Da Vinci and Michaelangelo
Join the #1 Art Workshop - LevelUpJoin Premium Art Workshop

Page 1 of 5 1 2 3 4 5 LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 137

Thread: Da Vinci and Michaelangelo

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    32
    Thanks
    2
    Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0

    Da Vinci and Michaelangelo

    Hello, I was in an art class today, and I expressed my opinion that I feel Da Vinci and Michaelangelo's art work wasn't good. And this chick basically said I was ignorant and therefore I can't hold an opinion.

    Now I was wondering what is it that makes either of these artists works good or bad. The reason I gave was that I didn't like their techniques. So, because of that, I don't like them.

    Maybe you guys can help me understand what this chick was saying or help me understand why these artists paintings were great or support my claim.

    Thanks, much help is appreciated as I've been pondering this for quite some time.

    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    3,432
    Thanks
    643
    Thanked 1,484 Times in 719 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    It was a failure on your part.

    Go look at Michaelangelos "David" then assume the "Facepalm" position, because you simply don't get it.
    It's not him, it's you.

    I'd actually suggest the "double facepalm" position, just in case you had any ill educated opinions about La Pieta or Sistine Chapel.
    It'll save time.

    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  3. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Flake For This Useful Post:


  4. #3
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    32
    Thanks
    2
    Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Well, that doesn't help me any. I dislike all of these artists paintings. I only like Michaelangelo's sculptures. Your saying basically that it should be noticeable to why these artists are great. However, I don't see this, so just restating this doesn't help nor' answers any questions I had. So please make a backed up position and explain why. Assume Im beyond stupidity and need tutoring if that helps.

    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  5. #4
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    3,432
    Thanks
    643
    Thanked 1,484 Times in 719 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    I only like Michaelangelo's sculptures.
    Other than the Sistine Chapel all of his famous works are sculptures.

    Nice troll attempt though.

    If it wasn't, well, ..na, this has to be an amateur troll?

    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  6. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Flake For This Useful Post:


  7. #5
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    32
    Thanks
    2
    Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    if you notice, I said da vinci as well. I was just stating what I liked and what I didn't, but you assumed that I meant just Michelangelo, so it wasn't a troll attempt, you just read it wrong.

    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  8. #6
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    3,432
    Thanks
    643
    Thanked 1,484 Times in 719 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Get out.

    You fail.

    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  9. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Flake For This Useful Post:


  10. #7
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    32
    Thanks
    2
    Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    For the love of God, Im just asking why these artists were great. Stop dancing around the question. If you're not here to answer, please leave it to the people who are willing to help and leave this thread.

    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  11. #8
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    3,432
    Thanks
    643
    Thanked 1,484 Times in 719 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Are you really incapable of borrowing "really basic art history" from the library?

    Hint: it's easy

    Last edited by Flake; September 15th, 2010 at 09:42 AM.
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  12. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Flake For This Useful Post:


  13. #9
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    32
    Thanks
    2
    Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Im not an art major, and nor do I plan to be. I tried searching why is Da Vinci famous or great, and the same for Michaelangelo. But they gave me answers to their polymath abilities and because Da Vinci was an inventor. But IMO this doesn't make them good artists, just means they have multiple skills.

    It's not homework. I am just questioning why they were great....

    You like to make a lot of assumptions T_T

    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  14. #10
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    3,432
    Thanks
    643
    Thanked 1,484 Times in 719 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    I could explain why they were great, you would not understand it and it would not help your grades on this homework that you are so obviously trying to have other people write for you.

    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  15. The Following User Says Thank You to Flake For This Useful Post:


  16. #11
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    32
    Thanks
    2
    Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Wow, okay, I'll let you assume whatever.

    It's not homework, but you can think so. I am rather philosophical person, so whenever I encounter a difference of opinions, or a statement that I disagree with, I try to get some outside info to better my understanding. I will try to get a book on this matter, but I doubt it will change my opinions on it.

