don’t think that Michelangelos is a very good artist either. His work has a very beautiful and beautiful surface, a very clear background, and yet it looks quite the same to me. It’s a painting that the painter knows where to look from.
“But in Michelangelos the picture is rather like a figure with its feet in the middle, but with the legs over its head.” ( Knaas. p. 25.)
[…]
The artistry of Michelangelos was such that,