# Da Vinci VS Michelangelo: Who WINS?



## alpine

One day, Leonardo da Vinci was passing through the Piazza Santa Trinita in Florence. Some gentlemen were debating Dante in front of the Spini family palace. They called Leonardo over and asked him to explain the passage they were puzzling over, but just at that moment Michelangelo happened to come along and Leonardo instead suggested that the sculptor elucidate it.

This proposal annoyed Michelangelo. Instead of discoursing on Dante, he addressed Leonardo in the disrespectful "tu" form, and snapped back, "You explain it yourself, you who made the design of a horse to be cast in bronze, but who was unable to cast it." With that, he strode away, leaving Leonardo standing there, "made red in the face by his words".

Michelangelo had touched a sensitive spot. His rival's frequent failure to finish works – the horse in question was the gigantic monument Leonardo had begun in Milan – was due, he was alleging, to artistic deficiency. Leonardo couldn't do it.

And this is how it happened...


Personally I find Da Vinci being a dick here. Insulting Michelangelo like he did, was uncalled for. Shows his level...


----------



## Pogo

alpine said:


> One day, Leonardo da Vinci was passing through the Piazza Santa Trinita in Florence. Some gentlemen were debating Dante in front of the Spini family palace. They called Leonardo over and asked him to explain the passage they were puzzling over, but just at that moment Michelangelo happened to come along and Leonardo instead suggested that the sculptor elucidate it.
> 
> This proposal annoyed Michelangelo. Instead of discoursing on Dante, he addressed Leonardo in the disrespectful "tu" form, and snapped back, "You explain it yourself, you who made the design of a horse to be cast in bronze, but who was unable to cast it." With that, he strode away, leaving Leonardo standing there, "made red in the face by his words".
> 
> Michelangelo had touched a sensitive spot. His rival's frequent failure to finish works – the horse in question was the gigantic monument Leonardo had begun in Milan – was due, he was alleging, to artistic deficiency. Leonardo couldn't do it.
> 
> And this is how it happened...
> 
> 
> 
> Personally I find Da Vinci being a dick here. Insulting Michelangelo like he did, was uncalled for. Shows his level...



That's hardly authentic. In the first place, daVinci was lefthanded.  And a genius.  Not finishing things is no contradiction.

Besides, I don't think even daVinci had invented the video camera then.  These are actors.

Also "tu" isn't necessarily an "insult" -- it's a familiar form, used to address one who is socially equal _or_ socially lower.


----------



## alpine

Pogo said:


> alpine said:
> 
> 
> 
> One day, Leonardo da Vinci was passing through the Piazza Santa Trinita in Florence. Some gentlemen were debating Dante in front of the Spini family palace. They called Leonardo over and asked him to explain the passage they were puzzling over, but just at that moment Michelangelo happened to come along and Leonardo instead suggested that the sculptor elucidate it.
> 
> This proposal annoyed Michelangelo. Instead of discoursing on Dante, he addressed Leonardo in the disrespectful "tu" form, and snapped back, "You explain it yourself, you who made the design of a horse to be cast in bronze, but who was unable to cast it." With that, he strode away, leaving Leonardo standing there, "made red in the face by his words".
> 
> Michelangelo had touched a sensitive spot. His rival's frequent failure to finish works – the horse in question was the gigantic monument Leonardo had begun in Milan – was due, he was alleging, to artistic deficiency. Leonardo couldn't do it.
> 
> And this is how it happened...
> 
> 
> 
> Personally I find Da Vinci being a dick here. Insulting Michelangelo like he did, was uncalled for. Shows his level...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's hardly authentic. In the first place, daVinci was lefthanded.
> That's hardly authentic. In the first place, daVinci was lefthanded.
Click to expand...



That doesn't prevent him from being a dick, does it?


----------



## Pogo

alpine said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alpine said:
> 
> 
> 
> One day, Leonardo da Vinci was passing through the Piazza Santa Trinita in Florence. Some gentlemen were debating Dante in front of the Spini family palace. They called Leonardo over and asked him to explain the passage they were puzzling over, but just at that moment Michelangelo happened to come along and Leonardo instead suggested that the sculptor elucidate it.
> 
> This proposal annoyed Michelangelo. Instead of discoursing on Dante, he addressed Leonardo in the disrespectful "tu" form, and snapped back, "You explain it yourself, you who made the design of a horse to be cast in bronze, but who was unable to cast it." With that, he strode away, leaving Leonardo standing there, "made red in the face by his words".
> 
> Michelangelo had touched a sensitive spot. His rival's frequent failure to finish works – the horse in question was the gigantic monument Leonardo had begun in Milan – was due, he was alleging, to artistic deficiency. Leonardo couldn't do it.
> 
> And this is how it happened...
> 
> 
> 
> Personally I find Da Vinci being a dick here. Insulting Michelangelo like he did, was uncalled for. Shows his level...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's hardly authentic. In the first place, daVinci was lefthanded.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That doesn't prevent him from being a dick, does it?
Click to expand...


I had to leave that as a partial post and go back and edit to finish because this site insists on taking pastes in invisible ink.

I don't see any evidence that either one was a dick.  I see evidence that some hack TV writer wrote that in.  Those are _actors_.  It's not real.


----------



## Billy_Kinetta

In real life, da Vinci.  Michelangelo was a genius in his own right, but no da Vinci.


----------



## alpine

Pogo said:


> alpine said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alpine said:
> 
> 
> 
> One day, Leonardo da Vinci was passing through the Piazza Santa Trinita in Florence. Some gentlemen were debating Dante in front of the Spini family palace. They called Leonardo over and asked him to explain the passage they were puzzling over, but just at that moment Michelangelo happened to come along and Leonardo instead suggested that the sculptor elucidate it.
> 
> This proposal annoyed Michelangelo. Instead of discoursing on Dante, he addressed Leonardo in the disrespectful "tu" form, and snapped back, "You explain it yourself, you who made the design of a horse to be cast in bronze, but who was unable to cast it." With that, he strode away, leaving Leonardo standing there, "made red in the face by his words".
> 
> Michelangelo had touched a sensitive spot. His rival's frequent failure to finish works – the horse in question was the gigantic monument Leonardo had begun in Milan – was due, he was alleging, to artistic deficiency. Leonardo couldn't do it.
> 
> And this is how it happened...
> 
> 
> 
> Personally I find Da Vinci being a dick here. Insulting Michelangelo like he did, was uncalled for. Shows his level...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's hardly authentic. In the first place, daVinci was lefthanded.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That doesn't prevent him from being a dick, does it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I had to leave that as a partial post and go back and edit to finish because this site insists on taking pastes in invisible ink.
> 
> I don't see any evidence that either one was a dick.  I see evidence that some hack TV writer wrote that in.  Those are _actors_.  It's not real.
Click to expand...


If you think I put this video here because I though it was recorded in the time this event did take place, you are insane. This is the depiction of a famous event that did take place in the history, and yes, you got that part right, by some actors.

And as you pointed out, "tu": used to address one who is socially equal or *socially lower.*


----------



## Pogo

alpine said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alpine said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alpine said:
> 
> 
> 
> One day, Leonardo da Vinci was passing through the Piazza Santa Trinita in Florence. Some gentlemen were debating Dante in front of the Spini family palace. They called Leonardo over and asked him to explain the passage they were puzzling over, but just at that moment Michelangelo happened to come along and Leonardo instead suggested that the sculptor elucidate it.
> 
> This proposal annoyed Michelangelo. Instead of discoursing on Dante, he addressed Leonardo in the disrespectful "tu" form, and snapped back, "You explain it yourself, you who made the design of a horse to be cast in bronze, but who was unable to cast it." With that, he strode away, leaving Leonardo standing there, "made red in the face by his words".
> 
> Michelangelo had touched a sensitive spot. His rival's frequent failure to finish works – the horse in question was the gigantic monument Leonardo had begun in Milan – was due, he was alleging, to artistic deficiency. Leonardo couldn't do it.
> 
> And this is how it happened...
> 
> 
> 
> Personally I find Da Vinci being a dick here. Insulting Michelangelo like he did, was uncalled for. Shows his level...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's hardly authentic. In the first place, daVinci was lefthanded.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That doesn't prevent him from being a dick, does it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I had to leave that as a partial post and go back and edit to finish because this site insists on taking pastes in invisible ink.
> 
> I don't see any evidence that either one was a dick.  I see evidence that some hack TV writer wrote that in.  Those are _actors_.  It's not real.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you think I put this video here because I though it was recorded in the time this event did take place, you are insane. This is the depiction of a famous event that did take place in the history, and yes, you got that part right, by some actors.
> 
> And as you pointed out, "tu": used to address one who is socially equal or *socially lower.*
Click to expand...


Did you notice the word "*or*"?  Did you notice how it was _italicized_?  The whole point is that it's _*not*_ necessarily addressing an inferior.  We would presume these two are of equal social standing, therefore "equal".  And that invites _tu_, unless one chooses to be formal.  But the mere presence of _tu_ does not necessarily equate to "insult".  It isn't that simple.


----------



## alpine

Pogo said:


> alpine said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alpine said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alpine said:
> 
> 
> 
> One day, Leonardo da Vinci was passing through the Piazza Santa Trinita in Florence. Some gentlemen were debating Dante in front of the Spini family palace. They called Leonardo over and asked him to explain the passage they were puzzling over, but just at that moment Michelangelo happened to come along and Leonardo instead suggested that the sculptor elucidate it.
> 
> This proposal annoyed Michelangelo. Instead of discoursing on Dante, he addressed Leonardo in the disrespectful "tu" form, and snapped back, "You explain it yourself, you who made the design of a horse to be cast in bronze, but who was unable to cast it." With that, he strode away, leaving Leonardo standing there, "made red in the face by his words".
> 
> Michelangelo had touched a sensitive spot. His rival's frequent failure to finish works – the horse in question was the gigantic monument Leonardo had begun in Milan – was due, he was alleging, to artistic deficiency. Leonardo couldn't do it.
> 
> And this is how it happened...
> 
> 
> 
> Personally I find Da Vinci being a dick here. Insulting Michelangelo like he did, was uncalled for. Shows his level...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's hardly authentic. In the first place, daVinci was lefthanded.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That doesn't prevent him from being a dick, does it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I had to leave that as a partial post and go back and edit to finish because this site insists on taking pastes in invisible ink.
> 
> I don't see any evidence that either one was a dick.  I see evidence that some hack TV writer wrote that in.  Those are _actors_.  It's not real.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you think I put this video here because I though it was recorded in the time this event did take place, you are insane. This is the depiction of a famous event that did take place in the history, and yes, you got that part right, by some actors.
> 
> And as you pointed out, "tu": used to address one who is socially equal or *socially lower.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did you notice the word "*or*"?  Did you notice how it was _italicized_?  The whole point is that it's _*not*_ necessarily addressing an inferior.  We would presume these two are of equal social standing, therefore "equal".  And that invites _tu_, unless one chooses to be formal.  But the mere presence of _tu_ does not necessarily equate to "insult".  It isn't that simple.
Click to expand...



Michelangelo don't refer back to him with "tu" however. And you know why; because he still respects him, up until this point of course.

But Da Vinci  on the other hand; has no respect for Michelangelo, he thinks his art is inferior, his ideas are inferior, therefore, himself is inferior.

I don't find Da Vinci's characteristics appealing.
And his sculpting is horrible, and painting is inferior, compared to Michelangelo, imo...


----------



## Pogo

alpine said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alpine said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alpine said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's hardly authentic. In the first place, daVinci was lefthanded.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That doesn't prevent him from being a dick, does it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I had to leave that as a partial post and go back and edit to finish because this site insists on taking pastes in invisible ink.
> 
> I don't see any evidence that either one was a dick.  I see evidence that some hack TV writer wrote that in.  Those are _actors_.  It's not real.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you think I put this video here because I though it was recorded in the time this event did take place, you are insane. This is the depiction of a famous event that did take place in the history, and yes, you got that part right, by some actors.
> 
> And as you pointed out, "tu": used to address one who is socially equal or *socially lower.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did you notice the word "*or*"?  Did you notice how it was _italicized_?  The whole point is that it's _*not*_ necessarily addressing an inferior.  We would presume these two are of equal social standing, therefore "equal".  And that invites _tu_, unless one chooses to be formal.  But the mere presence of _tu_ does not necessarily equate to "insult".  It isn't that simple.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Michelangelo don't refer back to him with "tu" however. And you know why; because he still respects him, up until this point of course.
> 
> But Da Vinci  on the other hand; has no respect for Michelangelo, he thinks his art is inferior, his ideas are inferior, therefore, himself is inferior.
> 
> I don't find Da Vinci's characteristics appealing.
> And his sculpting is horrible, and painting is inferior, compared to Michelangelo, imo...
Click to expand...


Again, these are actors, and this is television. Or whatever it is, which means what we're seeing is not Michaelangelo and daVinci, but some scriptwriter's/director's depiction sculpted for TV.  And that all by itself makes it dishonest.


----------



## alpine

Pogo said:


> alpine said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alpine said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alpine said:
> 
> 
> 
> That doesn't prevent him from being a dick, does it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I had to leave that as a partial post and go back and edit to finish because this site insists on taking pastes in invisible ink.
> 
> I don't see any evidence that either one was a dick.  I see evidence that some hack TV writer wrote that in.  Those are _actors_.  It's not real.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you think I put this video here because I though it was recorded in the time this event did take place, you are insane. This is the depiction of a famous event that did take place in the history, and yes, you got that part right, by some actors.
> 
> And as you pointed out, "tu": used to address one who is socially equal or *socially lower.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did you notice the word "*or*"?  Did you notice how it was _italicized_?  The whole point is that it's _*not*_ necessarily addressing an inferior.  We would presume these two are of equal social standing, therefore "equal".  And that invites _tu_, unless one chooses to be formal.  But the mere presence of _tu_ does not necessarily equate to "insult".  It isn't that simple.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Michelangelo don't refer back to him with "tu" however. And you know why; because he still respects him, up until this point of course.
> 
> But Da Vinci  on the other hand; has no respect for Michelangelo, he thinks his art is inferior, his ideas are inferior, therefore, himself is inferior.
> 
> I don't find Da Vinci's characteristics appealing.
> And his sculpting is horrible, and painting is inferior, compared to Michelangelo, imo...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, these are actors, and this is television. Or whatever it is, which means what we're seeing is not Michaelangelo and daVinci, but some scriptwriter's/director's depiction sculpted for TV.  And that all by itself makes it dishonest.
Click to expand...



And they are not making this up. The dislike between these 2 artists are well known.

Michelangelo and Rafael was not getting along well either. Especially after Rafael's affair with the Pope and getting Michelangelo fired...


----------



## Pogo

alpine said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alpine said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alpine said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I had to leave that as a partial post and go back and edit to finish because this site insists on taking pastes in invisible ink.
> 
> I don't see any evidence that either one was a dick.  I see evidence that some hack TV writer wrote that in.  Those are _actors_.  It's not real.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you think I put this video here because I though it was recorded in the time this event did take place, you are insane. This is the depiction of a famous event that did take place in the history, and yes, you got that part right, by some actors.
> 
> And as you pointed out, "tu": used to address one who is socially equal or *socially lower.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did you notice the word "*or*"?  Did you notice how it was _italicized_?  The whole point is that it's _*not*_ necessarily addressing an inferior.  We would presume these two are of equal social standing, therefore "equal".  And that invites _tu_, unless one chooses to be formal.  But the mere presence of _tu_ does not necessarily equate to "insult".  It isn't that simple.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Michelangelo don't refer back to him with "tu" however. And you know why; because he still respects him, up until this point of course.
> 
> But Da Vinci  on the other hand; has no respect for Michelangelo, he thinks his art is inferior, his ideas are inferior, therefore, himself is inferior.
> 
> I don't find Da Vinci's characteristics appealing.
> And his sculpting is horrible, and painting is inferior, compared to Michelangelo, imo...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, these are actors, and this is television. Or whatever it is, which means what we're seeing is not Michaelangelo and daVinci, but some scriptwriter's/director's depiction sculpted for TV.  And that all by itself makes it dishonest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And they are not making this up. The dislike between these 2 artists are well known.
> 
> Michelangelo and Rafael was not getting along well either. Especially after Rafael's affair with the Pope and getting Michelangelo fired...
Click to expand...


We've established that there were no video cameras --- were there eyewitnesses who journaled down every word?  Dooon't think so.  For the fourth time, what we're seeing is some TV director's idea of what makes for a good scene on television.

