Talk:David (Michelangelo)/Archive 1

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

message: The title of this article is out of keeping with usual practice on Wikipedia - the norm for articles on works of art where the artist's name has to be specified is, to take one example, 'The Birth of Venus (Botticelli)', not 'Botticelli's Birth of Venus'. I don’t see why there should be a different rule for works by Michelangelo, and the “Michelangelo’s” prefix, although it works with the David and Pietà, doesn’t work at all with others - ‘’Michelangelo’s Crucifix’’ for instance. Would there be any objections if the title were changed to David (Michelangelo)? Ham 11:23, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't see how anyone can make that argument if they know how those works are commonly referred to in English-speaking countries. "Michelangelo's David" is a very common way to refer to that specific work of art. Agreed, most are not referred to that way, but THAT one IS. Check google hits for "Michelangelo's David" vs. "Botticelli's Birth of Venus". In other words, 'Michelangelo' wasn't in the front just because somebody made a mistake with a 'necessary' disambiguation--it's because that's the common name for the friggin work of art. This was an exception to the way other Michelangelo (and other artist's) works are titled because of common use, not some arbitrary blindly following a standard that doesn't apply. 24.17.48.241 10:12, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, "Michelangelo's David" is in common usage, far more so than "David (Michelangelo)". My main objection is that giving this article that title caused "Michelangelo's ____" to be the standard for Wikipedia articles on his other sculptures, which are not as familiar and therefore resulted in some strange article titles indeed. After changing those titles to something more sensible, it would have been unencyclopaedic to treat David as an exception, although I'm fully aware that in the public imagination it is considered something above and apart from other works by lesser artists. Regards, Ham 14:20, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Name change

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

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

message: I have a book of Photographs from the late 19th century, which shows this statue with a leaf over his penis.  Do you know if this was added for the photo, or was it permanently attached
I really doubt the book put it in there. It was probably attached for the whole censorship movement, then taken off when people realized that sex is not the enemy. --160.81.78.102 15:54, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe that when it was first made, the Florentine Republican government (specifically Piero Soderini) covered it with the fig leaf. At that time, Florentine society was heavily influenced by the puritanical teachings of Girolamo Savonarola, and they were fairly prudish in that regard. Eventually the fig leaf was taken down. I don't remember where I read this, but if anyone finds a source, it should be noted in the article. --DLandTALK 19:34, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Didn't the V&A have an exhibition some time ago consisting entirely of fig leaves that Victorians had put over the genitalia of numerous statues? I didn't see the exhibition but I did read a review of it in the paper at the time. I recall it was rather funny. --Oscar Bravo 11:50, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Fig Leaf

message: From my reading and studying days I seem to remember his family name was "Buonaretti"
I also remember my grandfather telling me about it (he was born in 1888 and also came from Italy) so, maybe it is important, maybe not. What do you think????????
MichelJosephPetulli@mac.com
: The only work he ever signed is the Pietà in St. Peter's, which he signed MICHAELA[N]GELUS BONAROTUS FLORENTIN[US] FACIEBA[T]. That is, of course, a Latinized version of his name, but suggests that "Buonarotti" is a better choice than "Buonaretti". - Jmabel | Talk 21:41, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Michelangelo's family name 

