Talk:David (Michelangelo)/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about David (Michelangelo). Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Untitled

Now disegno is a little more complicated than its literal translation, "design", but not that much more. It is not a "discipline", and it sure isn't based on the male human form. I'm not at all sure that the idea of liberating a pre-existing form is something M. would have put under disegno - not that I'm a Renaissance specialist, thank goodness, but I have to teach Art history 102 often enough. --MichaelTinkler

Thanks Michael, I will see about making that part more clear (the statement was based on a sole source - from a PBS episode - I of course had already planned on seeing if it was correct by looking up addional sources). maveric149

Old discussion

It may be taller if you measure from the ground to the top of the statue on its current base, but the height of the statue itself is given as 4.1 m in several Michaelangelo references I have. Noel 01:21, 30 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Would I be wrong in my recollection that the statue was originally commissioned to be placed at the top of the cathedral of Florence (hence the skewed proportions)? Jongo 00:36, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Absolutely not. The lantern by Verocchio was already in place, aside from the cultural and liturgical impossibilities. --Wetman 6 July 2005 09:15 (UTC)

It's not clear, actually. (I'm using Baldini, Sculpture of Michelangelo as a source here.) The original 1463-64 work on the block (with Agostino di Duccio) did call for the figure to be placed "on one of the buttresses of the Cathedral". However, when Michelangelo started work on it, this book mentions no pre-fixed location; indeed, once it was done, a committee of Florentine artists was formed to decide where to put it. (Hibbard, Michaelangelo is in basic agreement with all this.) Noel (talk) 20:44, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

...the statue was originally intended to be placed on a church facade or high pedestal, or even the top of the Eiffel Towe... This can't be correct! Can anyone elaborate? Mikkel 17:07, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Vandalism. Rv'd. Noel (talk) 20:44, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

"is widely considered to be a masterpiece " If we're really that culturally insecure, let's drop the somewhat faded term "masterpiece." --Wetman 6 July 2005 09:15 (UTC)

Citation for the new information regarding the origins of marble from which David was carved: http://www.guardian.co.uk/arts/news/story/0,11711,1558304,00.html

It probably needs to be added as a citation to the article that is about to be published in Elsevier's Journal of Archaeological Science, as described in The Guardian. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.112.101.215 (talk) 08:50, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

David

This article doesn't list any references, so can anyone recommend a book on the David? I'm looking for something with a detailed discussion on the anatomy of the David as the "perfect male form", along with pictures from many different angles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.131.172.218 (talk) 13:01, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Name change

The title of this article is out of keeping with usual practice on Wikipedia - the norm for articles on works of art where the artist's name has to be specified is, to take one example, 'The Birth of Venus (Botticelli)', not 'Botticelli's Birth of Venus'. I don’t see why there should be a different rule for works by Michelangelo, and the “Michelangelo’s” prefix, although it works with the David and Pietà, doesn’t work at all with others - ‘’Michelangelo’s Crucifix’’ for instance. Would there be any objections if the title were changed to David (Michelangelo)? Ham 11:23, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

I can't see how anyone can make that argument if they know how those works are commonly referred to in English-speaking countries. "Michelangelo's David" is a very common way to refer to that specific work of art. Agreed, most are not referred to that way, but THAT one IS. Check google hits for "Michelangelo's David" vs. "Botticelli's Birth of Venus". In other words, 'Michelangelo' wasn't in the front just because somebody made a mistake with a 'necessary' disambiguation--it's because that's the common name for the friggin work of art. This was an exception to the way other Michelangelo (and other artist's) works are titled because of common use, not some arbitrary blindly following a standard that doesn't apply. 24.17.48.241 10:12, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, "Michelangelo's David" is in common usage, far more so than "David (Michelangelo)". My main objection is that giving this article that title caused "Michelangelo's ____" to be the standard for Wikipedia articles on his other sculptures, which are not as familiar and therefore resulted in some strange article titles indeed. After changing those titles to something more sensible, it would have been unencyclopaedic to treat David as an exception, although I'm fully aware that in the public imagination it is considered something above and apart from other works by lesser artists. Regards, Ham 14:20, 15 February 2006 (UTC). And cheers to Sparkit for making the change. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ham II (talk • contribs) 14:20, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Payment