When I suggested daVinci hadn't invented video I was being facetious.  It was sarcasm to point out that a scene we might watch on TV bears no relation to the world of reality.  Ever.  If you're actually suggesting that we can catch a glimpse of a historical event from the boob tube, then clearly I'm not the one who is "insane".


----------



## Bruce_T_Laney

alpine said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alpine said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alpine said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's hardly authentic. In the first place, daVinci was lefthanded.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That doesn't prevent him from being a dick, does it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I had to leave that as a partial post and go back and edit to finish because this site insists on taking pastes in invisible ink.
> 
> I don't see any evidence that either one was a dick.  I see evidence that some hack TV writer wrote that in.  Those are _actors_.  It's not real.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you think I put this video here because I though it was recorded in the time this event did take place, you are insane. This is the depiction of a famous event that did take place in the history, and yes, you got that part right, by some actors.
> 
> And as you pointed out, "tu": used to address one who is socially equal or *socially lower.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did you notice the word "*or*"?  Did you notice how it was _italicized_?  The whole point is that it's _*not*_ necessarily addressing an inferior.  We would presume these two are of equal social standing, therefore "equal".  And that invites _tu_, unless one chooses to be formal.  But the mere presence of _tu_ does not necessarily equate to "insult".  It isn't that simple.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Michelangelo don't refer back to him with "tu" however. And you know why; because he still respects him, up until this point of course.
> 
> But Da Vinci  on the other hand; has no respect for Michelangelo, he thinks his art is inferior, his ideas are inferior, therefore, himself is inferior.
> 
> I don't find Da Vinci's characteristics appealing.
> And his sculpting is horrible, and painting is inferior, compared to Michelangelo, imo...
Click to expand...


I will agree Da Vinci's Art was not as great as Michelangelo but Da Vinci was one of the greatest minds in the history of humanity and that what makes him stand out over Michelangelo...


----------



## alpine

Pogo said:


> alpine said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alpine said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alpine said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you think I put this video here because I though it was recorded in the time this event did take place, you are insane. This is the depiction of a famous event that did take place in the history, and yes, you got that part right, by some actors.
> 
> And as you pointed out, "tu": used to address one who is socially equal or *socially lower.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did you notice the word "*or*"?  Did you notice how it was _italicized_?  The whole point is that it's _*not*_ necessarily addressing an inferior.  We would presume these two are of equal social standing, therefore "equal".  And that invites _tu_, unless one chooses to be formal.  But the mere presence of _tu_ does not necessarily equate to "insult".  It isn't that simple.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Michelangelo don't refer back to him with "tu" however. And you know why; because he still respects him, up until this point of course.
> 
> But Da Vinci  on the other hand; has no respect for Michelangelo, he thinks his art is inferior, his ideas are inferior, therefore, himself is inferior.
> 
> I don't find Da Vinci's characteristics appealing.
> And his sculpting is horrible, and painting is inferior, compared to Michelangelo, imo...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, these are actors, and this is television. Or whatever it is, which means what we're seeing is not Michaelangelo and daVinci, but some scriptwriter's/director's depiction sculpted for TV.  And that all by itself makes it dishonest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And they are not making this up. The dislike between these 2 artists are well known.
> 
> Michelangelo and Rafael was not getting along well either. Especially after Rafael's affair with the Pope and getting Michelangelo fired...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We've established that there were no video cameras --- were there eyewitnesses who journaled down every word?  Dooon't think so.  For the fourth time, what we're seeing is some TV director's idea of what makes for a good scene on television.
> 
> When I suggested daVinci hadn't invented video I was being facetious.  It was sarcasm to point out that a scene we might watch on TV bears no relation to the world of reality.  Ever.  If you're actually suggesting that we can catch a glimpse of a historical event from the boob tube, then clearly I'm not the one who is "insane".
Click to expand...



You are answering your own questions.
That's not gonna help you on the long rung, of course if you are looking to learn things that you don't have the knowledge of.

Anonimo Magliabechiano - Dictionary of Art Historians

"Anonymous author of a now fragmental history, likely written after 1541.  *The extent portion includes biographies of Florentine artists between the late 13th century and the 16th.*  The manuscript was discovered in 1755 in the Magliabechiano manuscript collection but only brought to the attention of scholars in 1892 by Karl Frey. Most recently the scholar Bouk Wierda has argued that the identity of the Florentine humanist and art connoisseur Anonimo is Bernardo Vecchietti (1514-1590)."

So, to answer your question; "were there eyewitnesses who journaled down every word?"
Yes, apparently there were...


----------



## alpine

Bruce_T_Laney said:


> alpine said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alpine said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alpine said:
> 
> 
> 
> That doesn't prevent him from being a dick, does it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I had to leave that as a partial post and go back and edit to finish because this site insists on taking pastes in invisible ink.
> 
> I don't see any evidence that either one was a dick.  I see evidence that some hack TV writer wrote that in.  Those are _actors_.  It's not real.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you think I put this video here because I though it was recorded in the time this event did take place, you are insane. This is the depiction of a famous event that did take place in the history, and yes, you got that part right, by some actors.
> 
> And as you pointed out, "tu": used to address one who is socially equal or *socially lower.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did you notice the word "*or*"?  Did you notice how it was _italicized_?  The whole point is that it's _*not*_ necessarily addressing an inferior.  We would presume these two are of equal social standing, therefore "equal".  And that invites _tu_, unless one chooses to be formal.  But the mere presence of _tu_ does not necessarily equate to "insult".  It isn't that simple.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Michelangelo don't refer back to him with "tu" however. And you know why; because he still respects him, up until this point of course.
> 
> But Da Vinci  on the other hand; has no respect for Michelangelo, he thinks his art is inferior, his ideas are inferior, therefore, himself is inferior.
> 
> I don't find Da Vinci's characteristics appealing.
> And his sculpting is horrible, and painting is inferior, compared to Michelangelo, imo...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I will agree Da Vinci's Art was not as great as Michelangelo but Da Vinci was one of the greatest minds in the history of humanity and that what makes him stand out over Michelangelo...
Click to expand...



Da Vinci is much more humanist compared to Michelangelo. 

For instance Da Vinci would prefer to paint an ordinary woman, where Michelangelo would rather paint gods or saints or angels...

I guess that's what makes Da Vinci more of a dick(which he was not necessarily needed to be), and much more important for the humanity...

But, as far as the art is concerned, Michelangelo is the better part...


----------



## Care4all

Having seen Michelangelo's work in person, it's impossible imho, for anyone to be a better artist/sculptor... 
















Da Vinci was a genius and more well rounded, again, imo.


----------



## westwall

Yup.  Michelangelo is one of the greatest artists to have ever lived.  Da Vinci was one of the greatest thinkers to have ever lived.


----------



## Pogo

alpine said:


> Bruce_T_Laney said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alpine said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alpine said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I had to leave that as a partial post and go back and edit to finish because this site insists on taking pastes in invisible ink.
> 
> I don't see any evidence that either one was a dick.  I see evidence that some hack TV writer wrote that in.  Those are _actors_.  It's not real.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you think I put this video here because I though it was recorded in the time this event did take place, you are insane. This is the depiction of a famous event that did take place in the history, and yes, you got that part right, by some actors.
> 
> And as you pointed out, "tu": used to address one who is socially equal or *socially lower.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did you notice the word "*or*"?  Did you notice how it was _italicized_?  The whole point is that it's _*not*_ necessarily addressing an inferior.  We would presume these two are of equal social standing, therefore "equal".  And that invites _tu_, unless one chooses to be formal.  But the mere presence of _tu_ does not necessarily equate to "insult".  It isn't that simple.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Michelangelo don't refer back to him with "tu" however. And you know why; because he still respects him, up until this point of course.
> 
> But Da Vinci  on the other hand; has no respect for Michelangelo, he thinks his art is inferior, his ideas are inferior, therefore, himself is inferior.
> 
> I don't find Da Vinci's characteristics appealing.
> And his sculpting is horrible, and painting is inferior, compared to Michelangelo, imo...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I will agree Da Vinci's Art was not as great as Michelangelo but Da Vinci was one of the greatest minds in the history of humanity and that what makes him stand out over Michelangelo...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Da Vinci is much more humanist compared to Michelangelo.
> 
> For instance Da Vinci would prefer to paint an ordinary woman, where Michelangelo would rather paint gods or saints or angels...
> 
> I guess that's what makes Da Vinci more of a dick(which he was not necessarily needed to be), and much more important for the humanity...
> 
> But, as far as the art is concerned, Michelangelo is the better part...
Click to expand...


All depends on what you're after.  I'm far more drawn to a real woman than a "god, saint or angel".

Anyway comparing the two is apples and oranges.  While they may have had some common activities, I think of daVinci much more as a scientist and intellect than as an artist.


----------



## alpine

Pogo said:


> alpine said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bruce_T_Laney said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alpine said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alpine said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you think I put this video here because I though it was recorded in the time this event did take place, you are insane. This is the depiction of a famous event that did take place in the history, and yes, you got that part right, by some actors.
> 
> And as you pointed out, "tu": used to address one who is socially equal or *socially lower.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did you notice the word "*or*"?  Did you notice how it was _italicized_?  The whole point is that it's _*not*_ necessarily addressing an inferior.  We would presume these two are of equal social standing, therefore "equal".  And that invites _tu_, unless one chooses to be formal.  But the mere presence of _tu_ does not necessarily equate to "insult".  It isn't that simple.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Michelangelo don't refer back to him with "tu" however. And you know why; because he still respects him, up until this point of course.
> 
> But Da Vinci  on the other hand; has no respect for Michelangelo, he thinks his art is inferior, his ideas are inferior, therefore, himself is inferior.
> 
> I don't find Da Vinci's characteristics appealing.
> And his sculpting is horrible, and painting is inferior, compared to Michelangelo, imo...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I will agree Da Vinci's Art was not as great as Michelangelo but Da Vinci was one of the greatest minds in the history of humanity and that what makes him stand out over Michelangelo...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Da Vinci is much more humanist compared to Michelangelo.
> 
> For instance Da Vinci would prefer to paint an ordinary woman, where Michelangelo would rather paint gods or saints or angels...
> 
> I guess that's what makes Da Vinci more of a dick(which he was not necessarily needed to be), and much more important for the humanity...
> 
> But, as far as the art is concerned, Michelangelo is the better part...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All depends on what you're after.  I'm far more drawn to a real woman than a "god, saint or angel".
> 
> Anyway comparing the two is apples and oranges.  While they may have had some common activities, I think of daVinci much more as a scientist and intellect than as an artist.
Click to expand...


Human beings first painted animals on caves walls
Then painted gods on temple walls
Then painted themselves on canvas, on their own walls

Michelangelo - Da Vinci is another break point in human history. And I think that was the whole reason they had this much tension between each other. In fact, there was the same tension between Michelangelo and Rafael. 

Michelangelo is the traditionalist and conservative of his time,
While Da Vinci is the progressive and liberal...

Politics


----------



## Pogo

alpine said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alpine said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bruce_T_Laney said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alpine said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did you notice the word "*or*"?  Did you notice how it was _italicized_?  The whole point is that it's _*not*_ necessarily addressing an inferior.  We would presume these two are of equal social standing, therefore "equal".  And that invites _tu_, unless one chooses to be formal.  But the mere presence of _tu_ does not necessarily equate to "insult".  It isn't that simple.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Michelangelo don't refer back to him with "tu" however. And you know why; because he still respects him, up until this point of course.
> 
> But Da Vinci  on the other hand; has no respect for Michelangelo, he thinks his art is inferior, his ideas are inferior, therefore, himself is inferior.
> 
> I don't find Da Vinci's characteristics appealing.
> And his sculpting is horrible, and painting is inferior, compared to Michelangelo, imo...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I will agree Da Vinci's Art was not as great as Michelangelo but Da Vinci was one of the greatest minds in the history of humanity and that what makes him stand out over Michelangelo...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Da Vinci is much more humanist compared to Michelangelo.
> 
> For instance Da Vinci would prefer to paint an ordinary woman, where Michelangelo would rather paint gods or saints or angels...
> 
> I guess that's what makes Da Vinci more of a dick(which he was not necessarily needed to be), and much more important for the humanity...
> 
> But, as far as the art is concerned, Michelangelo is the better part...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All depends on what you're after.  I'm far more drawn to a real woman than a "god, saint or angel".
> 
> Anyway comparing the two is apples and oranges.  While they may have had some common activities, I think of daVinci much more as a scientist and intellect than as an artist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Human beings first painted animals on caves walls
> Then painted gods on temple walls
> Then painted themselves on canvas, on their own walls
> 
> Michelangelo - Da Vinci is another break point in human history. And I think that was the whole reason they had this much tension between each other. In fact, there was the same tension between Michelangelo and Rafael.
> 
> Michelangelo is the traditionalist and conservative of his time,
> While Da Vinci is the progressive and liberal...
> 
> Politics
Click to expand...


Oh good gawd...


----------



## Harry Dresden

alpine said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alpine said:
> 
> 
> 
> One day, Leonardo da Vinci was passing through the Piazza Santa Trinita in Florence. Some gentlemen were debating Dante in front of the Spini family palace. They called Leonardo over and asked him to explain the passage they were puzzling over, but just at that moment Michelangelo happened to come along and Leonardo instead suggested that the sculptor elucidate it.
> 
> This proposal annoyed Michelangelo. Instead of discoursing on Dante, he addressed Leonardo in the disrespectful "tu" form, and snapped back, "You explain it yourself, you who made the design of a horse to be cast in bronze, but who was unable to cast it." With that, he strode away, leaving Leonardo standing there, "made red in the face by his words".
> 
> Michelangelo had touched a sensitive spot. His rival's frequent failure to finish works – the horse in question was the gigantic monument Leonardo had begun in Milan – was due, he was alleging, to artistic deficiency. Leonardo couldn't do it.
> 
> And this is how it happened...
> 
> 
> 
> Personally I find Da Vinci being a dick here. Insulting Michelangelo like he did, was uncalled for. Shows his level...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's hardly authentic. In the first place, daVinci was lefthanded.
> That's hardly authentic. In the first place, daVinci was lefthanded.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That doesn't prevent him from being a dick, does it?
Click to expand...

im sure angelo was a dick also....i saw it in a film about him....


----------



## alpine

Harry Dresden said:


> alpine said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alpine said:
> 
> 
> 
> One day, Leonardo da Vinci was passing through the Piazza Santa Trinita in Florence. Some gentlemen were debating Dante in front of the Spini family palace. They called Leonardo over and asked him to explain the passage they were puzzling over, but just at that moment Michelangelo happened to come along and Leonardo instead suggested that the sculptor elucidate it.
> 
> This proposal annoyed Michelangelo. Instead of discoursing on Dante, he addressed Leonardo in the disrespectful "tu" form, and snapped back, "You explain it yourself, you who made the design of a horse to be cast in bronze, but who was unable to cast it." With that, he strode away, leaving Leonardo standing there, "made red in the face by his words".
> 
> Michelangelo had touched a sensitive spot. His rival's frequent failure to finish works – the horse in question was the gigantic monument Leonardo had begun in Milan – was due, he was alleging, to artistic deficiency. Leonardo couldn't do it.
> 
> And this is how it happened...
> 
> 
> 
> Personally I find Da Vinci being a dick here. Insulting Michelangelo like he did, was uncalled for. Shows his level...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's hardly authentic. In the first place, daVinci was lefthanded.
> That's hardly authentic. In the first place, daVinci was lefthanded.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That doesn't prevent him from being a dick, does it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> im sure angelo was a dick also....i saw it in a film about him....
Click to expand...



But Michelangelo have a reason to be a dick;
Da vinci talking behind his back, discrediting his art and work... 
Rafael on the other hand turning people against him and getting him fired...
Following these 2 influential and charismatic assholes, even Pope turns against him...

He has all the reasons to be pissed, imo.


----------



## Syriusly

alpine said:


> Michelangelo is the traditionalist and conservative of his time,
> While Da Vinci is the progressive and liberal...
> 
> Politics



Hmmmm there was nothing 'conservative' or 'traditionalist' about Michelangelo.

Or Da Vinci- or Rafael- they were all 'radicals' of the day- the Renaissance was a radical movement.

Frankly I find this insistence that they be judged- or that one was a 'dick' (both were rather famous for their ill-temper) kind of misses the point.