message: I went to a talk last night by art historian John Paoletti (who, by the way, probably deserves an article: pretty important writer on Renaissance art, and no slouch on contemporary art, either). Paoletti calls into question whether it is entirely appropriate to call the work unambiguously either "Michelangelo's" or "David". He suggests that Michelangelo, ever the good self-publicist, may have played down how much work Donatello had already done on the block of marble; also, that in the copious written records about the project, prior to the erection of the statue, there is only one reference to it as a "David" (it is otherwise always the "giant" or the "colossus"), that it lacks the standard attributes of a statue of David (no head of Goliath, which is explained by it being before the battle, but also that what is over his shoulder really doesn't much resemble a sling), and that, in any event, there is something rather ironic about a giant statue of the giant-killer.
He also had some very interesting remarks about the statue as a symbol of the Florentine Republic, counterposed to the periods of Medici rule, and that its displacment of the earlier statue of Judith was both (1) a displacement of a Medici-sponsored sculpture but also (2) explicit in its gender politics. On the latter, he quoted several contemporary documents of the time. Apparently, the politics over this continued: he showed a detail of a painting from one of the periods of Medici restoration in which (1) a scene in the piazza is framed so that David's head is just out of the image and (2) right in front of the David there is a break in a frieze-like arrangement of spectators; in the opening there is an image of a dog pissing on the ground.
I don't have anything properly citable on any of this. Many years ago Paoletti wrote a review of Charles Seymour Jr.'s book Michelangelo's David: A Search for Identity (Art Bulletin, Vol. 51, No. 3. September 1969, pp. 294-297). I don't have access to that. Some of this may be in that book or his review. Also, Paoletti and Wendy Stedman wrote a book Collaboration in Italian Renaissance art, Yale University Press (1978) ; some of this may be there.
Renaissance art history is not particularly an area where I can claim expertise, just basic cluefulness, so I'm probably not the one to follow this up. Someone else might well want to do so.
By the way, we don't mention at all in this article that for much of its history, including in Michelangelo's lifetime, David's genitalia were covered by a garland of finely wrought silver leaves. - Jmabel | Talk 22:07, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Paoletti's remarks 

message: Unless I'm mistaken, there have been four separate attempts at restoring the statue. The first was a minor disaster, because one of the materials used to strip dirt, etc. off of the statue was hydrochloric acid. - Jmabel | Talk 18:15, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Here's a citation for the hydrochloric acid (which was apparently an 1843 attempt to remove wax that had been applied in 1810) - Jmabel | Talk 18:19, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Restorations 