    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  17. #12
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    140
    Thanks
    2
    Thanked 26 Times in 17 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    I hate to agree with some chick and such but really. Da Vinci drew anatomical sketches of bodies before there was any serious medical codex of anatomy and for quite some time they were used by physicians. His engineering designs are the basis of many modern devices such as helicopters and tanks just to name 2. Or even more important either of those, Da Vinci described the camera obscura in his writing and then years later Caravaggio is the one who made great use of it. Look up Caravaggio and his contributions to art.
    As for Michelangelo, consider this, he was a sculptor who was commissioned to paint a chapel and he created the Sistine ceiling. That alone gets his creds but on top of that he sculptured David, Pieta, or how about the Medici Chapel? Sarcophagi? I mean cmon here, I can appreciate not liking a painting or a style (I don't much care of many artists) BUT there is a difference between not liking an artist and not knowing why they are so important to the evolution of art and technique.
    They both created works that stood the test of time, inspired tens of thousands of artists through the ages and more to come. Their work stands as an example of what greatness we are capable and they did it without computers, without modern tools and techniques. I dare any one of us to create a single work in our lifetimes that have even a fraction of the power of their work that can stand the test of time.

    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  18. The Following User Says Thank You to Brian.May For This Useful Post:


  19. #13
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Everett, Washington
    Posts
    1,210
    Thanks
    130
    Thanked 648 Times in 410 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    They are not famous because of their artistic ability. It because they Killed the 9th monkey king from the 7th dimension. Which the after math was all of their paintings and Sculptures.

    The Penvirates:: Xeon_OND :: PermaN00b:: Kamber Parrk :: Cygear ::Diarum

    "Life itself is your teacher, and you are in a state of constant learning." -Bruce Lee

    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  20. The Following User Says Thank You to Diarum For This Useful Post:


  21. #14
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    32
    Thanks
    2
    Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian.May View Post
    I hate to agree with some chick and such but really. Da Vinci drew anatomical sketches of bodies before there was any serious medical codex of anatomy and for quite some time they were used by physicians. His engineering designs are the basis of many modern devices such as helicopters and tanks just to name 2. Or even more important either of those, Da Vinci described the camera obscura in his writing and then years later Caravaggio is the one who made great use of it. Look up Caravaggio and his contributions to art.
    As for Michelangelo, consider this, he was a sculptor who was commissioned to paint a chapel and he created the Sistine ceiling. That alone gets his creds but on top of that he sculptured David, Pieta, or how about the Medici Chapel? Sarcophagi? I mean cmon here, I can appreciate not liking a painting or a style (I don't much care of many artists) BUT there is a difference between not liking an artist and not knowing why they are so important to the evolution of art and technique.
    They both created works that stood the test of time, inspired tens of thousands of artists through the ages and more to come. Their work stands as an example of what greatness we are capable and they did it without computers, without modern tools and techniques. I dare any one of us to create a single work in our lifetimes that have even a fraction of the power of their work that can stand the test of time.
    Im not saying they were unimportant. Im just saying I don't like their paintings or their styles within their art, except for the sculptures that Michaelangelo had done. The fact that Da Vinci was a inventor plays no role to why his artistic skills were good.

    Just because Elvis revolutionized music to some extent doesn't mean I have to like his music nor' does it make him good to me

    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  22. #15
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    A bunch of different places.
    Posts
    635
    Thanks
    299
    Thanked 508 Times in 230 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    If the only basis for what's good and bad that matters to you is your own, you should be spending time pwning Da Vinci with your 1337 skillz, not starting useless threads like this one.

    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  23. #16
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    8
    Thanks
    2
    Thanked 10 Times in 4 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    There's a huge difference between someone being good at a skill, and whether you like it.

    I don't like 50 cent's music, but he's obviously good at what he does.

    If you want to truly understand why they're great. Pick up a paint brush and attempt some of their masterpieces.

    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  24. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to T_Paul_L For This Useful Post:


  25. #17
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Everett, Washington
    Posts
    1,210
    Thanks
    130
    Thanked 648 Times in 410 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by xibz View Post
    Im not saying they were unimportant. Im just saying I don't like their paintings or their styles within their art, except for the sculptures that Michaelangelo had done. The fact that Da Vinci was a inventor plays no role to why his artistic skills were good.