Michelangelo was an extraordinary artist- and his works are breathtaking. 
Leonardo was also an extraordinary artist- who greatly influenced art- especially painting, but even more so than Michelangelo embodies the ideal of a 'renaissance man'- he was a painter, and sculptor, inventor, architect, engineer.

That the two of them and Raphael lived and worked in Florence at the same time shows where the focus of the renaissance was at that point of time.


----------



## alpine

Syriusly said:


> alpine said:
> 
> 
> 
> Michelangelo is the traditionalist and conservative of his time,
> While Da Vinci is the progressive and liberal...
> 
> Politics
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hmmmm there was nothing 'conservative' or 'traditionalist' about Michelangelo.
> 
> Or Da Vinci- or Rafael- they were all 'radicals' of the day- the Renaissance was a radical movement.
> 
> Frankly I find this insistence that they be judged- or that one was a 'dick' (both were rather famous for their ill-temper) kind of misses the point.
> 
> Michelangelo was an extraordinary artist- and his works are breathtaking.
> Leonardo was also an extraordinary artist- who greatly influenced art- especially painting, but even more so than Michelangelo embodies the ideal of a 'renaissance man'- he was a painter, and sculptor, inventor, architect, engineer.
> 
> That the two of them and Raphael lived and worked in Florence at the same time shows where the focus of the renaissance was at that point of time.
Click to expand...



It seems to me, both Davinci and Rafael were looking down to Michelangelo, because he was a troubled antisocial person, which makes him a more profound artist, rather than an experimenter, which is what Davinci was more or less.

Again it seems to me the argument was between the new school humanism, where humans being in the center of the universe vs old school traditional thinking where the gods and angels being in the center... Michelangelo being a part of the later, as opposed to the other 2 artists...

And when you are thinking you are the center of the universe, then inevitably, you become more of an arrogant selfish dick...


----------



## Syriusly

alpine said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alpine said:
> 
> 
> 
> Michelangelo is the traditionalist and conservative of his time,
> While Da Vinci is the progressive and liberal...
> 
> Politics
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hmmmm there was nothing 'conservative' or 'traditionalist' about Michelangelo.
> 
> Or Da Vinci- or Rafael- they were all 'radicals' of the day- the Renaissance was a radical movement.
> 
> Frankly I find this insistence that they be judged- or that one was a 'dick' (both were rather famous for their ill-temper) kind of misses the point.
> 
> Michelangelo was an extraordinary artist- and his works are breathtaking.
> Leonardo was also an extraordinary artist- who greatly influenced art- especially painting, but even more so than Michelangelo embodies the ideal of a 'renaissance man'- he was a painter, and sculptor, inventor, architect, engineer.
> 
> That the two of them and Raphael lived and worked in Florence at the same time shows where the focus of the renaissance was at that point of time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It seems to me, both Davinci and Rafael were looking down to Michelangelo, because he was a troubled antisocial person, which makes him a more profound artist, rather than an experimenter, which is what Davinci was more or less.
> 
> Again it seems to me the argument was between the new school humanism, where humans being in the center of the universe vs old school traditional thinking where the gods and angels being in the center... Michelangelo being a part of the later, as opposed to the other 2 artists...
> 
> And when you are thinking you are the center of the universe, then inevitably, you become more of an arrogant selfish dick...
Click to expand...


Why would Michelangelo being a 'troubled antisocial person' make him a more profound artist?

The Renaissance was all about Humanism- including Michelangelo. 

Michelango's works were only nominally about God- and far more about humans

This is not venerating God- this is venerating the human form- and humanity.  
=


----------



## alpine

Syriusly said:


> alpine said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alpine said:
> 
> 
> 
> Michelangelo is the traditionalist and conservative of his time,
> While Da Vinci is the progressive and liberal...
> 
> Politics
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hmmmm there was nothing 'conservative' or 'traditionalist' about Michelangelo.
> 
> Or Da Vinci- or Rafael- they were all 'radicals' of the day- the Renaissance was a radical movement.
> 
> Frankly I find this insistence that they be judged- or that one was a 'dick' (both were rather famous for their ill-temper) kind of misses the point.
> 
> Michelangelo was an extraordinary artist- and his works are breathtaking.
> Leonardo was also an extraordinary artist- who greatly influenced art- especially painting, but even more so than Michelangelo embodies the ideal of a 'renaissance man'- he was a painter, and sculptor, inventor, architect, engineer.
> 
> That the two of them and Raphael lived and worked in Florence at the same time shows where the focus of the renaissance was at that point of time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It seems to me, both Davinci and Rafael were looking down to Michelangelo, because he was a troubled antisocial person, which makes him a more profound artist, rather than an experimenter, which is what Davinci was more or less.
> 
> Again it seems to me the argument was between the new school humanism, where humans being in the center of the universe vs old school traditional thinking where the gods and angels being in the center... Michelangelo being a part of the later, as opposed to the other 2 artists...
> 
> And when you are thinking you are the center of the universe, then inevitably, you become more of an arrogant selfish dick...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why would Michelangelo being a 'troubled antisocial person' make him a more profound artist?
> 
> The Renaissance was all about Humanism- including Michelangelo.
> 
> Michelango's works were only nominally about God- and far more about humans
> 
> This is not venerating God- this is venerating the human form- and humanity.
> =
Click to expand...



But this is David. He is more or less a god.

And this is Davincis masterpiece on the other hand






The wife of a baker...


----------



## Harry Dresden

alpine said:


> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alpine said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alpine said:
> 
> 
> 
> One day, Leonardo da Vinci was passing through the Piazza Santa Trinita in Florence. Some gentlemen were debating Dante in front of the Spini family palace. They called Leonardo over and asked him to explain the passage they were puzzling over, but just at that moment Michelangelo happened to come along and Leonardo instead suggested that the sculptor elucidate it.
> 
> This proposal annoyed Michelangelo. Instead of discoursing on Dante, he addressed Leonardo in the disrespectful "tu" form, and snapped back, "You explain it yourself, you who made the design of a horse to be cast in bronze, but who was unable to cast it." With that, he strode away, leaving Leonardo standing there, "made red in the face by his words".
> 
> Michelangelo had touched a sensitive spot. His rival's frequent failure to finish works – the horse in question was the gigantic monument Leonardo had begun in Milan – was due, he was alleging, to artistic deficiency. Leonardo couldn't do it.
> 
> And this is how it happened...
> 
> 
> 
> Personally I find Da Vinci being a dick here. Insulting Michelangelo like he did, was uncalled for. Shows his level...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's hardly authentic. In the first place, daVinci was lefthanded.
> That's hardly authentic. In the first place, daVinci was lefthanded.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That doesn't prevent him from being a dick, does it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> im sure angelo was a dick also....i saw it in a film about him....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> But Michelangelo have a reason to be a dick;
> Da vinci talking behind his back, discrediting his art and work...
> Rafael on the other hand turning people against him and getting him fired...
> Following these 2 influential and charismatic assholes, even Pope turns against him...
> 
> He has all the reasons to be pissed, imo.
Click to expand...

the guy who did the story you are talking about also said it kinda sounded like mikey was jealous of leo.....leo was 23 years older than mikey and had a lot more accomplishments,leo was a polymath who not only did great paintings but also invented things and was into architecture,science,music,mathmatics,engineering,literature,anatomy,geology,astronomy,botany,history and cartography.....he has been called the father of paleontology,ichnology and architecture.....i can see why mickey was a tad jealous....


----------



## skye

Both were geniuses.

Amazing both in their own way!


----------



## alpine

Harry Dresden said:


> alpine said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alpine said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alpine said:
> 
> 
> 
> One day, Leonardo da Vinci was passing through the Piazza Santa Trinita in Florence. Some gentlemen were debating Dante in front of the Spini family palace. They called Leonardo over and asked him to explain the passage they were puzzling over, but just at that moment Michelangelo happened to come along and Leonardo instead suggested that the sculptor elucidate it.
> 
> This proposal annoyed Michelangelo. Instead of discoursing on Dante, he addressed Leonardo in the disrespectful "tu" form, and snapped back, "You explain it yourself, you who made the design of a horse to be cast in bronze, but who was unable to cast it." With that, he strode away, leaving Leonardo standing there, "made red in the face by his words".
> 
> Michelangelo had touched a sensitive spot. His rival's frequent failure to finish works – the horse in question was the gigantic monument Leonardo had begun in Milan – was due, he was alleging, to artistic deficiency. Leonardo couldn't do it.
> 
> And this is how it happened...
> 
> 
> 
> Personally I find Da Vinci being a dick here. Insulting Michelangelo like he did, was uncalled for. Shows his level...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's hardly authentic. In the first place, daVinci was lefthanded.
> That's hardly authentic. In the first place, daVinci was lefthanded.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That doesn't prevent him from being a dick, does it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> im sure angelo was a dick also....i saw it in a film about him....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> But Michelangelo have a reason to be a dick;
> Da vinci talking behind his back, discrediting his art and work...
> Rafael on the other hand turning people against him and getting him fired...
> Following these 2 influential and charismatic assholes, even Pope turns against him...
> 
> He has all the reasons to be pissed, imo.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the guy who did the story you are talking about also said it kinda sounded like mikey was jealous of leo.....leo was 23 years older than mikey and had a lot more accomplishments,leo was a polymath who not only did great paintings but also invented things and was into architecture,science,music,mathmatics,engineering,literature,anatomy,geology,astronomy,botany,history and cartography.....he has been called the father of paleontology,ichnology and architecture.....i can see why mickey was a tad jealous....
Click to expand...



The vice versa is also possible; Davinci is older than Michelangelo, and everybody talking about what a great artist this new young Michelangelo is. He has no charisma, he barely showers, he is antisocial, but does amazing sculpting and painting, better than the invincible and accomplished Davinci...

Pretty common among celebrities...


----------



## Harry Dresden

alpine said:


> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alpine said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alpine said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's hardly authentic. In the first place, daVinci was lefthanded.
> That's hardly authentic. In the first place, daVinci was lefthanded.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That doesn't prevent him from being a dick, does it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> im sure angelo was a dick also....i saw it in a film about him....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> But Michelangelo have a reason to be a dick;
> Da vinci talking behind his back, discrediting his art and work...
> Rafael on the other hand turning people against him and getting him fired...
> Following these 2 influential and charismatic assholes, even Pope turns against him...
> 
> He has all the reasons to be pissed, imo.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the guy who did the story you are talking about also said it kinda sounded like mikey was jealous of leo.....leo was 23 years older than mikey and had a lot more accomplishments,leo was a polymath who not only did great paintings but also invented things and was into architecture,science,music,mathmatics,engineering,literature,anatomy,geology,astronomy,botany,history and cartography.....he has been called the father of paleontology,ichnology and architecture.....i can see why mickey was a tad jealous....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The vice versa is also possible; Davinci is older than Michelangelo, and everybody talking about what a great artist this new young Michelangelo is. He has no charisma, he barely showers, he is antisocial, but does amazing sculpting and painting, better than the invincible and accomplished Davinci...
> 
> Pretty common among celebrities...
Click to expand...

you are also basing this thread on something that probably never happened......


----------



## skye

Some experts say that Leonardo is the real face in the shroud of Turin....interesting

Was Turin Shroud faked by Leonardo da Vinci?


----------



## westwall

alpine said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alpine said:
> 
> 
> 
> Michelangelo is the traditionalist and conservative of his time,
> While Da Vinci is the progressive and liberal...
> 
> Politics
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hmmmm there was nothing 'conservative' or 'traditionalist' about Michelangelo.
> 
> Or Da Vinci- or Rafael- they were all 'radicals' of the day- the Renaissance was a radical movement.
> 
> Frankly I find this insistence that they be judged- or that one was a 'dick' (both were rather famous for their ill-temper) kind of misses the point.
> 
> Michelangelo was an extraordinary artist- and his works are breathtaking.
> Leonardo was also an extraordinary artist- who greatly influenced art- especially painting, but even more so than Michelangelo embodies the ideal of a 'renaissance man'- he was a painter, and sculptor, inventor, architect, engineer.
> 
> That the two of them and Raphael lived and worked in Florence at the same time shows where the focus of the renaissance was at that point of time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It seems to me, both Davinci and Rafael were looking down to Michelangelo, because he was a troubled antisocial person, which makes him a more profound artist, rather than an experimenter, which is what Davinci was more or less.
> 
> Again it seems to me the argument was between the new school humanism, where humans being in the center of the universe vs old school traditional thinking where the gods and angels being in the center... Michelangelo being a part of the later, as opposed to the other 2 artists...
> 
> And when you are thinking you are the center of the universe, then inevitably, you become more of an arrogant selfish dick...
Click to expand...















This is an incredibly silly assertion.  Michelangelo was probably high functioning Aspergers.  That in no way makes his work "more profound"  hat is simply ridiculous.


----------



## westwall

alpine said:


> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alpine said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alpine said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's hardly authentic. In the first place, daVinci was lefthanded.
> That's hardly authentic. In the first place, daVinci was lefthanded.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That doesn't prevent him from being a dick, does it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> im sure angelo was a dick also....i saw it in a film about him....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> But Michelangelo have a reason to be a dick;
> Da vinci talking behind his back, discrediting his art and work...
> Rafael on the other hand turning people against him and getting him fired...
> Following these 2 influential and charismatic assholes, even Pope turns against him...
> 
> He has all the reasons to be pissed, imo.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the guy who did the story you are talking about also said it kinda sounded like mikey was jealous of leo.....leo was 23 years older than mikey and had a lot more accomplishments,leo was a polymath who not only did great paintings but also invented things and was into architecture,science,music,mathmatics,engineering,literature,anatomy,geology,astronomy,botany,history and cartography.....he has been called the father of paleontology,ichnology and architecture.....i can see why mickey was a tad jealous....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The vice versa is also possible; Davinci is older than Michelangelo, and everybody talking about what a great artist this new young Michelangelo is. He has no charisma, he barely showers, he is antisocial, but does amazing sculpting and painting, better than the invincible and accomplished Davinci...
> 
> Pretty common among celebrities...
Click to expand...









I don't think that Da Vinci ever considered himself invincible.  I think you are merely trolling now.  That or you are a serious Michelangelo groupie striving for discord for your own personal need.


----------



## Harry Dresden

westwall said:


> alpine said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alpine said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alpine said:
> 
> 
> 
> That doesn't prevent him from being a dick, does it?
> 
> 
> 
> im sure angelo was a dick also....i saw it in a film about him....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> But Michelangelo have a reason to be a dick;
> Da vinci talking behind his back, discrediting his art and work...
> Rafael on the other hand turning people against him and getting him fired...
> Following these 2 influential and charismatic assholes, even Pope turns against him...
> 
> He has all the reasons to be pissed, imo.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the guy who did the story you are talking about also said it kinda sounded like mikey was jealous of leo.....leo was 23 years older than mikey and had a lot more accomplishments,leo was a polymath who not only did great paintings but also invented things and was into architecture,science,music,mathmatics,engineering,literature,anatomy,geology,astronomy,botany,history and cartography.....he has been called the father of paleontology,ichnology and architecture.....i can see why mickey was a tad jealous....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The vice versa is also possible; Davinci is older than Michelangelo, and everybody talking about what a great artist this new young Michelangelo is. He has no charisma, he barely showers, he is antisocial, but does amazing sculpting and painting, better than the invincible and accomplished Davinci...
> 
> Pretty common among celebrities...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think that Da Vinci ever considered himself invincible.  I think you are merely trolling now.  That or you are a serious Michelangelo groupie striving for discord for your own personal need.
Click to expand...

also Michelangelo, according to what i read about his personal life, was a recluse and it said he had very little to do, if any, with Leonardo or Raphael even though they lived in the same era....


----------



## froggy

skye said:


> Both were geniuses.
> 
> Amazing both in their own way!


