Talk:The Last Judgment (Michelangelo)

message: Once again I would like to note that the depiction of Minos, which is a potrait and insult to the cardinal, does not have it's nudity covered but instead has the snake biting his nude bits. Can be seen here http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/ff/Michelangelo-minos2.jpg I dont get the resistance to this fact, but It is clearly self-evident.   —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.166.200.230 (talk) 16:23, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Minos 

message: The article contradicts itself.
First it says:
"In the painting, Michelangelo does a self portrait depicting himself as St. Bartholomew after he had been flayed (skinned alive)"
Meaning (my free interpretation based solely on the text): flayed skin = Michelangelo
Then later (under Restoration) it says:
"The figure of St. Bartholomew depicts the satirist and erotic writer Pietro Aretino who had tried to extort a valuable drawing from Michelangelo."
Meaning (again, my interpretation): flayed skin = erotic writer Pietro Aretino
So.. which is which, what should I believe?
I know this is Wikipedia and I should not hold much value to these articles but it would be nice if this can be settled and altered at some point..
(At this point, I'll be looking elsewhere for a more accurate reading.)
80.57.37.26 (talk)  —Preceding undated comment was added at 00:12, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Flayed skin = ??? 

message: Before I make the move, is there a reason the article title misspells "judgment" as "judgement?" Tromboneguy0186 15:14, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nonetheless, it should be Judgement because: A) in US English either spelling is ok, but in UK English "Judgment" is a spelling mistake., B) here as elsewhere, art historians use Judgement far more often - 5450 vs 3970 in google scholar. Johnbod (talk) 04:29, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Misspelled 

message: I think that there should be one large picture of the last judgement and then the smaller picture of Michelangelo's skin below.  If someone could do that, I think that would help the article greatly.
Another interesting contribution would be to add an image of a painting I saw over a year or two ago in the Vatican Library during an exhibition. It was a depiction of the Last Judgment as it was before any of the coverings were added -- all figures were quite nude -- and would be very instructive about the composition and Michelangelo. Sorry, do not remember the artist's name or if the painting has been published in any form. Will continue to inquire. Does anyone know about this?Md6778 (talk) 00:15, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pictures 

message: It is not universally agreed that Michelangelo was homosexual at all.  Ross King in his detailed "MICHELANGELO AND THE POPE'S CEILING" gives his theory that the artist was mostly celibate (p. 197), that his avoidance of women combined with a few close friendships with men had sparked rumors.  King does not discuss the mystery of the skin/portrait.
CharlesTheBold 02:54, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reply to Self-Portrait 

message: I'm wondering how there was a dispute, since according to the Cardinal Carafa article, he had been dead for 20 years. Gamaliel (talk) 19:33, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cardinal Carafa 

message: Seems to be a discrepancy in the year work was begun; the infobox states 1534, the article 1537. Overall, this could really use expansion, a major work deserving a much greater appreciation here. JNW (talk) 22:11, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Year 

message: Seriously, the whole article for one of the most famous frescoes in Western Christianity is smaller than the day to day summary of Celebrity Big Brother 2011, why? This page could have so many things, like more history about it, or explaining all the different people and things that are in the fresco, yet it just mentions the conflict with Carafa, the censorship, and Bartholomew's skin. Cancerbero 8 (talk) 04:58, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why is this article so small? 

message: Giovanni Andrea Gilio
Johnbod (talk) 18:04, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  notes 

message: With a disam-ed title, I can't see the need. Thoughts, anyone? Johnbod (talk) 18:54, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hatnote not needed? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on The Last Judgment (Michelangelo). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070814062959/http://www.crucifixion.com/visual/theology/johndixon/terror.htm to http://www.crucifixion.com/visual/theology/johndixon/terror.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:12, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Could someone knowledgeable about this artwork please provide more information regarding Clement VII de’ Medici’s initial commission for it? From what I’ve read, Clement requested a resurrection scene, In Renaissance Italian, the word “resurrection” can be interpreted either as the resurrection of the dead (i.e. the Last Judgment), or a resurrection of Christ on Easter. Did Clement commission the subject matter or did Pope Paul III? Are there sources? 2601:193:8200:4AA0:5C84:A43:6A3D:F97A (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 21:47, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requesting more info on Clement VII de’ Medici’s original commission 

message: Perhaps a section on the influence of the work on subsequent art would be appropriate. The mannerism displayed in The Last Judgment had a tremendous effect on succeeding movements and composition styles. An example that comes to mind is Rubens's The Fall of the Damned. [unsigned]
:Sources? Johnbod (talk) 15:53, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Influence