Long time ago I have heard that Wool traders, which ordered this statue, came to see it when it was almost ready. They were so impressed by work of Michelangelo that they tripled Michelangelo's payment for the statue. I can not find now any information about this. If that is true, it would be a nice touch in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.114.0.99 (talk) 18:49, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Contradiction

In "Style and Detail" it says "There is controversy, however, over the statue's supposed Biblical reference, since the statue portrays an uncircumcised male..." but then later "Recent studies show, however, that the statue of David is in fact circumcised" so I'm changing the first bit to past tense since there can't be controversy any more... Omishark 02:23, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Fig Leaf

I have a book of Photographs from the late 19th century, which shows this statue with a leaf over his penis. Do you know if this was added for the photo, or was it permanently attached

I really doubt the book put it in there. It was probably attached for the whole censorship movement, then taken off when people realized that sex is not the enemy. --160.81.78.102 15:54, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I believe that when it was first made, the Florentine Republican government (specifically Piero Soderini) covered it with the fig leaf. At that time, Florentine society was heavily influenced by the puritanical teachings of Girolamo Savonarola, and they were fairly prudish in that regard. Eventually the fig leaf was taken down. I don't remember where I read this, but if anyone finds a source, it should be noted in the article. --DLand ^TALK 19:34, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I think I've read as much in Hibbert's book about the Medicis. I don't remember the title, and I don't have the book anymore. /roger.duprat.denmark —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.243.126.100 (talk) 16:13, 21 June 2007

Didn't the V&A have an exhibition some time ago consisting entirely of fig leaves that Victorians had put over the genitalia of numerous statues? I didn't see the exhibition but I did read a review of it in the paper at the time. I recall it was rather funny. --Oscar Bravo 11:50, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Michelangelo's family name

From my reading and studying days I seem to remember his family name was "Buonaretti" I also remember my grandfather telling me about it (he was born in 1888 and also came from Italy) so, maybe it is important, maybe not. What do you think????????

MichelJosephPetulli@mac.com

The only work he ever signed is the Pietà in St. Peter's, which he signed MICHAELA[N]GELUS BONAROTUS FLORENTIN[US] FACIEBA[T]. That is, of course, a Latinized version of his name, but suggests that "Buonarotti" is a better choice than "Buonaretti". - Jmabel | Talk 21:41, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Paoletti's remarks

I went to a talk last night by art historian John Paoletti (who, by the way, probably deserves an article: pretty important writer on Renaissance art, and no slouch on contemporary art, either). Paoletti calls into question whether it is entirely appropriate to call the work unambiguously either "Michelangelo's" or "David". He suggests that Michelangelo, ever the good self-publicist, may have played down how much work Donatello had already done on the block of marble; also, that in the copious written records about the project, prior to the erection of the statue, there is only one reference to it as a "David" (it is otherwise always the "giant" or the "colossus"), that it lacks the standard attributes of a statue of David (no head of Goliath, which is explained by it being before the battle, but also that what is over his shoulder really doesn't much resemble a sling), and that, in any event, there is something rather ironic about a giant statue of the giant-killer.

He also had some very interesting remarks about the statue as a symbol of the Florentine Republic, counterposed to the periods of Medici rule, and that its displacment of the earlier statue of Judith was both (1) a displacement of a Medici-sponsored sculpture but also (2) explicit in its gender politics. On the latter, he quoted several contemporary documents of the time. Apparently, the politics over this continued: he showed a detail of a painting from one of the periods of Medici restoration in which (1) a scene in the piazza is framed so that David's head is just out of the image and (2) right in front of the David there is a break in a frieze-like arrangement of spectators; in the opening there is an image of a dog pissing on the ground.

I don't have anything properly citable on any of this. Many years ago Paoletti wrote a review of Charles Seymour Jr.'s book Michelangelo's David: A Search for Identity (Art Bulletin, Vol. 51, No. 3. September 1969, pp. 294-297). I don't have access to that. Some of this may be in that book or his review. Also, Paoletti and Wendy Stedman wrote a book Collaboration in Italian Renaissance art, Yale University Press (1978) ISBN 0300021755; some of this may be there.

Renaissance art history is not particularly an area where I can claim expertise, just basic cluefulness, so I'm probably not the one to follow this up. Someone else might well want to do so.

By the way, we don't mention at all in this article that for much of its history, including in Michelangelo's lifetime, David's genitalia were covered by a garland of finely wrought silver leaves. - Jmabel | Talk 22:07, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Restorations

Unless I'm mistaken, there have been four separate attempts at restoring the statue. The first was a minor disaster, because one of the materials used to strip dirt, etc. off of the statue was hydrochloric acid. - Jmabel | Talk 18:15, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Here's a citation for the hydrochloric acid (which was apparently an 1843 attempt to remove wax that had been applied in 1810) - Jmabel | Talk 18:19, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Different image

I have swapped the image used in this article with the one in Accademia di Belle Arti Firenze because I think that it improves both of them ... it's more of a technical than aesthetic decision, based on looking at both pages at 1024x786 screen size using both Internet Explorer and Mozilla Firefox.

I was editing the David article, and the aspect ratio (tall and thin) was incongruous with the other two images in the article ... because of the {{sculpture}} used to display it, which forces the name of the city and the museum to be on the same line, the width of the displayed box is determined by the combined length of the two text strings ... the result forces the image and caption to spill into the section below at some screen resolutions ... the captions of each one point to the other, which is what gave me the idea to swap them.

There is also a difference in where this spillage occurs based on which browser is used, so I had both pages open in tabs in both browsers so that I could compare the four combinations ... I am also very sensitive to the fact that many public access terminals are constrained to 1024x768 resolution, and the size of the image makes a much bigger difference at that screen size than it does at 1600x1200, which is what a lot of editors have at their home or office ... I tend to work at 1280x1024, but will occasionally switch to 800x600 mode in order to experience what a lot of readers using legacy PCs will see, and that is why images should not be larger than 250 pixels wide ... try it yourself on several pages, and you'll see what I mean.

Anyway, because the captions on the images of the statue in both articles point to each other, the same image should not be used for both ... if Some Other Editor does not like the change, then please revert both articles rather than just restoring one of them.

Happy Editing! —72.75.100.232 07:47, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I liked the photo by Rico Heil ("Silmaril") better for the David article, since it gives a different perspective than the other two now on the David page, and since it's just better. The new one that "72.75..." just moved from the Accademia page is actually better suited for that page, since it shows off the Tribune better than Rico's does. The aspect ratios and text alignment should be secondary to the content. I don't want to get in the business of Wikipedia editing, however, so please consider me to be just kibbitzing.

For a really different view of David, from Goliath's viewpoint right through the column David is facing, check out my webpage at http://www.econ.ohio-state.edu/jhm/arch/david/David.htm . Enjoy! 128.146.137.121 16:47, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you that the image swapped from Accademia di Belle Arti Firenze was better suited to that article, but I was pressed for time when I did it ... if you can find another image of the original statue elsewhere in Wikipedia that can be used in this article, then leave a note here and I will gladly replace it with the tall, skinny one, and restore the one with the better view of the Tribuna to its original article. —72.75.70.147 02:47, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Then if the one now at Accademia is better for this one, and the one now here is better for Accademia, why don't you just switch them back the way they were originally? I'm sure Michelangelo would not be concerned if the text didn't align just right. HuMcCulloch 03:14, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Angles.

Wouldn't it be smarter if we had pictures of the statue from different angles? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.238.101.147 (talk) 08:12, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Agreed! So why don't you bring back Rico's photo from the Accademia page, which originally was here, and send this one back to l'Accademia, where it shows off the Tribune better. (I'll let someone else do this, however, since I don't do Wiki editing, apart from adding an occasional external reference...) HuMcCulloch 03:19, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Height

A major issue with the height of the statue. David is actually 17ft, not 14ft. I tried to change it, but given the amount of incorrectly documented literature on the subject, this might be an impossible task. See http://graphics.stanford.edu/projects/mich/publicity/faq.html#height%20of%20the%20David for verification. --Jeff (talk) 19:11, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

The real statue

I notice that the top image in the info box is the real statue and not a replica (at least according to the image info page). I wonder if we can add that it is the genuine original statue somewhere, so people know they aren't looking at a replica. JayKeaton (talk) 05:03, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Depicted before or after the battle?