"Genius is eternal patients"


----------



## westwall

Harry Dresden said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alpine said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alpine said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> 
> im sure angelo was a dick also....i saw it in a film about him....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But Michelangelo have a reason to be a dick;
> Da vinci talking behind his back, discrediting his art and work...
> Rafael on the other hand turning people against him and getting him fired...
> Following these 2 influential and charismatic assholes, even Pope turns against him...
> 
> He has all the reasons to be pissed, imo.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the guy who did the story you are talking about also said it kinda sounded like mikey was jealous of leo.....leo was 23 years older than mikey and had a lot more accomplishments,leo was a polymath who not only did great paintings but also invented things and was into architecture,science,music,mathmatics,engineering,literature,anatomy,geology,astronomy,botany,history and cartography.....he has been called the father of paleontology,ichnology and architecture.....i can see why mickey was a tad jealous....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The vice versa is also possible; Davinci is older than Michelangelo, and everybody talking about what a great artist this new young Michelangelo is. He has no charisma, he barely showers, he is antisocial, but does amazing sculpting and painting, better than the invincible and accomplished Davinci...
> 
> Pretty common among celebrities...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think that Da Vinci ever considered himself invincible.  I think you are merely trolling now.  That or you are a serious Michelangelo groupie striving for discord for your own personal need.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> also Michelangelo, according to what i read about his personal life, was a recluse and it said he had very little to do, if any, with Leonardo or Raphael even though they lived in the same era....
Click to expand...









Yep.  Geniuses are like that.


----------



## alpine

westwall said:


> alpine said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alpine said:
> 
> 
> 
> Michelangelo is the traditionalist and conservative of his time,
> While Da Vinci is the progressive and liberal...
> 
> Politics
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hmmmm there was nothing 'conservative' or 'traditionalist' about Michelangelo.
> 
> Or Da Vinci- or Rafael- they were all 'radicals' of the day- the Renaissance was a radical movement.
> 
> Frankly I find this insistence that they be judged- or that one was a 'dick' (both were rather famous for their ill-temper) kind of misses the point.
> 
> Michelangelo was an extraordinary artist- and his works are breathtaking.
> Leonardo was also an extraordinary artist- who greatly influenced art- especially painting, but even more so than Michelangelo embodies the ideal of a 'renaissance man'- he was a painter, and sculptor, inventor, architect, engineer.
> 
> That the two of them and Raphael lived and worked in Florence at the same time shows where the focus of the renaissance was at that point of time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It seems to me, both Davinci and Rafael were looking down to Michelangelo, because he was a troubled antisocial person, which makes him a more profound artist, rather than an experimenter, which is what Davinci was more or less.
> 
> Again it seems to me the argument was between the new school humanism, where humans being in the center of the universe vs old school traditional thinking where the gods and angels being in the center... Michelangelo being a part of the later, as opposed to the other 2 artists...
> 
> And when you are thinking you are the center of the universe, then inevitably, you become more of an arrogant selfish dick...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is an incredibly silly assertion.  Michelangelo was probably high functioning Aspergers.  That in no way makes his work "more profound"  hat is simply ridiculous.
Click to expand...



You may think so, but if you look at the general characteristics of the great artists, they are "troubled" one way or another. That's what gives them the edge. 

What makes them troubled, is because they are not accepted. No matter how good and talented they are, general population has no way of telling that. They are mostly being rejected by a society that are unaware of their talents. And once that happens, they have a story to tell at that point, which makes them more "profound", because their work has a substance...

There are plenty of examples to that. Can find some here;

The dark side of creativity - CNN.com

First rule of being an "extraordinary" artist is being "extraordinary"... People having happy peaceful lives usually don't turn out to be such...


----------



## alpine

westwall said:


> alpine said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alpine said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alpine said:
> 
> 
> 
> That doesn't prevent him from being a dick, does it?
> 
> 
> 
> im sure angelo was a dick also....i saw it in a film about him....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> But Michelangelo have a reason to be a dick;
> Da vinci talking behind his back, discrediting his art and work...
> Rafael on the other hand turning people against him and getting him fired...
> Following these 2 influential and charismatic assholes, even Pope turns against him...
> 
> He has all the reasons to be pissed, imo.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the guy who did the story you are talking about also said it kinda sounded like mikey was jealous of leo.....leo was 23 years older than mikey and had a lot more accomplishments,leo was a polymath who not only did great paintings but also invented things and was into architecture,science,music,mathmatics,engineering,literature,anatomy,geology,astronomy,botany,history and cartography.....he has been called the father of paleontology,ichnology and architecture.....i can see why mickey was a tad jealous....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The vice versa is also possible; Davinci is older than Michelangelo, and everybody talking about what a great artist this new young Michelangelo is. He has no charisma, he barely showers, he is antisocial, but does amazing sculpting and painting, better than the invincible and accomplished Davinci...
> 
> Pretty common among celebrities...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think that Da Vinci ever considered himself invincible.  I think you are merely trolling now.  That or you are a serious Michelangelo groupie striving for discord for your own personal need.
Click to expand...



How do you know? 

Any man, with such accomplishments, would see himself invincible, regardless...

Yes, trolling an "art" topic...


----------



## froggy

skye said:


> Some experts say that Leonardo is the real face in the shroud of Turin....interesting
> 
> Was Turin Shroud faked by Leonardo da Vinci?



They do resemble


----------



## skye

froggy said:


> skye said:
> 
> 
> 
> Some experts say that Leonardo is the real face in the shroud of Turin....interesting
> 
> Was Turin Shroud faked by Leonardo da Vinci?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They do resemble
Click to expand...


yes, I agree, they do


----------



## jillian

alpine said:


> Personally I find Da Vinci being a dick here. Insulting Michelangelo like he did, was uncalled for. Shows his level...



you do understand that what you posted is fiction, right?


----------



## froggy

jillian said:


> alpine said:
> 
> 
> 
> Personally I find Da Vinci being a dick here. Insulting Michelangelo like he did, was uncalled for. Shows his level...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you do understand that what you posted is fiction, right?
Click to expand...

More input Jill.lol


----------



## alpine

jillian said:


> alpine said:
> 
> 
> 
> Personally I find Da Vinci being a dick here. Insulting Michelangelo like he did, was uncalled for. Shows his level...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you do understand that what you posted is fiction, right?
Click to expand...


No it is not. We have been through this before. 

These people are the celebrities of their time. There are records of these events. Maybe not 100% accurate at times, but pretty much gives us the general idea what was going on.

"Gossip" predates "writing", you know that...


----------



## jillian

froggy said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alpine said:
> 
> 
> 
> Personally I find Da Vinci being a dick here. Insulting Michelangelo like he did, was uncalled for. Shows his level...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you do understand that what you posted is fiction, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> More input Jill.lol
Click to expand...


what was there to give "input" to, dear? something that was fiction but the o/p is too vapid to understand that?

nah.


----------



## jillian

alpine said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alpine said:
> 
> 
> 
> Personally I find Da Vinci being a dick here. Insulting Michelangelo like he did, was uncalled for. Shows his level...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you do understand that what you posted is fiction, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No it is not. We have been through this before.
> 
> These people are the celebrities of their time. There are records of these events. Maybe not 100% accurate at times, but pretty much gives us the general idea what was going on.
> 
> "Gossip" predates "writing", you know that...
Click to expand...


which has zero to do with what you posted.

sorry. i don't legitimate stupidity


----------



## alpine

jillian said:


> froggy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alpine said:
> 
> 
> 
> Personally I find Da Vinci being a dick here. Insulting Michelangelo like he did, was uncalled for. Shows his level...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you do understand that what you posted is fiction, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> More input Jill.lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> what was there to give "input" to, dear? something that was fiction but the o/p is too vapid to understand that?
> 
> nah.
Click to expand...


So you are asking for "source"?


----------



## froggy

jillian said:


> froggy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alpine said:
> 
> 
> 
> Personally I find Da Vinci being a dick here. Insulting Michelangelo like he did, was uncalled for. Shows his level...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you do understand that what you posted is fiction, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> More input Jill.lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> what was there to give "input" to, dear? something that was fiction but the o/p is too vapid to understand that?
> 
> nah.
Click to expand...




jillian said:


> froggy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alpine said:
> 
> 
> 
> Personally I find Da Vinci being a dick here. Insulting Michelangelo like he did, was uncalled for. Shows his level...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you do understand that what you posted is fiction, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> More input Jill.lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> what was there to give "input" to, dear? something that was fiction but the o/p is too vapid to understand that?
> 
> nah.
Click to expand...




jillian said:


> froggy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alpine said:
> 
> 
> 
> Personally I find Da Vinci being a dick here. Insulting Michelangelo like he did, was uncalled for. Shows his level...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you do understand that what you posted is fiction, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> More input Jill.lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> what was there to give "input" to, dear? something that was fiction but the o/p is too vapid to understand that?
> 
> nah.
Click to expand...

OOPS!


----------



## alpine

jillian said:


> alpine said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alpine said:
> 
> 
> 
> Personally I find Da Vinci being a dick here. Insulting Michelangelo like he did, was uncalled for. Shows his level...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you do understand that what you posted is fiction, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No it is not. We have been through this before.
> 
> These people are the celebrities of their time. There are records of these events. Maybe not 100% accurate at times, but pretty much gives us the general idea what was going on.
> 
> "Gossip" predates "writing", you know that...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> which has zero to do with what you posted.
> 
> sorry. i don't legitimate stupidity
Click to expand...



You calling me a "stupid"?

And so that makes you "smart"?


----------



## skye

stop it children

lol

be good


----------



## Alex.

They were artists who pursued their own  individual artistic drives. It is futile to compare them on any serious level.

"Michelangelo and Leonardo were too different, both as artists and men, to remain on friendly terms long. Leonardo was handsome, urbane, eloquent and dandyishly well dressed. In contrast, Michelangelo was neurotically secretive; he had a badly broken nose and extremely sharp tongue. Leonardo was by no means the only older fellow artist he insulted. According to Vasari, Michelangelo called Perugino a "fool in art" to his face (the older painter tried to take legal action for defamation but was laughed out of court)."

Was Michelangelo a better artist than Leonardo da Vinci?


----------



## froggy

skye said:


> stop it children
> 
> lol
> 
> be good


I've had a few rounds with Jillian here. Way back when. Lol


----------



## alpine

Alex. said:


> They were artists who pursued their own  individual artistic drives. It is futile to compare them on any serious level.
> 
> "Michelangelo and Leonardo were too different, both as artists and men, to remain on friendly terms long. Leonardo was handsome, urbane, eloquent and dandyishly well dressed. In contrast, Michelangelo was neurotically secretive; he had a badly broken nose and extremely sharp tongue. Leonardo was by no means the only older fellow artist he insulted. According to Vasari, Michelangelo called Perugino a "fool in art" to his face (the older painter tried to take legal action for defamation but was laughed out of court)."
> 
> Was Michelangelo a better artist than Leonardo da Vinci?



Let me explain in more details;

The people were discussing Dante's Inferno, about the passage that describes the level of hell reserved for *homosexuals*. 

They called Leonardo over and asked him to explain the passage they were puzzling over, but just at that moment Michelangelo happened to come along. Leonardo asked Michelangelo to explain it, a slur against Michelangelo's *homosexuality*. 

Michelangelo replied, "Why don't YOU explain it?  And while you're at it, explain to the Duke of Milan why you wasted a decade trying to build him an impossible horse?"




As like this was not enough; the duke of the "orgies", Rafael, was making fun of Michelangelo on every opportunity. He even painted Michelangelo in "The School of Athens" as staring at his own wiener, just to make fun of him and his homosexuality!



I hope this makes things much more *clear* for everyone...


----------



## Alex.

alpine said:


> Alex. said:
> 
> 
> 
> They were artists who pursued their own  individual artistic drives. It is futile to compare them on any serious level.
> 
> "Michelangelo and Leonardo were too different, both as artists and men, to remain on friendly terms long. Leonardo was handsome, urbane, eloquent and dandyishly well dressed. In contrast, Michelangelo was neurotically secretive; he had a badly broken nose and extremely sharp tongue. Leonardo was by no means the only older fellow artist he insulted. According to Vasari, Michelangelo called Perugino a "fool in art" to his face (the older painter tried to take legal action for defamation but was laughed out of court)."
> 
> Was Michelangelo a better artist than Leonardo da Vinci?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let me explain in more details;
> 
> The people were discussing Dante's Inferno, about the passage that describes the level of hell reserved for *homosexuals*.
> 
> They called Leonardo over and asked him to explain the passage they were puzzling over, but just at that moment Michelangelo happened to come along. Leonardo asked Michelangelo to explain it, a slur against Michelangelo's *homosexuality*.
> 
> Michelangelo replied, "Why don't YOU explain it?  And while you're at it, explain to the Duke of Milan why you wasted a decade trying to build him an impossible horse?"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As like this was not enough; the duke of the "orgies", Rafael, was making fun of Michelangelo on every opportunity. He even painted Michelangelo in "The School of Athens" as staring at his own wiener, just to make fun of him and his homosexuality!
> 
> 
> 
> I hope this makes things much more *clear* for everyone...
Click to expand...

What you just described is the same kind of nonsense that goes on at any internet messageboard and does not speak to the brilliance, talent and innate qualities each artist possesses. It does not matter who they were having sex with and whether they were homosexual.


----------



## alpine

Alex. said:


> alpine said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Alex. said:
> 
> 
> 
> They were artists who pursued their own  individual artistic drives. It is futile to compare them on any serious level.
> 
> "Michelangelo and Leonardo were too different, both as artists and men, to remain on friendly terms long. Leonardo was handsome, urbane, eloquent and dandyishly well dressed. In contrast, Michelangelo was neurotically secretive; he had a badly broken nose and extremely sharp tongue. Leonardo was by no means the only older fellow artist he insulted. According to Vasari, Michelangelo called Perugino a "fool in art" to his face (the older painter tried to take legal action for defamation but was laughed out of court)."
> 
> Was Michelangelo a better artist than Leonardo da Vinci?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let me explain in more details;
> 
> The people were discussing Dante's Inferno, about the passage that describes the level of hell reserved for *homosexuals*.
> 
> They called Leonardo over and asked him to explain the passage they were puzzling over, but just at that moment Michelangelo happened to come along. Leonardo asked Michelangelo to explain it, a slur against Michelangelo's *homosexuality*.
> 
> Michelangelo replied, "Why don't YOU explain it?  And while you're at it, explain to the Duke of Milan why you wasted a decade trying to build him an impossible horse?"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As like this was not enough; the duke of the "orgies", Rafael, was making fun of Michelangelo on every opportunity. He even painted Michelangelo in "The School of Athens" as staring at his own wiener, just to make fun of him and his homosexuality!
> 
> 
> 
> I hope this makes things much more *clear* for everyone...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What you just described is the same kind of nonsense that goes on at any internet messageboard and does not speak to the brilliance, talent and innate qualities each artist possesses. It does not matter who they were having sex with and whether they were homosexual.
Click to expand...



I agree, sexuality is nobodys business.

So I don't find it amusing when Davinci and Rafael bullying Michelangelo because of his sexuality...

But, on the other hand, being so, they probably contributed to his great art, that surpassed the bullies in every aspect...

And probably by seeing this, Michelangelo was the least of the humanists between the 3, seeing what a real human is capable of...


----------



## Alex.

alpine said:


> Alex. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alpine said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Alex. said:
> 
> 
> 
> They were artists who pursued their own  individual artistic drives. It is futile to compare them on any serious level.
> 
> "Michelangelo and Leonardo were too different, both as artists and men, to remain on friendly terms long. Leonardo was handsome, urbane, eloquent and dandyishly well dressed. In contrast, Michelangelo was neurotically secretive; he had a badly broken nose and extremely sharp tongue. Leonardo was by no means the only older fellow artist he insulted. According to Vasari, Michelangelo called Perugino a "fool in art" to his face (the older painter tried to take legal action for defamation but was laughed out of court)."
> 
> Was Michelangelo a better artist than Leonardo da Vinci?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let me explain in more details;
> 
> The people were discussing Dante's Inferno, about the passage that describes the level of hell reserved for *homosexuals*.
> 
> They called Leonardo over and asked him to explain the passage they were puzzling over, but just at that moment Michelangelo happened to come along. Leonardo asked Michelangelo to explain it, a slur against Michelangelo's *homosexuality*.
> 
> Michelangelo replied, "Why don't YOU explain it?  And while you're at it, explain to the Duke of Milan why you wasted a decade trying to build him an impossible horse?"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As like this was not enough; the duke of the "orgies", Rafael, was making fun of Michelangelo on every opportunity. He even painted Michelangelo in "The School of Athens" as staring at his own wiener, just to make fun of him and his homosexuality!
> 
> 
> 
> I hope this makes things much more *clear* for everyone...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What you just described is the same kind of nonsense that goes on at any internet messageboard and does not speak to the brilliance, talent and innate qualities each artist possesses. It does not matter who they were having sex with and whether they were homosexual.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I agree, sexuality is nobodys business.
> 
> So I don't find it amusing when Davinci and Rafael bullying Michelangelo because of his sexuality...
> 
> But, on the other hand, being so, they probably contributed to his great art, that surpassed the bullies in every aspect...
> 
> And probably by seeing this, Michelangelo was the least of the humanists between the 3, seeing what a real human is capable of...
Click to expand...