    Just because Elvis revolutionized music to some extent doesn't mean I have to like his music nor' does it make him good to me
    Your like the only person I have ever heard of that didn't like their paintings or at least 1. Da Vinci was good because he was good.....I don't understand your reasoning. "what makes a painter a good painter!" Ask yourself what makes a good story a good story. Then you will figure out why they were so great.

    The Penvirates:: Xeon_OND :: PermaN00b:: Kamber Parrk :: Cygear ::Diarum

    "Life itself is your teacher, and you are in a state of constant learning." -Bruce Lee

    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  26. The Following User Says Thank You to Diarum For This Useful Post:


  27. #18
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    32
    Thanks
    2
    Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Two Listen View Post
    If the only basis for what's good and bad that matters to you is your own, you should be spending time pwning Da Vinci with your 1337 skillz, not starting useless threads like this one.
    lol, Im not that great of an artist. Nor am I talented chef, or a talented musician, but we still judge them =]

    That's what I thought it was relative, but since she said I was ignorant I thought I'd ask some non-ignorant folk.

    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  28. #19
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    3,432
    Thanks
    643
    Thanked 1,484 Times in 719 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Do you like art? Do you like Elvis? Do you like Art History?

    The reason I gave was that I didn't like their techniques.
    So which techniques DO you like?
    It's much easier to talk to people if you have some common reference..

    Last edited by Flake; September 15th, 2010 at 09:42 AM.
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  29. #20
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    140
    Thanks
    2
    Thanked 26 Times in 17 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Right, I'm not disputing that fact. You do however have to be able to articulate your POV and be able to back it up. ESPECIALLY when you go go after Da Vinci & Michelangelo!

    As for it being "relative" no, not when it comes to the great masters. If you really were able to tear the work down bit by bit and just decimate an opposing view then sure, I would accept your POV on their work, I might not like it but I would respect it for being thought out and well articulated.

    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  30. #21
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    140
    Thanks
    2
    Thanked 26 Times in 17 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Also consider this, without their work movements such as Neo-Classicism would have nothing to bring back!

    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  31. #22
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    32
    Thanks
    2
    Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Diarum View Post
    Your like the only person I have ever heard of that didn't like their paintings or at least 1. Da Vinci was good because he was good.....I don't understand your reasoning. "what makes a painter a good painter!" Ask yourself what makes a good story a good story. Then you will figure out why they were so great.
    1. Da Vinci was good because he was good.....I don't understand your reasoning.

    I didn't state this anywhere. Im looking for answers to why he good o.O not concluding he is or isn't good.

    Now what makes a good story good is a hard question. But to me a good story is one that has a main character, that a person can relate, that a person can instill his beliefs on to, that must overcome some obstacle. The ending must have a dramatic ending.

    but this is a very vague definition.

    And I still don't know why they were great o.O

    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  32. #23
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    A bunch of different places.
    Posts
    635
    Thanks
    299
    Thanked 508 Times in 230 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by xibz View Post
    lol, Im not that great of an artist. Nor am I talented chef, or a talented musician, but we still judge them =]
    It depends on what you're looking for. If you're looking for a simple opinion, sure, everyone has them. What does it matter.

    If you're actually looking to learn something, you must adhere or at least acknowledge a standard outside of your own experience. By the time tested lessons of history are we able to see people like Da Vinci as incredibly talented people, geniuses so to speak.

    You're still free to think "he sucked". But while you're free to think that, you should do so knowing you're still going to get laughed at for it.

    If you're not willing to accept knowledge from an outside source, you're limited to learning, essentially, what you already know. Which, hopefully you can agree, is very simply stupid as hell.

    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  33. #24
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    32
    Thanks
    2
    Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian.May View Post
    Right, I'm not disputing that fact. You do however have to be able to articulate your POV and be able to back it up. ESPECIALLY when you go go after Da Vinci & Michelangelo!

    As for it being "relative" no, not when it comes to the great masters. If you really were able to tear the work down bit by bit and just decimate an opposing view then sure, I would accept your POV on their work, I might not like it but I would respect it for being thought out and well articulated.
    I did back it up, I don't like their techniques of how they blend. I think it ruins the whole piece. However if you like their techniques then it would make sense to why you like them, however I don't. So what I am essentially asking is there an objective reason that can express their greatness, not something like, "Oh! they were good because they painted some piece of art." Because if that's the case, then their greatness is strictly relative and it matter not of what I think.