This article says he is depicted before his battle with Goliath, but I went to see David in Florence and the plaque underneath says he is depicted after the battle occurred. Which is right? --Jim Raynor (talk) 11:50, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Removed my own comment. I have second thoughts. Amandajm (talk)

Inadequate intro

I have just been through the entire history of the intro, to try to determine how such an important subject could have been so badly dealt with.

OK.

Back in about 2007 we had:

"Michelangelo's David, sculpted from 1501 to 1504, is a masterpiece of Renaissance sculpture and one of Michelangelo's two greatest works of sculpture, along with the Pietà. The 5.17 meter (17 ft) marble statue portrays the Biblical David at the moment that he decides to do battle with Goliath. It came to symbolise the Florentine Republic, an independent city state threatened on all sides by more powerful rival states. This interpretation was also encouraged by the original setting of the sculpture outside the Palazzo della Signoria, the seat of civic government in Florence. The completed sculpture was unveiled on 8 September 1504."

Comment: This seems to sum it up pretty well. We got dates, we are told (concisely) that it is a "masterpiece of the Renaissance" (Is "masterpiece" a peacock termm? I hardly think so.) One of Michelangelo two greatest works of sculpture, with the Pieta? Yes, beyond question. The height is given (as accurately as possible). We are told what the subject is, concisely. (There is no doubt it is the Biblical David. However the "before or after" question is to raise its head.

In 2007 an experienced editor changed [[King David|David]] to [[David|King David]], and this was the beginning of a downhill run for this article. Basically, if you wreck the very first paragraph, that tells you what the subject is, then you have done serious damage.

Comment: So what's the problem in changing "David" to "King David"?

Does this statue represent "King David"? No, it doesn't. No, it absolutely doesn't!

Understanding that it does not represent a king is important to understanding everything that this statue stands for.

While we know that the young man portrayed eventually was chosen as King, that fact has nothing whatever to do with this artwork. King David is not the subject matter here.

The significant fact about David is that he was an ordinary lad. He was a shepherd boy. That' is why he was patron of the Wool Guild.

So this is a portrayal of a common ordinary lad of greater-than-average courage who defeated a giant.

In a nutshell, the statue represents "David". It doesn't represent "King David". One small thoughtless edit like that can seriously change the meaning of an article for the next three years.

in December 2007, someone naive and well-meaning added the words "in the nude".

So now we have the sentence: "The 5.17 meter (17 ft) marble statue portrays the Biblical King David in the nude at the moment that he decides to do battle with Goliath."

Comment: There is a certain difference between "nude statue of David" and "a statue of King David in the nude".....which suggests King David getting into his bath. "Nude" is a word used in art commentary. "...in the nude" is not. It simply that the person has been caught naked. This is the way that Michelangelo's critics (with the Inquisition getting underway) chose to perceive the Last Judgement.

In September 2008 we got a major expansion. Not satisfied with David being a masterpiece and one of the Mighty Mick's two greatest sculptures, someone added:

"Michelangelo's David, sculpted from 1501 to 1504, is a masterpiece of Renaissance sculpture and one of Michelangelo's two greatest works of sculpture, along with the Pietà. It is the statue of the young Israelite king David alone that almost certainly is one of the most recognizable stone sculptures in the history of art. It is regarded as a symbol both of strength and youthful human beauty. The 5.17 meter (17 ft)[1] marble statue portrays the Biblical King David in the nude, at the moment that he decides to battle with Goliath.

Comment: All this, before we have even been told what the subject matter is. Notice that this editor has picked up on the erroneous fact that this represents "King David" and embelished it "the young Israelite King David".

This totally OTT edit had an unfortunate and unintended result. Someone removed all reference to the fame of this supremely famous artwork, but did retain "Renaissance masterpiece". We went back to it being "the Biblical King David in the nude at the moment that he decides to do battle with Goliath.

24 January 2009. Along comes an anonymous editor who makes this very interesting and unreferenced change.

"The 5.17 meter (17 ft)[1] marble statue portrays the Biblical King David in the nude, contemplating the worldly forces which have helped him to victory over Goliath."

Comment: Here is a different slant, and one well worth thinking about! A second opinion!