Perhaps but that is too far reaching to be a determinative factor. Pissed him off sure but to change his focus in art?


----------



## alpine

Alex. said:


> alpine said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Alex. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alpine said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Alex. said:
> 
> 
> 
> They were artists who pursued their own  individual artistic drives. It is futile to compare them on any serious level.
> 
> "Michelangelo and Leonardo were too different, both as artists and men, to remain on friendly terms long. Leonardo was handsome, urbane, eloquent and dandyishly well dressed. In contrast, Michelangelo was neurotically secretive; he had a badly broken nose and extremely sharp tongue. Leonardo was by no means the only older fellow artist he insulted. According to Vasari, Michelangelo called Perugino a "fool in art" to his face (the older painter tried to take legal action for defamation but was laughed out of court)."
> 
> Was Michelangelo a better artist than Leonardo da Vinci?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let me explain in more details;
> 
> The people were discussing Dante's Inferno, about the passage that describes the level of hell reserved for *homosexuals*.
> 
> They called Leonardo over and asked him to explain the passage they were puzzling over, but just at that moment Michelangelo happened to come along. Leonardo asked Michelangelo to explain it, a slur against Michelangelo's *homosexuality*.
> 
> Michelangelo replied, "Why don't YOU explain it?  And while you're at it, explain to the Duke of Milan why you wasted a decade trying to build him an impossible horse?"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As like this was not enough; the duke of the "orgies", Rafael, was making fun of Michelangelo on every opportunity. He even painted Michelangelo in "The School of Athens" as staring at his own wiener, just to make fun of him and his homosexuality!
> 
> 
> 
> I hope this makes things much more *clear* for everyone...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What you just described is the same kind of nonsense that goes on at any internet messageboard and does not speak to the brilliance, talent and innate qualities each artist possesses. It does not matter who they were having sex with and whether they were homosexual.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I agree, sexuality is nobodys business.
> 
> So I don't find it amusing when Davinci and Rafael bullying Michelangelo because of his sexuality...
> 
> But, on the other hand, being so, they probably contributed to his great art, that surpassed the bullies in every aspect...
> 
> And probably by seeing this, Michelangelo was the least of the humanists between the 3, seeing what a real human is capable of...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Perhaps but that is too far reaching to be a determinative factor. Pissed him off sure but to change his focus in art?
Click to expand...


Did not change focus for sure, but didn't add any substance to it?


----------



## jillian

froggy said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> froggy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alpine said:
> 
> 
> 
> Personally I find Da Vinci being a dick here. Insulting Michelangelo like he did, was uncalled for. Shows his level...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you do understand that what you posted is fiction, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> More input Jill.lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> what was there to give "input" to, dear? something that was fiction but the o/p is too vapid to understand that?
> 
> nah.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> froggy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alpine said:
> 
> 
> 
> Personally I find Da Vinci being a dick here. Insulting Michelangelo like he did, was uncalled for. Shows his level...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you do understand that what you posted is fiction, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> More input Jill.lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> what was there to give "input" to, dear? something that was fiction but the o/p is too vapid to understand that?
> 
> nah.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> froggy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alpine said:
> 
> 
> 
> Personally I find Da Vinci being a dick here. Insulting Michelangelo like he did, was uncalled for. Shows his level...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you do understand that what you posted is fiction, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> More input Jill.lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> what was there to give "input" to, dear? something that was fiction but the o/p is too vapid to understand that?
> 
> nah.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> OOPS!
Click to expand...


----------



## Syriusly

westwall said:


> alpine said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alpine said:
> 
> 
> 
> Michelangelo is the traditionalist and conservative of his time,
> While Da Vinci is the progressive and liberal...
> 
> Politics
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hmmmm there was nothing 'conservative' or 'traditionalist' about Michelangelo.
> 
> Or Da Vinci- or Rafael- they were all 'radicals' of the day- the Renaissance was a radical movement.
> 
> Frankly I find this insistence that they be judged- or that one was a 'dick' (both were rather famous for their ill-temper) kind of misses the point.
> 
> Michelangelo was an extraordinary artist- and his works are breathtaking.
> Leonardo was also an extraordinary artist- who greatly influenced art- especially painting, but even more so than Michelangelo embodies the ideal of a 'renaissance man'- he was a painter, and sculptor, inventor, architect, engineer.
> 
> That the two of them and Raphael lived and worked in Florence at the same time shows where the focus of the renaissance was at that point of time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It seems to me, both Davinci and Rafael were looking down to Michelangelo, because he was a troubled antisocial person, which makes him a more profound artist, rather than an experimenter, which is what Davinci was more or less.
> 
> Again it seems to me the argument was between the new school humanism, where humans being in the center of the universe vs old school traditional thinking where the gods and angels being in the center... Michelangelo being a part of the later, as opposed to the other 2 artists...
> 
> And when you are thinking you are the center of the universe, then inevitably, you become more of an arrogant selfish dick...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is an incredibly silly assertion.  Michelangelo was probably high functioning Aspergers.  That in no way makes his work "more profound"  hat is simply ridiculous.
Click to expand...


I am curious what makes you think that?

While I am not that well read on Aspergers, the poetry Michelangelo wrote doesn't seem to fit what I know.

Anyway- while I find it interesting to hear anyone's explanation on why they prefer one artist over another, I think the obvious answer is that both Michelangelo and Da Vinci and Raphael were all immensely talented, in somewhat different ways- and I enjoy appreciating their art today.


----------



## Syriusly

alpine said:


> Alex. said:
> 
> 
> 
> They were artists who pursued their own  individual artistic drives. It is futile to compare them on any serious level.
> 
> "Michelangelo and Leonardo were too different, both as artists and men, to remain on friendly terms long. Leonardo was handsome, urbane, eloquent and dandyishly well dressed. In contrast, Michelangelo was neurotically secretive; he had a badly broken nose and extremely sharp tongue. Leonardo was by no means the only older fellow artist he insulted. According to Vasari, Michelangelo called Perugino a "fool in art" to his face (the older painter tried to take legal action for defamation but was laughed out of court)."
> 
> Was Michelangelo a better artist than Leonardo da Vinci?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let me explain in more details;
> 
> The people were discussing Dante's Inferno, about the passage that describes the level of hell reserved for *homosexuals*.
> 
> They called Leonardo over and asked him to explain the passage they were puzzling over, but just at that moment Michelangelo happened to come along. Leonardo asked Michelangelo to explain it, a slur against Michelangelo's *homosexuality*.
> 
> Michelangelo replied, "Why don't YOU explain it?  And while you're at it, explain to the Duke of Milan why you wasted a decade trying to build him an impossible horse?"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As like this was not enough; the duke of the "orgies", Rafael, was making fun of Michelangelo on every opportunity. He even painted Michelangelo in "The School of Athens" as staring at his own wiener, just to make fun of him and his homosexuality!
> 
> 
> 
> I hope this makes things much more *clear* for everyone...
Click to expand...


I think your obsession with Michelangelo is clear for everyone.

You think this is Michelangelo looking at his own 'weiner'?






Michelangelo's figure is front and foremost in the painting- if Raphael really wanted to 'humiliate' Michelangelo- he could have left him out of a painting of the great minds of the ages....but he didnt. 

_Among the Greek titans, a melancholy figure sits at a desk in the foreground of the image. By placing the distraught Michelangelo front and (slightly) center, as he awaits divine inspiration, Raphael again asserts to the viewer that the artist, does in fact, belong with the philosopher. In a similar, and perhaps more vital fashion, Raphael places a nondescript Renaissance man to the far right of the painting, gazing knowingly at the viewer from behind a group of scientists. Along with Michelangelo, Raphael, too, pictures himself among these titans of thought. Thus, the philosophical art of the Renaissance was born._

The Italian Renaissance | Faith, Imagined


----------



## Syriusly

alpine said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alpine said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alpine said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did you notice the word "*or*"?  Did you notice how it was _italicized_?  The whole point is that it's _*not*_ necessarily addressing an inferior.  We would presume these two are of equal social standing, therefore "equal".  And that invites _tu_, unless one chooses to be formal.  But the mere presence of _tu_ does not necessarily equate to "insult".  It isn't that simple.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Michelangelo don't refer back to him with "tu" however. And you know why; because he still respects him, up until this point of course.
> 
> But Da Vinci  on the other hand; has no respect for Michelangelo, he thinks his art is inferior, his ideas are inferior, therefore, himself is inferior.
> 
> I don't find Da Vinci's characteristics appealing.
> And his sculpting is horrible, and painting is inferior, compared to Michelangelo, imo...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, these are actors, and this is television. Or whatever it is, which means what we're seeing is not Michaelangelo and daVinci, but some scriptwriter's/director's depiction sculpted for TV.  And that all by itself makes it dishonest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And they are not making this up. The dislike between these 2 artists are well known.
> 
> Michelangelo and Rafael was not getting along well either. Especially after Rafael's affair with the Pope and getting Michelangelo fired...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We've established that there were no video cameras --- were there eyewitnesses who journaled down every word?  Dooon't think so.  For the fourth time, what we're seeing is some TV director's idea of what makes for a good scene on television.
> 
> When I suggested daVinci hadn't invented video I was being facetious.  It was sarcasm to point out that a scene we might watch on TV bears no relation to the world of reality.  Ever.  If you're actually suggesting that we can catch a glimpse of a historical event from the boob tube, then clearly I'm not the one who is "insane".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You are answering your own questions.
> That's not gonna help you on the long rung, of course if you are looking to learn things that you don't have the knowledge of.
> 
> Anonimo Magliabechiano - Dictionary of Art Historians
> 
> "Anonymous author of a now fragmental history, likely written after 1541.  *The extent portion includes biographies of Florentine artists between the late 13th century and the 16th.*  The manuscript was discovered in 1755 in the Magliabechiano manuscript collection but only brought to the attention of scholars in 1892 by Karl Frey. Most recently the scholar Bouk Wierda has argued that the identity of the Florentine humanist and art connoisseur Anonimo is Bernardo Vecchietti (1514-1590)."
> 
> So, to answer your question; "were there eyewitnesses who journaled down every word?"
> Yes, apparently there were...
Click to expand...


Does your story come from Anonimo Magliabechiano?


----------



## Syriusly

alpine said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alpine said:
> 
> 
> 
> Personally I find Da Vinci being a dick here. Insulting Michelangelo like he did, was uncalled for. Shows his level...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you do understand that what you posted is fiction, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No it is not. We have been through this before.
> 
> These people are the celebrities of their time. There are records of these events. Maybe not 100% accurate at times, but pretty much gives us the general idea what was going on.
> 
> "Gossip" predates "writing", you know that...
Click to expand...


What is the source of your story?


----------



## alpine

Syriusly said:


> alpine said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Alex. said:
> 
> 
> 
> They were artists who pursued their own  individual artistic drives. It is futile to compare them on any serious level.
> 
> "Michelangelo and Leonardo were too different, both as artists and men, to remain on friendly terms long. Leonardo was handsome, urbane, eloquent and dandyishly well dressed. In contrast, Michelangelo was neurotically secretive; he had a badly broken nose and extremely sharp tongue. Leonardo was by no means the only older fellow artist he insulted. According to Vasari, Michelangelo called Perugino a "fool in art" to his face (the older painter tried to take legal action for defamation but was laughed out of court)."
> 
> Was Michelangelo a better artist than Leonardo da Vinci?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let me explain in more details;
> 
> The people were discussing Dante's Inferno, about the passage that describes the level of hell reserved for *homosexuals*.
> 
> They called Leonardo over and asked him to explain the passage they were puzzling over, but just at that moment Michelangelo happened to come along. Leonardo asked Michelangelo to explain it, a slur against Michelangelo's *homosexuality*.
> 
> Michelangelo replied, "Why don't YOU explain it?  And while you're at it, explain to the Duke of Milan why you wasted a decade trying to build him an impossible horse?"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As like this was not enough; the duke of the "orgies", Rafael, was making fun of Michelangelo on every opportunity. He even painted Michelangelo in "The School of Athens" as staring at his own wiener, just to make fun of him and his homosexuality!
> 
> 
> 
> I hope this makes things much more *clear* for everyone...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think your obsession with Michelangelo is clear for everyone.
> 
> You think this is Michelangelo looking at his own 'weiner'?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Michelangelo's figure is front and foremost in the painting- if Raphael really wanted to 'humiliate' Michelangelo- he could have left him out of a painting of the great minds of the ages....but he didnt.
> 
> _Among the Greek titans, a melancholy figure sits at a desk in the foreground of the image. By placing the distraught Michelangelo front and (slightly) center, as he awaits divine inspiration, Raphael again asserts to the viewer that the artist, does in fact, belong with the philosopher. In a similar, and perhaps more vital fashion, Raphael places a nondescript Renaissance man to the far right of the painting, gazing knowingly at the viewer from behind a group of scientists. Along with Michelangelo, Raphael, too, pictures himself among these titans of thought. Thus, the philosophical art of the Renaissance was born._
> 
> The Italian Renaissance | Faith, Imagined
Click to expand...



Did you know that he was NOT a part of the original painting?

While he depicted Da Vinci as Plato, one of the most well known famous and accomplished philosophers of all time, he decided to include Michelangelo as Heraclitus, a philosopher nick named as "The Obscure", as an add on project, sitting in the middle by himself, staring at his wiener...

And he did this because,.... he had respect for Michelangelo?

Of course not. Rafael hated Michelangelo. He even got him fired, using his "special" ties with the Pope of the time.

Come on people, just stop thinking these people like gods or angels for a second, and think about them just like ordinary humans. Their talent and genius dont make their basic human instincts and behaviors disappear. What is happening to nowadays celebrities with immense talent and genius, happened to these individuals hundreds of years ago.


----------



## alpine

Syriusly said:


> alpine said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alpine said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alpine said:
> 
> 
> 
> Michelangelo don't refer back to him with "tu" however. And you know why; because he still respects him, up until this point of course.
> 
> But Da Vinci  on the other hand; has no respect for Michelangelo, he thinks his art is inferior, his ideas are inferior, therefore, himself is inferior.
> 
> I don't find Da Vinci's characteristics appealing.
> And his sculpting is horrible, and painting is inferior, compared to Michelangelo, imo...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, these are actors, and this is television. Or whatever it is, which means what we're seeing is not Michaelangelo and daVinci, but some scriptwriter's/director's depiction sculpted for TV.  And that all by itself makes it dishonest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And they are not making this up. The dislike between these 2 artists are well known.
> 
> Michelangelo and Rafael was not getting along well either. Especially after Rafael's affair with the Pope and getting Michelangelo fired...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We've established that there were no video cameras --- were there eyewitnesses who journaled down every word?  Dooon't think so.  For the fourth time, what we're seeing is some TV director's idea of what makes for a good scene on television.
> 
> When I suggested daVinci hadn't invented video I was being facetious.  It was sarcasm to point out that a scene we might watch on TV bears no relation to the world of reality.  Ever.  If you're actually suggesting that we can catch a glimpse of a historical event from the boob tube, then clearly I'm not the one who is "insane".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You are answering your own questions.
> That's not gonna help you on the long rung, of course if you are looking to learn things that you don't have the knowledge of.
> 
> Anonimo Magliabechiano - Dictionary of Art Historians
> 
> "Anonymous author of a now fragmental history, likely written after 1541.  *The extent portion includes biographies of Florentine artists between the late 13th century and the 16th.*  The manuscript was discovered in 1755 in the Magliabechiano manuscript collection but only brought to the attention of scholars in 1892 by Karl Frey. Most recently the scholar Bouk Wierda has argued that the identity of the Florentine humanist and art connoisseur Anonimo is Bernardo Vecchietti (1514-1590)."
> 
> So, to answer your question; "were there eyewitnesses who journaled down every word?"
> Yes, apparently there were...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Does your story come from Anonimo Magliabechiano?
Click to expand...



Correct, these stories are all over the place, but the main source would be Anonimo Magliabechiano, a gossip magazine of the time, more or less...