    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  34. #25
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    32
    Thanks
    2
    Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Two Listen View Post
    It depends on what you're looking for. If you're looking for a simple opinion, sure, everyone has them. What does it matter.

    If you're actually looking to learn something, you must adhere or at least acknowledge a standard outside of your own experience. By the time tested lessons of history are we able to see people like Da Vinci as incredibly talented people, geniuses so to speak.

    You're still free to think "he sucked". But while you're free to think that, you should do so knowing you're still going to get laughed at for it.

    If you're not willing to accept knowledge from an outside source, you're limited to learning, essentially, what you already know. Which, hopefully you can agree, is very simply stupid as hell.
    that's why I posted this thread. Because I want to know why, but no one has given me a really good reason to believe they were great T_T

    I guess the problem is, I am expecting some sort of logical sequence of premises that lead to a conclusion of, Da Vinci and Michaelangelo is great. But perhaps this type of reasoning doesn't work in art.

    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  35. #26
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    A bunch of different places.
    Posts
    635
    Thanks
    299
    Thanked 508 Times in 230 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Da Vinci and others, we cannot tell you why they are good, because you don't know what "good" means.

    You obviously aren't looking at things the way others are, and you haven't specified what YOU think is good, so it's impossible to answer. You haven't specified a scale for us to weigh in with. You haven't specified if you think realism is good, anatomical accuracy, sheer magnitude of achievement, uniqueness, etc.

    You are what's preventing your question from being appropriately answered. Please quit that.

    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  36. #27
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    32
    Thanks
    2
    Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Flake View Post
    Wait.
    I'd typed out a whole rant on "well, perspectives, it's all in how you see it, in a sense..."

    Fuckit, he's either trolling or retarded, neither is worth a response.
    Actually I am really grateful for everyone's help for trying to make me understand. I am sorry, that it's hard for me to understand art. Like I said I am not an artists or an art major. Im actually a computer engineer. So I tend to think in a very formal logical way. But like I said perhaps it doesn't apply to art.

    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  37. #28
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    140
    Thanks
    2
    Thanked 26 Times in 17 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    No, it is more than just what they created but also how they created it. Take David for example, Michelangelo used a technique so when viewing David from beneath looking upwards he is proportional and not distorted. Their techniques have taught and informed artists for 400+ years and hopefully many more.
    I think what you are looking for is to concrete and as "Two Listen" just pointed out, you need to give us the parameters of your aesthetics.

    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  38. #29
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Kansas city, MO
    Posts
    1,167
    Thanks
    1,423
    Thanked 867 Times in 333 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    I'm under the impression that Michael Angelo did this when he was 21 years old...so yeah I have to agree that it's a fail on your part.


    Jay's CA.org Sketchbook:
    Jay's Conceptart.org sketchbook

    Check out my portfolio:
    http://jasonrossart.carbonmade.com

    Check out my blog:
    http://mind2pixels.blogspot.com

    "Practice" DOES NOT make perfect...
    "Perfect Practice" makes perfect...
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  39. The Following 11 Users Say Thank You to Jason Ross For This Useful Post:

    + Show/Hide list of the thanked


  40. #30
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    32
    Thanks
    2
    Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Two Listen View Post
    Da Vinci and others, we cannot tell you why they are good, because you don't know what "good" means.

    You obviously aren't looking at things the way others are, and you haven't specified what YOU think is good, so it's impossible to answer. You haven't specified a scale for us to weigh in with. You haven't specified if you think realism is good, anatomical accuracy, sheer magnitude of achievement, uniqueness, etc.

    You are what's preventing your question from being appropriately answered. Please quit that.
    Okay, maybe that's a good place to start. A good example of what I think is good.

    Henry Yan is good in my opinion. I think his art is very fluid and has very good contrast, his paintings as well as his sketches.

    I can list more, but he is one of my most favorites.

    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

Page 1 of 5 1 2 3 4 5 LastLast

Members who have read this thread: 1

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •