Talk:Crucifix (Michelangelo)

Removal

I removed 67.235.38.28's recently added commentary on the relationship between Michelangelo's Crucifix and the story as told in the bible. My reasons for this are, first, the quotes do not have citations (see the Wikipedia guide on citing sources), and secondly, the section feels like an exegesis instead of an encyclopedia entry -- opinions, commentary, original research (see the section on what Wikipedia is not). While the ideas are interesting and resourceful, I think that in order to be placed in the body of the article the information needs to be given a more direct relationship with the history of the piece of art itself (for instance, if there were a history of how the work has been interpreted in light of biblical passages -- how this scholar viewed it (CITE!), then this published article, in contrast (CITE!), etc). Begeun (talk) 17:47, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

We all know this work, like the cross which was added later, is not a Michelangelo! One look at the figures enormously elongated big toe, or the fact that the inscription on the sign is backwards, informs us of that fact. With the exception of you, we also know the quotes are all from a King James Bible. This work represents Jesus Christ crucified on the cross. It is, therefore, a Christian work of art. Separating it from the historical account found in the Bible is impossible. It’s precisely what the artist had in mind when he created it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Biblenut (talk • contribs) 13:31, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for commenting. The artist certainly is referring to the Bible, I agree. However, I disagree that this art is de facto not by Michelangelo -- a number of scholars disagree with that sentiment. That said, if there is disagreement among art historians about the authorship, that should be in the article as well (as far as the article is concerned, it doesn't matter whether you or I think it's genuine). Perhaps everyone knows the quotes are from the KJV (other than I, of course), but Wikipedia guidelines require that we remind them nonetheless. I think your description of the nude Christ and the soldiers gambling for his clothes makes sense for the article; the spearwound and the sign above the cross are common to most crucifixion scenes, and is already described in the crucifixion of Jesus article -- we should probably link to this relatively extensive article rather than describe the biblical scene in this article. Were we to expand this article, perhaps we might approach it as follows (I'm paraphrasing; much of this needs double checking): 1) HISTORY: In his late teens, Michelangelo was given unprecedented (and illegal) access to corpses for dissection by the prior of Santo Spirito, where he was able to deepen his understanding of the human body. To offer his thanks to the prior, Michelangelo sculpted this crucifix "gratis" -- most likely his first sculpture after the dissections. 2) BIBLICAL REFERENCES AND SYMBOLISM: Unlike most other crucifix scenes, Christ appears in this sculpture without any clothing. Yet this is consistent with the Biblical description (etc -- the scripture of the gambling soldiers here). This portrayal of Christ shows Him as serene, whereas many other portrayals show him as in agony or exhausted. While Christ did plead to heaven (the "why hast thou forsaken me" scripture), presumably in agony, he also spoke to John and his Mother, as well as to one of the thieves being crucified with him, in more consoling language. Michelangelo also diverges from most other portrayals by having Christ's upper body and lower body leaning in different directions, perhaps suggesting this very tension between the glory of Christ and the brutality of the crucifixion (This one would definitely need to be backed up with some kind of citation, as it comes across as personal opinion). 3) AUTHORSHIP: In 2001, scholars announced that this was indeed the formerly lost work by Michelangelo (citation). However, other scholars have disagreed with their assessment (citation?). Etc, etc. OKAY, THERE'S A POSSIBLE STRUCTURE. If you're still hankering for a small exegetical space in Wikipedia, I shan't fight you any more on it. All the best. Begeun (talk) 05:39, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Image used

This is with reference to the photo of the crucifix.The orientation of the head and feet seem to differ when compared with other photographs of the same at Santo Spirito. Ref : http://www.wga.hu/frames-e.html?/html/m/michelan/1sculptu/1/2crucifi.html

     http://www.abcgallery.com/M/michelangelo/michelangelo1a.html

on the other hand another site has a similar photo as on this wiki page

Ref : http://easyweb.easynet.co.uk/giorgio.vasari/michel/pic3.htm

Kindly verify.

Different images do show up with the knees pointing in different directions. Obviously the only way to verify this is to go look at it. But I think the knees should be pointing the LEFT (when facing). Many (most?) of the images I find online have them pointing the other way. My reasoning is the text above Christ's head, which reads backwards when his knees are to the RIGHT. The text should read something like what we see here. Compare that reference image with this photograph (knees to the RIGHT), also here -- you can see the letters IESVS (Jesus in Greek) at the lower-right-hand corner, reading backwards (You'll also see REX -- "King" -- appearing backwards, near the middle). So unless Michelangelo punched in the letters backwards (he was a well-read man, by the way; this would be an unlikely mistake, but I suppose it's possible it was on purpose? hm.. but not likely) then the knees should be pointing to the LEFT when facing the sculpture. This does leave me confused as to why there are so many that point to the right, however. For instance, in the wikimedia commons, ALL of the images have knees to the right (did someone alter them all?): Right-knee-pointing images.. I think Dan Brown has what he needs for his next Catholic conspiracy book, eh? Begeun (talk) 17:14, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia image is simply reversed.--Wetman (talk) 21:47, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Doubt-free

The current article bypasses the debated attribution by working this unprovenanced object, a corpus bought on the art market, seamlessly into a Michelangelo biography, presenting an unsupported date as a "fact". A more art-historical approach, better presenting the logic of the attribution, might be recommended. The cited New York Times article gives a hint. --Wetman (talk) 19:43, 3 September 2010 (UTC)