----------



## Syriusly

alpine said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alpine said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alpine said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, these are actors, and this is television. Or whatever it is, which means what we're seeing is not Michaelangelo and daVinci, but some scriptwriter's/director's depiction sculpted for TV.  And that all by itself makes it dishonest.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And they are not making this up. The dislike between these 2 artists are well known.
> 
> Michelangelo and Rafael was not getting along well either. Especially after Rafael's affair with the Pope and getting Michelangelo fired...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We've established that there were no video cameras --- were there eyewitnesses who journaled down every word?  Dooon't think so.  For the fourth time, what we're seeing is some TV director's idea of what makes for a good scene on television.
> 
> When I suggested daVinci hadn't invented video I was being facetious.  It was sarcasm to point out that a scene we might watch on TV bears no relation to the world of reality.  Ever.  If you're actually suggesting that we can catch a glimpse of a historical event from the boob tube, then clearly I'm not the one who is "insane".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You are answering your own questions.
> That's not gonna help you on the long rung, of course if you are looking to learn things that you don't have the knowledge of.
> 
> Anonimo Magliabechiano - Dictionary of Art Historians
> 
> "Anonymous author of a now fragmental history, likely written after 1541.  *The extent portion includes biographies of Florentine artists between the late 13th century and the 16th.*  The manuscript was discovered in 1755 in the Magliabechiano manuscript collection but only brought to the attention of scholars in 1892 by Karl Frey. Most recently the scholar Bouk Wierda has argued that the identity of the Florentine humanist and art connoisseur Anonimo is Bernardo Vecchietti (1514-1590)."
> 
> So, to answer your question; "were there eyewitnesses who journaled down every word?"
> Yes, apparently there were...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Does your story come from Anonimo Magliabechiano?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Correct, these stories are all over the place, but the main source would be Anonimo Magliabechiano, a gossip magazine of the time, more or less...
Click to expand...


I couldn't find it in Anonimo Magliabechiano.

Can you provide the link and the page number?


----------



## Syriusly

alpine said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alpine said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Alex. said:
> 
> 
> 
> They were artists who pursued their own  individual artistic drives. It is futile to compare them on any serious level.
> 
> "Michelangelo and Leonardo were too different, both as artists and men, to remain on friendly terms long. Leonardo was handsome, urbane, eloquent and dandyishly well dressed. In contrast, Michelangelo was neurotically secretive; he had a badly broken nose and extremely sharp tongue. Leonardo was by no means the only older fellow artist he insulted. According to Vasari, Michelangelo called Perugino a "fool in art" to his face (the older painter tried to take legal action for defamation but was laughed out of court)."
> 
> Was Michelangelo a better artist than Leonardo da Vinci?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let me explain in more details;
> 
> The people were discussing Dante's Inferno, about the passage that describes the level of hell reserved for *homosexuals*.
> 
> They called Leonardo over and asked him to explain the passage they were puzzling over, but just at that moment Michelangelo happened to come along. Leonardo asked Michelangelo to explain it, a slur against Michelangelo's *homosexuality*.
> 
> Michelangelo replied, "Why don't YOU explain it?  And while you're at it, explain to the Duke of Milan why you wasted a decade trying to build him an impossible horse?"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As like this was not enough; the duke of the "orgies", Rafael, was making fun of Michelangelo on every opportunity. He even painted Michelangelo in "The School of Athens" as staring at his own wiener, just to make fun of him and his homosexuality!
> 
> 
> 
> I hope this makes things much more *clear* for everyone...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think your obsession with Michelangelo is clear for everyone.
> 
> You think this is Michelangelo looking at his own 'weiner'?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Michelangelo's figure is front and foremost in the painting- if Raphael really wanted to 'humiliate' Michelangelo- he could have left him out of a painting of the great minds of the ages....but he didnt.
> 
> _Among the Greek titans, a melancholy figure sits at a desk in the foreground of the image. By placing the distraught Michelangelo front and (slightly) center, as he awaits divine inspiration, Raphael again asserts to the viewer that the artist, does in fact, belong with the philosopher. In a similar, and perhaps more vital fashion, Raphael places a nondescript Renaissance man to the far right of the painting, gazing knowingly at the viewer from behind a group of scientists. Along with Michelangelo, Raphael, too, pictures himself among these titans of thought. Thus, the philosophical art of the Renaissance was born._
> 
> The Italian Renaissance | Faith, Imagined
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Did you know that he was NOT a part of the original painting?
> 
> While he depicted Da Vinci as Plato, one of the most well known famous and accomplished philosophers of all time, he decided to include Michelangelo as Heraclitus, a philosopher nick named as "The Obscure", as an add on project, sitting in the middle by himself, staring at his wiener...
Click to expand...


That you think that this is Michelangelo 'staring at his wiener' really pretty much destroys any possible credibility you might have had.


----------



## alpine

Syriusly said:


> alpine said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alpine said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alpine said:
> 
> 
> 
> And they are not making this up. The dislike between these 2 artists are well known.
> 
> Michelangelo and Rafael was not getting along well either. Especially after Rafael's affair with the Pope and getting Michelangelo fired...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We've established that there were no video cameras --- were there eyewitnesses who journaled down every word?  Dooon't think so.  For the fourth time, what we're seeing is some TV director's idea of what makes for a good scene on television.
> 
> When I suggested daVinci hadn't invented video I was being facetious.  It was sarcasm to point out that a scene we might watch on TV bears no relation to the world of reality.  Ever.  If you're actually suggesting that we can catch a glimpse of a historical event from the boob tube, then clearly I'm not the one who is "insane".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You are answering your own questions.
> That's not gonna help you on the long rung, of course if you are looking to learn things that you don't have the knowledge of.
> 
> Anonimo Magliabechiano - Dictionary of Art Historians
> 
> "Anonymous author of a now fragmental history, likely written after 1541.  *The extent portion includes biographies of Florentine artists between the late 13th century and the 16th.*  The manuscript was discovered in 1755 in the Magliabechiano manuscript collection but only brought to the attention of scholars in 1892 by Karl Frey. Most recently the scholar Bouk Wierda has argued that the identity of the Florentine humanist and art connoisseur Anonimo is Bernardo Vecchietti (1514-1590)."
> 
> So, to answer your question; "were there eyewitnesses who journaled down every word?"
> Yes, apparently there were...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Does your story come from Anonimo Magliabechiano?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Correct, these stories are all over the place, but the main source would be Anonimo Magliabechiano, a gossip magazine of the time, more or less...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I couldn't find it in Anonimo Magliabechiano.
> 
> Can you provide the link and the page number?
Click to expand...



I don't have Anonimo Magliabechiano, I have this book that is referencing to Anonimo Magliabechiano for the source of this story.


Michelangelo


I don't think Anonimo Magliabechiano is like a book you can reference with page numbers or anything like that, it is more like a manuscript, is it not?


----------



## alpine

Syriusly said:


> alpine said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alpine said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Alex. said:
> 
> 
> 
> They were artists who pursued their own  individual artistic drives. It is futile to compare them on any serious level.
> 
> "Michelangelo and Leonardo were too different, both as artists and men, to remain on friendly terms long. Leonardo was handsome, urbane, eloquent and dandyishly well dressed. In contrast, Michelangelo was neurotically secretive; he had a badly broken nose and extremely sharp tongue. Leonardo was by no means the only older fellow artist he insulted. According to Vasari, Michelangelo called Perugino a "fool in art" to his face (the older painter tried to take legal action for defamation but was laughed out of court)."
> 
> Was Michelangelo a better artist than Leonardo da Vinci?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let me explain in more details;
> 
> The people were discussing Dante's Inferno, about the passage that describes the level of hell reserved for *homosexuals*.
> 
> They called Leonardo over and asked him to explain the passage they were puzzling over, but just at that moment Michelangelo happened to come along. Leonardo asked Michelangelo to explain it, a slur against Michelangelo's *homosexuality*.
> 
> Michelangelo replied, "Why don't YOU explain it?  And while you're at it, explain to the Duke of Milan why you wasted a decade trying to build him an impossible horse?"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As like this was not enough; the duke of the "orgies", Rafael, was making fun of Michelangelo on every opportunity. He even painted Michelangelo in "The School of Athens" as staring at his own wiener, just to make fun of him and his homosexuality!
> 
> 
> 
> I hope this makes things much more *clear* for everyone...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think your obsession with Michelangelo is clear for everyone.
> 
> You think this is Michelangelo looking at his own 'weiner'?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Michelangelo's figure is front and foremost in the painting- if Raphael really wanted to 'humiliate' Michelangelo- he could have left him out of a painting of the great minds of the ages....but he didnt.
> 
> _Among the Greek titans, a melancholy figure sits at a desk in the foreground of the image. By placing the distraught Michelangelo front and (slightly) center, as he awaits divine inspiration, Raphael again asserts to the viewer that the artist, does in fact, belong with the philosopher. In a similar, and perhaps more vital fashion, Raphael places a nondescript Renaissance man to the far right of the painting, gazing knowingly at the viewer from behind a group of scientists. Along with Michelangelo, Raphael, too, pictures himself among these titans of thought. Thus, the philosophical art of the Renaissance was born._
> 
> The Italian Renaissance | Faith, Imagined
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Did you know that he was NOT a part of the original painting?
> 
> While he depicted Da Vinci as Plato, one of the most well known famous and accomplished philosophers of all time, he decided to include Michelangelo as Heraclitus, a philosopher nick named as "The Obscure", as an add on project, sitting in the middle by himself, staring at his wiener...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That you think that this is Michelangelo 'staring at his wiener' really pretty much destroys any possible credibility you might have had.
Click to expand...



So who is it?

Why did Rafael add him to this painting after he has it complete?

What is the story?

You tell me....


----------



## Syriusly

alpine said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alpine said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alpine said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Alex. said:
> 
> 
> 
> They were artists who pursued their own  individual artistic drives. It is futile to compare them on any serious level.
> 
> "Michelangelo and Leonardo were too different, both as artists and men, to remain on friendly terms long. Leonardo was handsome, urbane, eloquent and dandyishly well dressed. In contrast, Michelangelo was neurotically secretive; he had a badly broken nose and extremely sharp tongue. Leonardo was by no means the only older fellow artist he insulted. According to Vasari, Michelangelo called Perugino a "fool in art" to his face (the older painter tried to take legal action for defamation but was laughed out of court)."
> 
> Was Michelangelo a better artist than Leonardo da Vinci?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let me explain in more details;
> 
> The people were discussing Dante's Inferno, about the passage that describes the level of hell reserved for *homosexuals*.
> 
> They called Leonardo over and asked him to explain the passage they were puzzling over, but just at that moment Michelangelo happened to come along. Leonardo asked Michelangelo to explain it, a slur against Michelangelo's *homosexuality*.
> 
> Michelangelo replied, "Why don't YOU explain it?  And while you're at it, explain to the Duke of Milan why you wasted a decade trying to build him an impossible horse?"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As like this was not enough; the duke of the "orgies", Rafael, was making fun of Michelangelo on every opportunity. He even painted Michelangelo in "The School of Athens" as staring at his own wiener, just to make fun of him and his homosexuality!
> 
> 
> 
> I hope this makes things much more *clear* for everyone...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think your obsession with Michelangelo is clear for everyone.
> 
> You think this is Michelangelo looking at his own 'weiner'?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Michelangelo's figure is front and foremost in the painting- if Raphael really wanted to 'humiliate' Michelangelo- he could have left him out of a painting of the great minds of the ages....but he didnt.
> 
> _Among the Greek titans, a melancholy figure sits at a desk in the foreground of the image. By placing the distraught Michelangelo front and (slightly) center, as he awaits divine inspiration, Raphael again asserts to the viewer that the artist, does in fact, belong with the philosopher. In a similar, and perhaps more vital fashion, Raphael places a nondescript Renaissance man to the far right of the painting, gazing knowingly at the viewer from behind a group of scientists. Along with Michelangelo, Raphael, too, pictures himself among these titans of thought. Thus, the philosophical art of the Renaissance was born._
> 
> The Italian Renaissance | Faith, Imagined
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Did you know that he was NOT a part of the original painting?
> 
> While he depicted Da Vinci as Plato, one of the most well known famous and accomplished philosophers of all time, he decided to include Michelangelo as Heraclitus, a philosopher nick named as "The Obscure", as an add on project, sitting in the middle by himself, staring at his wiener...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That you think that this is Michelangelo 'staring at his wiener' really pretty much destroys any possible credibility you might have had.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So who is it?
> 
> Why did Rafael add him to this painting after he has it complete?
> 
> What is the story?
> 
> You tell me....
Click to expand...


So who is who?

Why do you imagine that that is Michelangelo looking at his 'wiener'?


----------



## Syriusly

alpine said:


> Alex. said:
> 
> 
> 
> They were artists who pursued their own  individual artistic drives. It is futile to compare them on any serious level.
> 
> "Michelangelo and Leonardo were too different, both as artists and men, to remain on friendly terms long. Leonardo was handsome, urbane, eloquent and dandyishly well dressed. In contrast, Michelangelo was neurotically secretive; he had a badly broken nose and extremely sharp tongue. Leonardo was by no means the only older fellow artist he insulted. According to Vasari, Michelangelo called Perugino a "fool in art" to his face (the older painter tried to take legal action for defamation but was laughed out of court)."
> 
> Was Michelangelo a better artist than Leonardo da Vinci?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let me explain in more details;
> 
> The people were discussing Dante's Inferno, about the passage that describes the level of hell reserved for *homosexuals*.
> 
> They called Leonardo over and asked him to explain the passage they were puzzling over, but just at that moment Michelangelo happened to come along. Leonardo asked Michelangelo to explain it, a slur against Michelangelo's *homosexuality*.
> 
> Michelangelo replied, "Why don't YOU explain it?  And while you're at it, explain to the Duke of Milan why you wasted a decade trying to build him an impossible horse?"..
Click to expand...


Does that 'explanation' also come from "Michelangelo: his epic life"? 

If not- from where?


----------



## alpine

Syriusly said:


> alpine said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alpine said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alpine said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let me explain in more details;
> 
> The people were discussing Dante's Inferno, about the passage that describes the level of hell reserved for *homosexuals*.
> 
> They called Leonardo over and asked him to explain the passage they were puzzling over, but just at that moment Michelangelo happened to come along. Leonardo asked Michelangelo to explain it, a slur against Michelangelo's *homosexuality*.
> 
> Michelangelo replied, "Why don't YOU explain it?  And while you're at it, explain to the Duke of Milan why you wasted a decade trying to build him an impossible horse?"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As like this was not enough; the duke of the "orgies", Rafael, was making fun of Michelangelo on every opportunity. He even painted Michelangelo in "The School of Athens" as staring at his own wiener, just to make fun of him and his homosexuality!
> 
> 
> 
> I hope this makes things much more *clear* for everyone...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think your obsession with Michelangelo is clear for everyone.
> 
> You think this is Michelangelo looking at his own 'weiner'?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Michelangelo's figure is front and foremost in the painting- if Raphael really wanted to 'humiliate' Michelangelo- he could have left him out of a painting of the great minds of the ages....but he didnt.
> 
> _Among the Greek titans, a melancholy figure sits at a desk in the foreground of the image. By placing the distraught Michelangelo front and (slightly) center, as he awaits divine inspiration, Raphael again asserts to the viewer that the artist, does in fact, belong with the philosopher. In a similar, and perhaps more vital fashion, Raphael places a nondescript Renaissance man to the far right of the painting, gazing knowingly at the viewer from behind a group of scientists. Along with Michelangelo, Raphael, too, pictures himself among these titans of thought. Thus, the philosophical art of the Renaissance was born._
> 
> The Italian Renaissance | Faith, Imagined
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Did you know that he was NOT a part of the original painting?
> 
> While he depicted Da Vinci as Plato, one of the most well known famous and accomplished philosophers of all time, he decided to include Michelangelo as Heraclitus, a philosopher nick named as "The Obscure", as an add on project, sitting in the middle by himself, staring at his wiener...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That you think that this is Michelangelo 'staring at his wiener' really pretty much destroys any possible credibility you might have had.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So who is it?
> 
> Why did Rafael add him to this painting after he has it complete?
> 
> What is the story?
> 
> You tell me....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So who is who?
> 
> Why do you imagine that that is Michelangelo looking at his 'wiener'?
Click to expand...



Look, this is not something new. Art community have been debating this for a long time. If you were in that community, you would have an idea who was who, and what was going on here, but obviously you are not, you don't even have the slightest idea...

I don't like to be personal, but on this forum, everybody is personal at all times, even in an art debate. It is impossible to debate anything for more than a page, before they start shelling their ready to go personal attacks.