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

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

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

message: I have just been through the entire history of the intro, to try to determine how such an important subject could have been so badly dealt with. 
OK. 
* Back in about 2007 we had: 
"Michelangelo's David, sculpted from 1501 to 1504, is a masterpiece of Renaissance sculpture and one of Michelangelo's two greatest works of sculpture, along with the Pietà. The 5.17 meter (17 ft) marble statue portrays the Biblical David at the moment that he decides to do battle with Goliath. It came to symbolise the Florentine Republic, an independent city state threatened on all sides by more powerful rival states. This interpretation was also encouraged by the original setting of the sculpture outside the Palazzo della Signoria, the seat of civic government in Florence. The completed sculpture was unveiled on 8 September 1504." 
Comment: This seems to sum it up pretty well. We got dates, we are told (concisely) that it is a "masterpiece of the Renaissance" (Is "masterpiece" a peacock termm? I hardly think so.) One of Michelangelo two greatest works of sculpture, with the Pieta? Yes, beyond question. 
The height is given (as accurately as possible). We are told what the subject is, concisely. (There is no doubt it is the Biblical David. However the "before or after" question is to raise its head. 
* In 2007 an experienced editor changed David to King David, and this was the beginning of a downhill run for this article. Basically, if you wreck the very first paragraph, that tells you what the subject is, then you have done serious damage. 
:Comment: So what's the problem in changing "David" to "King David"?
:Does this statue represent "King David"? No, it doesn't. No, it absolutely doesn't! 
:Understanding that it does not represent a king is important to understanding everything that this statue stands for. 
:While we know that the young man portrayed eventually was chosen as King, that fact has nothing whatever to do with this artwork. King David is not the subject matter here. 
:The significant fact about David is that he was an ordinary lad. He was a shepherd boy. That' is why he was patron of the Wool Guild. 
:So this is a portrayal of a common ordinary lad of greater-than-average courage who defeated a giant. 
:In a nutshell, the statue represents "David". It doesn't represent "King David". One small thoughtless edit like that can seriously change the meaning of an article for the next three years. 
* in December 2007, someone naive and well-meaning added the words "in the nude". 
:So now we have the sentence: "The 5.17 meter (17 ft) marble statue portrays the Biblical King David in the nude at the moment that he decides to do battle with Goliath." 
:Comment: There is a certain difference between "nude statue of David" and "a statue of King David in the nude".....which suggests King David getting into his bath. "Nude" is a word used in art commentary. "...in the nude" is not. It simply that the person has been caught naked. This is the way that Michelangelo's critics (with the Inquisition getting underway) chose to perceive the Last Judgement. 
* In September 2008 we got a major expansion. Not satisfied with David being a masterpiece and one of the Mighty Mick's two greatest sculptures, someone added: 
:"Michelangelo's David, sculpted from 1501 to 1504, is a masterpiece of Renaissance sculpture and one of Michelangelo's two greatest works of sculpture, along with the Pietà. It is the statue of the young Israelite king David alone that almost certainly is one of the most recognizable stone sculptures in the history of art. It is regarded as a symbol both of strength and youthful human beauty. The 5.17 meter (17 ft)[1] marble statue portrays the Biblical King David in the nude, at the moment that he decides to battle with Goliath. 
:Comment:  All this, before we have even been told what the subject matter is. Notice that this editor has picked up on the erroneous fact that this represents "King David" and embelished it "the young Israelite King David". 
:This totally OTT edit had an unfortunate and unintended result. Someone removed all reference to the fame of this supremely famous artwork, but did retain "Renaissance masterpiece". We went back to it being "the Biblical King David in the nude at the moment that he decides to do battle with Goliath. 
* 24 January 2009. Along comes an anonymous editor who makes this very interesting and unreferenced change. 
:"The 5.17 meter (17 ft)[1] marble statue portrays the Biblical King David in the nude, contemplating the worldly forces which have helped him to victory over Goliath." 
:Comment:  Here is a different slant, and one well worth thinking about! A second opinion! 
* 17th February 2009. Such a daring edit could not stay for long. Another experienced editor that should have known better replaced it with: 
:"The ... marble statue portrays the Biblical King David in the nude. Unlike previous depictions of David which portray the hero after his victory over Goliath Michealangelo chose to represent David before the fight contemplating the battle yet to come.[2]" 
: Comments: The division of one sentence into two has left us with this bald, simplistic and erroneous statement: "The...statue portrays the Biblical King David in the nude." 
:Aaaaargh! The subject of this artwork is not "King David in the nude"! This is the worst edit ever. OK! OK! It was an edit in good faith. However, a dozen experienced editors, including people with expertise in art, have been to this page, have reverted vandalism and made other changes, but have permitted this sentence to stand for a year as the Primary definition of what this artwork is about. If I am to loose all faith in wikipedia, than this might do it! 
: The same experienced editor "corrected" that second opinion by putting in a different opinion, and referencing it. If we were talking about a clear-cut fact here, (the much disputed height of David, which must have a single accurate answer) then eliminating what was written would be fine. But when someone has written a perfectly valid statement that is contrary to the accepted one, it needs looking at. The statement alerts editors to the fact that there is another opinion out there. The change that was made needed to reflect that fact, even if only by the simple means of writing "the accepted opinion is that this represents...." or "Helen Gardner states that this represents....." Better still, if you are a serious editor, then try sourcing that second, and very interesting opinion, rather than simply deleting it. 
:Hummmphh! 
:Amandajm (talk) 03:22, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Inadequate intro

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

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

message: there is a problem with the template at the begining of the page. Could someone plz fix it?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.78.79.29 (talk) 07:54, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: . Thanks for reporting the problem. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 08:13, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template problem 

message: Does anyone have a full-body picture of David from Goliath's POV?  A friend's art history teacher claims that David, as warrior, should be seen from this angle and that he's quite striking and scary.  But all the power of the sculpture is taken away when viewing the sculpture from the angles of the photos in the article.  Can anyone back this up?  Is the art history teacher full of it?
No, that teacher is correct. You can see that warrior expression in a full front view of his face. I did a Google search of images under the phrase "Michelangelo's David" and found several head shots that showed changing expression from changing angles. The front view is surprisingly fierce.
A full-body frontal view, from Goliath's POV, is now available on my webpage 
at http://www.econ.ohio-state.edu/jhm/arch/david/David.htm .  In order to 
obtain this view, you have to stand well back behind the column he is facing 
in the Galleria dell'Accademia, and use X-Ray vision to see through the 
column.  Or else use Stanford's new ScanView software, which is what I did.  
Incidentally, I liked JoJan's photo of the copy outside the Palazzo Vecchio 
a lot better than the one that recently replaced it.  I'm using JoJan's 
on my webpage.  HuMcCulloch 15:04, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Viewing Angle

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