17th February 2009. Such a daring edit could not stay for long. Another experienced editor that should have known better replaced it with:

"The ... marble statue portrays the Biblical King David in the nude. Unlike previous depictions of David which portray the hero after his victory over Goliath Michealangelo chose to represent David before the fight contemplating the battle yet to come.[2]"

Comments: The division of one sentence into two has left us with this bald, simplistic and erroneous statement: "The...statue portrays the Biblical King David in the nude."

Aaaaargh! The subject of this artwork is not "King David in the nude"! This is the worst edit ever. OK! OK! It was an edit in good faith. However, a dozen experienced editors, including people with expertise in art, have been to this page, have reverted vandalism and made other changes, but have permitted this sentence to stand for a year as the Primary definition of what this artwork is about. If I am to loose all faith in wikipedia, than this might do it!

The same experienced editor "corrected" that second opinion by putting in a different opinion, and referencing it. If we were talking about a clear-cut fact here, (the much disputed height of David, which must have a single accurate answer) then eliminating what was written would be fine. But when someone has written a perfectly valid statement that is contrary to the accepted one, it needs looking at. The statement alerts editors to the fact that there is another opinion out there. The change that was made needed to reflect that fact, even if only by the simple means of writing "the accepted opinion is that this represents...." or "Helen Gardner states that this represents....." Better still, if you are a serious editor, then try sourcing that second, and very interesting opinion, rather than simply deleting it.

Hummmphh!

Amandajm (talk) 03:22, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Michelangelo?

I noticed that there wasn't a single hyperlink to the artist's Wikipedia page, so I will add those in. One per section is the norm, correct? Bpenguin17 (talk) 01:27, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Usage in other media

I have removed the usage in other media section, which was added today. While I certainly do not think that such material is necessarily unencyclopedic, I think that we need to be systematic with its introduction. By that I mean that we should seek to address the variety and scope of such appearances from the start, rather than simply listing them on an ad hoc basis. Listing a single example, when there are surely a countless number to choose from, seems somewhat strange when we are seeking to present an encyclopedic summary of the subject. Rje (talk) 23:08, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Template problem

there is a problem with the template at the begining of the page. Could someone plz fix it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.78.79.29 (talk) 07:54, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Fixed. Thanks for reporting the problem. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 08:13, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Viewing Angle

Does anyone have a full-body picture of David from Goliath's POV? A friend's art history teacher claims that David, as warrior, should be seen from this angle and that he's quite striking and scary. But all the power of the sculpture is taken away when viewing the sculpture from the angles of the photos in the article. Can anyone back this up? Is the art history teacher full of it?

No, that teacher is correct. You can see that warrior expression in a full front view of his face. I did a Google search of images under the phrase "Michelangelo's David" and found several head shots that showed changing expression from changing angles. The front view is surprisingly fierce.

A full-body frontal view, from Goliath's POV, is now available on my webpage at http://www.econ.ohio-state.edu/jhm/arch/david/David.htm . In order to obtain this view, you have to stand well back behind the column he is facing in the Galleria dell'Accademia, and use X-Ray vision to see through the column. Or else use Stanford's new ScanView software, which is what I did. Incidentally, I liked JoJan's photo of the copy outside the Palazzo Vecchio a lot better than the one that recently replaced it. I'm using JoJan's on my webpage. HuMcCulloch 15:04, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

The original position for the statue was supposed to be high atop the Florence Cathedral. I doubt Michelangelo would have created something which was supposed to be viewed from a position which was impossible to attain. The article does suggest that the exaggerated hands and head might have been for the sake of viewers looking from a much lower position. 124.168.163.223 (talk) 10:36, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Circumcision

Is not david circumcised?--MathFacts (talk) 08:54, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I have deleted some of the original research in this section, following the September 2011 suggestion. The section suggesting that David's circumcision was historically authentic refers to a history of circumcision wikipedia page and to an refereed website. The History of circumcision page in its present form does not support this assertion, and the un-refereed article (1) cites no sources and (2) ignores the extensive body of literature on the subject. I agree with MathFacts and deleted this assertion. If the editor who added this statement can find legitimate sources for it, please cite these and reinstate the text. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Orpington22903 (talk • contribs) 16:40, 27 March 2012 (UTC)