So I am not going to go any further. If you are really interested to know "who is who?", then GOOGLE IT!!!


----------



## Syriusly

alpine said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alpine said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alpine said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think your obsession with Michelangelo is clear for everyone.
> 
> You think this is Michelangelo looking at his own 'weiner'?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Michelangelo's figure is front and foremost in the painting- if Raphael really wanted to 'humiliate' Michelangelo- he could have left him out of a painting of the great minds of the ages....but he didnt.
> 
> _Among the Greek titans, a melancholy figure sits at a desk in the foreground of the image. By placing the distraught Michelangelo front and (slightly) center, as he awaits divine inspiration, Raphael again asserts to the viewer that the artist, does in fact, belong with the philosopher. In a similar, and perhaps more vital fashion, Raphael places a nondescript Renaissance man to the far right of the painting, gazing knowingly at the viewer from behind a group of scientists. Along with Michelangelo, Raphael, too, pictures himself among these titans of thought. Thus, the philosophical art of the Renaissance was born._
> 
> The Italian Renaissance | Faith, Imagined
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did you know that he was NOT a part of the original painting?
> 
> While he depicted Da Vinci as Plato, one of the most well known famous and accomplished philosophers of all time, he decided to include Michelangelo as Heraclitus, a philosopher nick named as "The Obscure", as an add on project, sitting in the middle by himself, staring at his wiener...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That you think that this is Michelangelo 'staring at his wiener' really pretty much destroys any possible credibility you might have had.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So who is it?
> 
> Why did Rafael add him to this painting after he has it complete?
> 
> What is the story?
> 
> You tell me....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So who is who?
> 
> Why do you imagine that that is Michelangelo looking at his 'wiener'?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Look, this is not something new. Art community have been debating this for a long time. If you were in that community, you would have an idea who was who, and what was going on here, but obviously you are not, you don't even have the slightest idea...
> 
> I don't like to be personal, but on this forum, everybody is personal at all times, even in an art debate. It is impossible to debate anything for more than a page, before they start shelling their ready to go personal attacks.
> 
> So I am not going to go any further. If you are really interested to know "who is who?", then GOOGLE IT!!!
Click to expand...


LOL- no- I will leave the Googling of Michelangelo's wiener to you.

I have seen the School of Athens in person several times- and no- nobody suggests that anyone is looking at a wiener. 

If that makes me an 'outcast' from whatever 'art community' you believe you belong to- so be it.


----------



## alpine

Syriusly said:


> alpine said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alpine said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alpine said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did you know that he was NOT a part of the original painting?
> 
> While he depicted Da Vinci as Plato, one of the most well known famous and accomplished philosophers of all time, he decided to include Michelangelo as Heraclitus, a philosopher nick named as "The Obscure", as an add on project, sitting in the middle by himself, staring at his wiener...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That you think that this is Michelangelo 'staring at his wiener' really pretty much destroys any possible credibility you might have had.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So who is it?
> 
> Why did Rafael add him to this painting after he has it complete?
> 
> What is the story?
> 
> You tell me....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So who is who?
> 
> Why do you imagine that that is Michelangelo looking at his 'wiener'?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Look, this is not something new. Art community have been debating this for a long time. If you were in that community, you would have an idea who was who, and what was going on here, but obviously you are not, you don't even have the slightest idea...
> 
> I don't like to be personal, but on this forum, everybody is personal at all times, even in an art debate. It is impossible to debate anything for more than a page, before they start shelling their ready to go personal attacks.
> 
> So I am not going to go any further. If you are really interested to know "who is who?", then GOOGLE IT!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL- no- I will leave the Googling of Michelangelo's wiener to you.
> 
> I have seen the School of Athens in person several times- and no- nobody suggests that anyone is looking at a wiener.
> 
> If that makes me an 'outcast' from whatever 'art community' you believe you belong to- so be it.
Click to expand...



Looking at a fresco doesn't makes you an expert, it makes you a jack ass, who have seen a fresco... Nothing more...


----------



## Syriusly

alpine said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alpine said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alpine said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> That you think that this is Michelangelo 'staring at his wiener' really pretty much destroys any possible credibility you might have had.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So who is it?
> 
> Why did Rafael add him to this painting after he has it complete?
> 
> What is the story?
> 
> You tell me....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So who is who?
> 
> Why do you imagine that that is Michelangelo looking at his 'wiener'?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Look, this is not something new. Art community have been debating this for a long time. If you were in that community, you would have an idea who was who, and what was going on here, but obviously you are not, you don't even have the slightest idea...
> 
> I don't like to be personal, but on this forum, everybody is personal at all times, even in an art debate. It is impossible to debate anything for more than a page, before they start shelling their ready to go personal attacks.
> 
> So I am not going to go any further. If you are really interested to know "who is who?", then GOOGLE IT!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL- no- I will leave the Googling of Michelangelo's wiener to you.
> 
> I have seen the School of Athens in person several times- and no- nobody suggests that anyone is looking at a wiener.
> 
> If that makes me an 'outcast' from whatever 'art community' you believe you belong to- so be it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Looking at a fresco doesn't makes you an expert, it makes you a jack ass, who have seen a fresco... Nothing more...
Click to expand...


Wow- looking at a fresco makes you a jackass?

I don't claim to be any art expert. I merely enjoy great art. I have been to most of the major art museums of Europe, all but a few of the major art museums in the United States and was admiring viewing a Raphael last weekend.

Michelangelo's works are fantastic- from the Sistine Chapel (bring binoculars with you for the best viewing) to David- but my favorite of his is Moses with horns. 

I am an art enthusiast.


----------



## alpine

Syriusly said:


> alpine said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alpine said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alpine said:
> 
> 
> 
> So who is it?
> 
> Why did Rafael add him to this painting after he has it complete?
> 
> What is the story?
> 
> You tell me....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So who is who?
> 
> Why do you imagine that that is Michelangelo looking at his 'wiener'?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Look, this is not something new. Art community have been debating this for a long time. If you were in that community, you would have an idea who was who, and what was going on here, but obviously you are not, you don't even have the slightest idea...
> 
> I don't like to be personal, but on this forum, everybody is personal at all times, even in an art debate. It is impossible to debate anything for more than a page, before they start shelling their ready to go personal attacks.
> 
> So I am not going to go any further. If you are really interested to know "who is who?", then GOOGLE IT!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL- no- I will leave the Googling of Michelangelo's wiener to you.
> 
> I have seen the School of Athens in person several times- and no- nobody suggests that anyone is looking at a wiener.
> 
> If that makes me an 'outcast' from whatever 'art community' you believe you belong to- so be it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Looking at a fresco doesn't makes you an expert, it makes you a jack ass, who have seen a fresco... Nothing more...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow- looking at a fresco makes you a jackass?
> 
> I don't claim to be any art expert. I merely enjoy great art. I have been to most of the major art museums of Europe, all but a few of the major art museums in the United States and was admiring viewing a Raphael last weekend.
> 
> Michelangelo's works are fantastic- from the Sistine Chapel (bring binoculars with you for the best viewing) to David- but my favorite of his is Moses with horns.
> 
> I am an art enthusiast.
Click to expand...



I said; looking at a fresco, makes you a jack ass, who looked at a fresco.
Because you were being a jack ass to me on this topic here, before you mentioned you looked at a fresco.
Purposely distorting my point...
Asking for a page number from something that's not even a book...
Discarding many legit arguments just to discredit the "person" you are having the argument with...

Forgive me if I don't share your enthusiasm with you... but I think I have enough reason not to do so...


----------



## Syriusly

alpine said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alpine said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alpine said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> So who is who?
> 
> Why do you imagine that that is Michelangelo looking at his 'wiener'?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Look, this is not something new. Art community have been debating this for a long time. If you were in that community, you would have an idea who was who, and what was going on here, but obviously you are not, you don't even have the slightest idea...
> 
> I don't like to be personal, but on this forum, everybody is personal at all times, even in an art debate. It is impossible to debate anything for more than a page, before they start shelling their ready to go personal attacks.
> 
> So I am not going to go any further. If you are really interested to know "who is who?", then GOOGLE IT!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL- no- I will leave the Googling of Michelangelo's wiener to you.
> 
> I have seen the School of Athens in person several times- and no- nobody suggests that anyone is looking at a wiener.
> 
> If that makes me an 'outcast' from whatever 'art community' you believe you belong to- so be it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Looking at a fresco doesn't makes you an expert, it makes you a jack ass, who have seen a fresco... Nothing more...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow- looking at a fresco makes you a jackass?
> 
> I don't claim to be any art expert. I merely enjoy great art. I have been to most of the major art museums of Europe, all but a few of the major art museums in the United States and was admiring viewing a Raphael last weekend.
> 
> Michelangelo's works are fantastic- from the Sistine Chapel (bring binoculars with you for the best viewing) to David- but my favorite of his is Moses with horns.
> 
> I am an art enthusiast.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I said; looking at a fresco, makes you a jack ass, who looked at a fresco.
> Because you were being a jack ass to me on this topic here, before you mentioned you looked at a fresco.
> Purposely distorting my point...
> Asking for a page number from something that's not even a book...
> Discarding many legit arguments just to discredit the "person" you are having the argument with...
> 
> Forgive me if I don't share your enthusiasm with you... but I think I have enough reason not to do so...
Click to expand...


Oh you are forgiven.

I am still chuckling about how you want to be taken seriously while you post about Michelangelo looking at his wiener.


----------



## alpine

Syriusly said:


> alpine said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alpine said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alpine said:
> 
> 
> 
> Look, this is not something new. Art community have been debating this for a long time. If you were in that community, you would have an idea who was who, and what was going on here, but obviously you are not, you don't even have the slightest idea...
> 
> I don't like to be personal, but on this forum, everybody is personal at all times, even in an art debate. It is impossible to debate anything for more than a page, before they start shelling their ready to go personal attacks.
> 
> So I am not going to go any further. If you are really interested to know "who is who?", then GOOGLE IT!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL- no- I will leave the Googling of Michelangelo's wiener to you.
> 
> I have seen the School of Athens in person several times- and no- nobody suggests that anyone is looking at a wiener.
> 
> If that makes me an 'outcast' from whatever 'art community' you believe you belong to- so be it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Looking at a fresco doesn't makes you an expert, it makes you a jack ass, who have seen a fresco... Nothing more...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow- looking at a fresco makes you a jackass?
> 
> I don't claim to be any art expert. I merely enjoy great art. I have been to most of the major art museums of Europe, all but a few of the major art museums in the United States and was admiring viewing a Raphael last weekend.
> 
> Michelangelo's works are fantastic- from the Sistine Chapel (bring binoculars with you for the best viewing) to David- but my favorite of his is Moses with horns.
> 
> I am an art enthusiast.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I said; looking at a fresco, makes you a jack ass, who looked at a fresco.
> Because you were being a jack ass to me on this topic here, before you mentioned you looked at a fresco.
> Purposely distorting my point...
> Asking for a page number from something that's not even a book...
> Discarding many legit arguments just to discredit the "person" you are having the argument with...
> 
> Forgive me if I don't share your enthusiasm with you... but I think I have enough reason not to do so...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh you are forgiven.
> 
> I am still chuckling about how you want to be taken seriously while you post about Michelangelo looking at his wiener.
Click to expand...



One question: did you know that figure, which I claim to be a Michelangelo staring at his wiener, was added to the fresco, after the completion of the fresco?


----------



## Harry Dresden

alpine said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alpine said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alpine said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, these are actors, and this is television. Or whatever it is, which means what we're seeing is not Michaelangelo and daVinci, but some scriptwriter's/director's depiction sculpted for TV.  And that all by itself makes it dishonest.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And they are not making this up. The dislike between these 2 artists are well known.
> 
> Michelangelo and Rafael was not getting along well either. Especially after Rafael's affair with the Pope and getting Michelangelo fired...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We've established that there were no video cameras --- were there eyewitnesses who journaled down every word?  Dooon't think so.  For the fourth time, what we're seeing is some TV director's idea of what makes for a good scene on television.
> 
> When I suggested daVinci hadn't invented video I was being facetious.  It was sarcasm to point out that a scene we might watch on TV bears no relation to the world of reality.  Ever.  If you're actually suggesting that we can catch a glimpse of a historical event from the boob tube, then clearly I'm not the one who is "insane".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You are answering your own questions.
> That's not gonna help you on the long rung, of course if you are looking to learn things that you don't have the knowledge of.
> 
> Anonimo Magliabechiano - Dictionary of Art Historians
> 
> "Anonymous author of a now fragmental history, likely written after 1541.  *The extent portion includes biographies of Florentine artists between the late 13th century and the 16th.*  The manuscript was discovered in 1755 in the Magliabechiano manuscript collection but only brought to the attention of scholars in 1892 by Karl Frey. Most recently the scholar Bouk Wierda has argued that the identity of the Florentine humanist and art connoisseur Anonimo is Bernardo Vecchietti (1514-1590)."
> 
> So, to answer your question; "were there eyewitnesses who journaled down every word?"
> Yes, apparently there were...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Does your story come from Anonimo Magliabechiano?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Correct, these stories are all over the place, but the main source would be Anonimo Magliabechiano, a gossip magazine of the time, more or less...
Click to expand...

the key word here being GOSSIP......2 guys walking down the street 400 years ago etc etc.....yea right.....


----------



## alpine

Harry Dresden said:


> alpine said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alpine said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alpine said:
> 
> 
> 
> And they are not making this up. The dislike between these 2 artists are well known.
> 
> Michelangelo and Rafael was not getting along well either. Especially after Rafael's affair with the Pope and getting Michelangelo fired...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We've established that there were no video cameras --- were there eyewitnesses who journaled down every word?  Dooon't think so.  For the fourth time, what we're seeing is some TV director's idea of what makes for a good scene on television.
> 
> When I suggested daVinci hadn't invented video I was being facetious.  It was sarcasm to point out that a scene we might watch on TV bears no relation to the world of reality.  Ever.  If you're actually suggesting that we can catch a glimpse of a historical event from the boob tube, then clearly I'm not the one who is "insane".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You are answering your own questions.
> That's not gonna help you on the long rung, of course if you are looking to learn things that you don't have the knowledge of.
> 
> Anonimo Magliabechiano - Dictionary of Art Historians
> 
> "Anonymous author of a now fragmental history, likely written after 1541.  *The extent portion includes biographies of Florentine artists between the late 13th century and the 16th.*  The manuscript was discovered in 1755 in the Magliabechiano manuscript collection but only brought to the attention of scholars in 1892 by Karl Frey. Most recently the scholar Bouk Wierda has argued that the identity of the Florentine humanist and art connoisseur Anonimo is Bernardo Vecchietti (1514-1590)."
> 
> So, to answer your question; "were there eyewitnesses who journaled down every word?"
> Yes, apparently there were...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Does your story come from Anonimo Magliabechiano?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Correct, these stories are all over the place, but the main source would be Anonimo Magliabechiano, a gossip magazine of the time, more or less...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the key word here being GOSSIP......2 guys walking down the street 400 years ago etc etc.....yea right.....
Click to expand...



Half of the treads on this board are gossip treads...

Wanna stuck with the mediocre gossip for retards, well, be my guest. There are tons of them, feel yourself free to dig into any of those.

This tread here however, is the mother of all gossips, regarding some of the most famous, talented, genius, influential people that has ever lived on this planet.

You can go gossip about Palin and his son Track now...


----------



## Harry Dresden

alpine said:


> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alpine said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alpine said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> We've established that there were no video cameras --- were there eyewitnesses who journaled down every word?  Dooon't think so.  For the fourth time, what we're seeing is some TV director's idea of what makes for a good scene on television.
> 
> When I suggested daVinci hadn't invented video I was being facetious.  It was sarcasm to point out that a scene we might watch on TV bears no relation to the world of reality.  Ever.  If you're actually suggesting that we can catch a glimpse of a historical event from the boob tube, then clearly I'm not the one who is "insane".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are answering your own questions.
> That's not gonna help you on the long rung, of course if you are looking to learn things that you don't have the knowledge of.
> 
> Anonimo Magliabechiano - Dictionary of Art Historians
> 
> "Anonymous author of a now fragmental history, likely written after 1541.  *The extent portion includes biographies of Florentine artists between the late 13th century and the 16th.*  The manuscript was discovered in 1755 in the Magliabechiano manuscript collection but only brought to the attention of scholars in 1892 by Karl Frey. Most recently the scholar Bouk Wierda has argued that the identity of the Florentine humanist and art connoisseur Anonimo is Bernardo Vecchietti (1514-1590)."
> 
> So, to answer your question; "were there eyewitnesses who journaled down every word?"
> Yes, apparently there were...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Does your story come from Anonimo Magliabechiano?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Correct, these stories are all over the place, but the main source would be Anonimo Magliabechiano, a gossip magazine of the time, more or less...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the key word here being GOSSIP......2 guys walking down the street 400 years ago etc etc.....yea right.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Half of the treads on this board are gossip treads...
> 
> Wanna stuck with the mediocre gossip for retards, well, be my guest. There are tons of them, feel yourself free to dig into any of those.
> 
> This tread here however, is the mother of all gossips, regarding some of the most famous, talented, genius, influential people that has ever lived on this planet.
> 
> You can go gossip about Palin and his son Track now...
Click to expand...

you are the one defending this gossip....this is a story,you understand a hearsay story that no one can verify....no one,but yet here you are trying to tell us it happened...now why dont you go and rent the TV show "Da Vinci's Demons"....they say Leo sailed across the Atlantic and met the Incas in that show....are you going to buy that shit to?...


----------



## alpine

Harry Dresden said:


> alpine said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alpine said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alpine said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are answering your own questions.
> That's not gonna help you on the long rung, of course if you are looking to learn things that you don't have the knowledge of.
> 
> Anonimo Magliabechiano - Dictionary of Art Historians
> 
> "Anonymous author of a now fragmental history, likely written after 1541.  *The extent portion includes biographies of Florentine artists between the late 13th century and the 16th.*  The manuscript was discovered in 1755 in the Magliabechiano manuscript collection but only brought to the attention of scholars in 1892 by Karl Frey. Most recently the scholar Bouk Wierda has argued that the identity of the Florentine humanist and art connoisseur Anonimo is Bernardo Vecchietti (1514-1590)."
> 
> So, to answer your question; "were there eyewitnesses who journaled down every word?"
> Yes, apparently there were...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Does your story come from Anonimo Magliabechiano?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Correct, these stories are all over the place, but the main source would be Anonimo Magliabechiano, a gossip magazine of the time, more or less...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the key word here being GOSSIP......2 guys walking down the street 400 years ago etc etc.....yea right.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Half of the treads on this board are gossip treads...
> 
> Wanna stuck with the mediocre gossip for retards, well, be my guest. There are tons of them, feel yourself free to dig into any of those.
> 
> This tread here however, is the mother of all gossips, regarding some of the most famous, talented, genius, influential people that has ever lived on this planet.
> 
> You can go gossip about Palin and his son Track now...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you are the one defending this gossip....this is a story,you understand a hearsay story that no one can verify....no one,but yet here you are trying to tell us it happened...now why dont you go and rent the TV show "Da Vinci's Demons"....they say Leo sailed across the Atlantic and met the Incas in that show....are you going to buy that shit to?...
Click to expand...


This is not just a hearsay story to begin with. The story have physical substance to it.

Like;

Rafael painted and finished a masterpiece, "School of Athens". And after finishing his work, he added one lonely man, right in the middle of it. Do you realize this was painted on a huge wall, in huge dimensions, and painters need to draw each detail on the wall before even painting it, and it is an extremely hard process to do add anything once the work is complete? Maybe you are not aware of it, but IT IS!

And yet, he still did go through that and painted a lonely man, siting there alone...

Why did he do that?
Who was that man?
What was the purpose to paint that man in the way he painted him?

These are the questions you should be asking when you encounter such bizarre situations.

And on top of this, we have some manuscripts popping up at a local bookstore in Italy, that is believed to be from the same era, describing some events displaying tension between these artists.

And then you put these together, and come up with a story.

And you would be drooling while watching it if this was a TV SHOW!!!









And on top of all, Rafael was having an affair with the pope, how do you like that now.........................


----------



## Harry Dresden

alpine said:


> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alpine said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alpine said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Does your story come from Anonimo Magliabechiano?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correct, these stories are all over the place, but the main source would be Anonimo Magliabechiano, a gossip magazine of the time, more or less...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the key word here being GOSSIP......2 guys walking down the street 400 years ago etc etc.....yea right.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Half of the treads on this board are gossip treads...
> 
> Wanna stuck with the mediocre gossip for retards, well, be my guest. There are tons of them, feel yourself free to dig into any of those.
> 
> This tread here however, is the mother of all gossips, regarding some of the most famous, talented, genius, influential people that has ever lived on this planet.
> 
> You can go gossip about Palin and his son Track now...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you are the one defending this gossip....this is a story,you understand a hearsay story that no one can verify....no one,but yet here you are trying to tell us it happened...now why dont you go and rent the TV show "Da Vinci's Demons"....they say Leo sailed across the Atlantic and met the Incas in that show....are you going to buy that shit to?...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is not just a hearsay story to begin with. The story have physical substance to it.
> 
> Like;
> 
> Rafael painted and finished a masterpiece, "School of Athens". And after finishing his work, he added one lonely man, right in the middle of it. Do you realize this was painted on a huge wall, in huge dimensions, and painters need to draw each detail on the wall before even painting it, and it is an extremely hard process to do add anything once the work is complete? Maybe you are not aware of it, but IT IS!
> 
> And yet, he still did go through that and painted a lonely man, siting there alone...
> 
> Why did he do that?
> Who was that man?
> What was the purpose to paint that man in the way he painted him?
> 
> These are the questions you should be asking when you encounter such bizarre situations.
> 
> And on top of this, we have some manuscripts popping up at a local bookstore in Italy, that is believed to be from the same era, describing some events displaying tension between these artists.
> 
> And then you put these together, and come up with a story.
> 
> And you would be drooling while watching it if this was a TV SHOW!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And on top of all, Rafael was having an affair with the pope, how do you like that now.........................
Click to expand...

geezus you are lost dude.....prove that 400 years ago leo and angie had that exchange you talked about.....a painting is real that you can see....now get back to that fictional exchange they supposedly had....prove that happened....


----------



## alpine

Harry Dresden said:


> alpine said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alpine said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alpine said:
> 
> 
> 
> Correct, these stories are all over the place, but the main source would be Anonimo Magliabechiano, a gossip magazine of the time, more or less...
> 
> 
> 
> the key word here being GOSSIP......2 guys walking down the street 400 years ago etc etc.....yea right.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Half of the treads on this board are gossip treads...
> 
> Wanna stuck with the mediocre gossip for retards, well, be my guest. There are tons of them, feel yourself free to dig into any of those.
> 
> This tread here however, is the mother of all gossips, regarding some of the most famous, talented, genius, influential people that has ever lived on this planet.
> 
> You can go gossip about Palin and his son Track now...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you are the one defending this gossip....this is a story,you understand a hearsay story that no one can verify....no one,but yet here you are trying to tell us it happened...now why dont you go and rent the TV show "Da Vinci's Demons"....they say Leo sailed across the Atlantic and met the Incas in that show....are you going to buy that shit to?...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is not just a hearsay story to begin with. The story have physical substance to it.
> 
> Like;
> 
> Rafael painted and finished a masterpiece, "School of Athens". And after finishing his work, he added one lonely man, right in the middle of it. Do you realize this was painted on a huge wall, in huge dimensions, and painters need to draw each detail on the wall before even painting it, and it is an extremely hard process to do add anything once the work is complete? Maybe you are not aware of it, but IT IS!
> 
> And yet, he still did go through that and painted a lonely man, siting there alone...
> 
> Why did he do that?
> Who was that man?
> What was the purpose to paint that man in the way he painted him?
> 
> These are the questions you should be asking when you encounter such bizarre situations.
> 
> And on top of this, we have some manuscripts popping up at a local bookstore in Italy, that is believed to be from the same era, describing some events displaying tension between these artists.
> 
> And then you put these together, and come up with a story.
> 
> And you would be drooling while watching it if this was a TV SHOW!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And on top of all, Rafael was having an affair with the pope, how do you like that now.........................
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> geezus you are lost dude.....prove that 400 years ago leo and angie had that exchange you talked about.....a painting is real that you can see....now get back to that fictional exchange they supposedly had....prove that happened....
Click to expand...



So you are not interested in the Rafael and Pope hitting it off?


----------



## Harry Dresden

alpine said:


> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alpine said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alpine said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> 
> the key word here being GOSSIP......2 guys walking down the street 400 years ago etc etc.....yea right.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Half of the treads on this board are gossip treads...
> 
> Wanna stuck with the mediocre gossip for retards, well, be my guest. There are tons of them, feel yourself free to dig into any of those.
> 
> This tread here however, is the mother of all gossips, regarding some of the most famous, talented, genius, influential people that has ever lived on this planet.
> 
> You can go gossip about Palin and his son Track now...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you are the one defending this gossip....this is a story,you understand a hearsay story that no one can verify....no one,but yet here you are trying to tell us it happened...now why dont you go and rent the TV show "Da Vinci's Demons"....they say Leo sailed across the Atlantic and met the Incas in that show....are you going to buy that shit to?...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is not just a hearsay story to begin with. The story have physical substance to it.
> 
> Like;
> 
> Rafael painted and finished a masterpiece, "School of Athens". And after finishing his work, he added one lonely man, right in the middle of it. Do you realize this was painted on a huge wall, in huge dimensions, and painters need to draw each detail on the wall before even painting it, and it is an extremely hard process to do add anything once the work is complete? Maybe you are not aware of it, but IT IS!
> 
> And yet, he still did go through that and painted a lonely man, siting there alone...
> 
> Why did he do that?
> Who was that man?
> What was the purpose to paint that man in the way he painted him?
> 
> These are the questions you should be asking when you encounter such bizarre situations.
> 
> And on top of this, we have some manuscripts popping up at a local bookstore in Italy, that is believed to be from the same era, describing some events displaying tension between these artists.
> 
> And then you put these together, and come up with a story.
> 
> And you would be drooling while watching it if this was a TV SHOW!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And on top of all, Rafael was having an affair with the pope, how do you like that now.........................
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> geezus you are lost dude.....prove that 400 years ago leo and angie had that exchange you talked about.....a painting is real that you can see....now get back to that fictional exchange they supposedly had....prove that happened....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So you are not interested in the Rafael and Pope hitting it off?
Click to expand...

i have always thought the pope was a hypocritical asswipe.....the guy puts his underpants on the same way everyone else does...he aint no one special....


----------



## alpine

Harry Dresden said:


> alpine said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alpine said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alpine said:
> 
> 
> 
> Half of the treads on this board are gossip treads...
> 
> Wanna stuck with the mediocre gossip for retards, well, be my guest. There are tons of them, feel yourself free to dig into any of those.
> 
> This tread here however, is the mother of all gossips, regarding some of the most famous, talented, genius, influential people that has ever lived on this planet.
> 
> You can go gossip about Palin and his son Track now...
> 
> 
> 
> you are the one defending this gossip....this is a story,you understand a hearsay story that no one can verify....no one,but yet here you are trying to tell us it happened...now why dont you go and rent the TV show "Da Vinci's Demons"....they say Leo sailed across the Atlantic and met the Incas in that show....are you going to buy that shit to?...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is not just a hearsay story to begin with. The story have physical substance to it.
> 
> Like;
> 
> Rafael painted and finished a masterpiece, "School of Athens". And after finishing his work, he added one lonely man, right in the middle of it. Do you realize this was painted on a huge wall, in huge dimensions, and painters need to draw each detail on the wall before even painting it, and it is an extremely hard process to do add anything once the work is complete? Maybe you are not aware of it, but IT IS!
> 
> And yet, he still did go through that and painted a lonely man, siting there alone...
> 
> Why did he do that?
> Who was that man?
> What was the purpose to paint that man in the way he painted him?
> 
> These are the questions you should be asking when you encounter such bizarre situations.
> 
> And on top of this, we have some manuscripts popping up at a local bookstore in Italy, that is believed to be from the same era, describing some events displaying tension between these artists.
> 
> And then you put these together, and come up with a story.
> 
> And you would be drooling while watching it if this was a TV SHOW!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And on top of all, Rafael was having an affair with the pope, how do you like that now.........................
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> geezus you are lost dude.....prove that 400 years ago leo and angie had that exchange you talked about.....a painting is real that you can see....now get back to that fictional exchange they supposedly had....prove that happened....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So you are not interested in the Rafael and Pope hitting it off?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> i have always thought the pope was a hypocritical asswipe.....the guy puts his underpants on the same way everyone else does...he aint no one special....
Click to expand...



But we are not talking about any pope, we are talking about the Pope of the *Medicci*'s.

If you know what I mean...


----------



## Harry Dresden

alpine said:


> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alpine said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alpine said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> 
> you are the one defending this gossip....this is a story,you understand a hearsay story that no one can verify....no one,but yet here you are trying to tell us it happened...now why dont you go and rent the TV show "Da Vinci's Demons"....they say Leo sailed across the Atlantic and met the Incas in that show....are you going to buy that shit to?...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is not just a hearsay story to begin with. The story have physical substance to it.
> 
> Like;
> 
> Rafael painted and finished a masterpiece, "School of Athens". And after finishing his work, he added one lonely man, right in the middle of it. Do you realize this was painted on a huge wall, in huge dimensions, and painters need to draw each detail on the wall before even painting it, and it is an extremely hard process to do add anything once the work is complete? Maybe you are not aware of it, but IT IS!
> 
> And yet, he still did go through that and painted a lonely man, siting there alone...
> 
> Why did he do that?
> Who was that man?
> What was the purpose to paint that man in the way he painted him?
> 
> These are the questions you should be asking when you encounter such bizarre situations.
> 
> And on top of this, we have some manuscripts popping up at a local bookstore in Italy, that is believed to be from the same era, describing some events displaying tension between these artists.
> 
> And then you put these together, and come up with a story.
> 
> And you would be drooling while watching it if this was a TV SHOW!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And on top of all, Rafael was having an affair with the pope, how do you like that now.........................
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> geezus you are lost dude.....prove that 400 years ago leo and angie had that exchange you talked about.....a painting is real that you can see....now get back to that fictional exchange they supposedly had....prove that happened....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So you are not interested in the Rafael and Pope hitting it off?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> i have always thought the pope was a hypocritical asswipe.....the guy puts his underpants on the same way everyone else does...he aint no one special....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> But we are not talking about any pope, we are talking about the Pope of the *Medicci*'s.
> 
> If you know what I mean...
Click to expand...

i dont care if he was the pope of Greenwich village....he was a hypocrite just like all the rest of them...if you know what i mean....


----------



## alpine

Harry Dresden said:


> alpine said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alpine said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alpine said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is not just a hearsay story to begin with. The story have physical substance to it.
> 
> Like;
> 
> Rafael painted and finished a masterpiece, "School of Athens". And after finishing his work, he added one lonely man, right in the middle of it. Do you realize this was painted on a huge wall, in huge dimensions, and painters need to draw each detail on the wall before even painting it, and it is an extremely hard process to do add anything once the work is complete? Maybe you are not aware of it, but IT IS!
> 
> And yet, he still did go through that and painted a lonely man, siting there alone...
> 
> Why did he do that?
> Who was that man?
> What was the purpose to paint that man in the way he painted him?
> 
> These are the questions you should be asking when you encounter such bizarre situations.
> 
> And on top of this, we have some manuscripts popping up at a local bookstore in Italy, that is believed to be from the same era, describing some events displaying tension between these artists.
> 
> And then you put these together, and come up with a story.
> 
> And you would be drooling while watching it if this was a TV SHOW!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And on top of all, Rafael was having an affair with the pope, how do you like that now.........................
> 
> 
> 
> geezus you are lost dude.....prove that 400 years ago leo and angie had that exchange you talked about.....a painting is real that you can see....now get back to that fictional exchange they supposedly had....prove that happened....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So you are not interested in the Rafael and Pope hitting it off?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> i have always thought the pope was a hypocritical asswipe.....the guy puts his underpants on the same way everyone else does...he aint no one special....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> But we are not talking about any pope, we are talking about the Pope of the *Medicci*'s.
> 
> If you know what I mean...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> i dont care if he was the pope of Greenwich village....he was a hypocrite just like all the rest of them...if you know what i mean....
Click to expand...



Pope of the Medicci is different. This is the Pope, Luther was pissed at when he was visiting Italy, because of popes hedonistic behaviors, and most likely, because of his affair with Rafael.

A whole religious war did break out that swept a whole continent for decades and caused full fledge genocides, because of this asshole Pope and his asshole lover Rafael...


----------

