Talk:The Creation of Adam

message: I propose an inclusion of a section entitled the above.  For example, look at Adam's knee.  Some believe that in it one can see the torso of a woman, with her breasts as the top part of Adam's knee.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.132.8.197 (talk) 03:12, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I came across this video tracing various heart shapes in the painting: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5jY1_9IgBjk. Honestly, I think you could make out just about anything if you try hard enough. Solomon Ucko (talk) 04:41, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Hidden Images

message: Hello. Someone has put in a wikilink to the FSM (presumably because someone made a "Creation of Adam" parody featuring the FSM). I've removed the link but it has been reverted at least once. I'd like to know what anyone else thinks. Wile E. Heresiarch 15:08, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 'See also' are bad in general, and this one in particular doesn't seem very relavant. Raul654 15:17, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd actually argue that it's extremely relevant, as Pastafarianism is fairly widespread and the parody is one of their prime logos, so to speak. 206.53.79.115 (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 02:48, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Flying Spaghetti Monster]] wikilink 

message: Googling this word (and excluding Wikipedia from the search terms) brings up only Donnadio as a surname. Can anyone support the claim that it's the Italian name for this section of the Sistine ceiling? Otherwise it'll have to go. [talk to the] HAM 19:53, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "Donnadio"

message: I find the article to have too much POV.  Adam, Eve, creation and God are presented matter-of-a-factly, rather than as subjects in a work of art.  I also do not see how Lilith is any more mythical than Eve or God, except that she is a non-canon character in a belief system.  It should be remembered that The Creation of Adam is a (technically brilliant) artistic depiction/interpretation/rendering of mythological events recorded in "the" bible.--The Chairman (Shout me · Stalk me) 08:59, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Totally agreed. I found this section of the talk page by chance after already preparing to write something similar. "The inclusion of Eve has led some people to believe the female figure must be Adam's mythical first wife, Lilith, although Lilith was also created after Adam." --> This passage very much implies that Adam is not mythical. Whether or not the stories in the Bible are true, they are myths. ("Use of the term by scholars implies neither the truth nor the falseness of the narrative.") The passage ought to be clarified without placing Adam in a literary position of infallibility. Tomalak Geret'kal (talk) 12:23, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV 

message: It strikes me odd - that nothing is mentioned of the violation of one of the Ten commandments - not to draw images of God. So why has something like this not been included?Tourskin 06:32, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image of God 

message: :God is depicted as an elderly bearded man laying on a kidney which he shares with some cherubim. The kidney was considered to be the organ that is essential for the body to stay alive in Michaelangelo's time, so it often represented life in art.
I couldn't let this claim stay in the article unsubstantiated. If this theory has been put forward in a reliable source, it may be restored to the article, but only under the special section for 'Anatomical theories' (with the brain theory and the uterus theory – both of which indicate their sources) to emphasise how non-mainstream this view is. And I'm afraid 'kidneys often represented life in art' is just plain humbug.
:Another theory of the meaning of "The Creation of Adam", is that God's position in the piece is that of full outreach, indicating that he is giving all effort to reach the hand of Adam. Adam, seems very relaxed, and doesn't seem as interested to reach out, which is shown in his loose arm and hand. These two representations show us that at any point in time, all man has to do is reach out to God, and he will be there to help, or lend a helping hand.
This is valid enough as a personal interpretation of the work, but it has no place in an encyclopaedia. It's hard when describing works of art, but we have to try to be as objective as we can here. Sorry. Ham 11:15, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Just to explain my recent deletions 

message: This page has a misleading title and nomenclature throughout. The name for this fresco, still the Italian name, is La Creazione dell'uomo (1.48 million Google hits on phrase)—"The Creation of Man". In fact, The Creation of Man is still its normal title in reliable English sources, that know how to translate Italian. Wikipedia looks a little odd in a Google search on the standard title in English, because we have renamed it according to our own editorial decision. The Italian is theologically accurate, as one would hope for a Vatican entity, but that's by-the-by. Editors interested in rectifying this according to sources may like to compare La Creazione di Adamo (73,200 hits) and La creazione dell'uomo e della donna (1,840 hits). Searches are, of course, complicated by picking up many references to the Bible. Alastair Haines (talk) 10:04, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reliable source for title? 

message: It is not the creation of Adam, it is the awakening of Adam.
 It was bomb essay  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.192.189.32 (talk) 01:17, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not the proper title 

message: ive heard this alot about this painting and am suprised that its not included, many have suggested this represents adam the first man as being a lefty, because he is reaching out with his left hand towards god. considering all the subtle hidden meanings we find in this type of art these days, and the fact that michaelangelo was a lefty, this one is pretty obvious.--69.230.211.183 (talk) 14:41, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Left-Handed Suggestion

message: Why does Adam have a belly button if he didn't have a mother and presumably never had an umbilical cord?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.35.84.219 (talk) 15:36, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Belly button 

message: Couldn't the word 'positive' be taken as read? 78.146.161.176 (talk) 23:24, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  'Positive' critique? 

message: A fuller image of the painting would be nice. The current one is cropped and is missing the right side, where the characters' feet are. --69.157.28.33 (talk) 05:28, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I have replaced the image with a better quality and much more complete one that also includes part of the frame around the panel. Hope I did everything right; I'm a new editor. Someone please fix it if I messed something up. --The Pachyderminator (talk) 20:51, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Fuller Image

message: Someone has been messing with this article. Please fix!
"The secret lover seeing his destruction ran from the church and Michalangelo's death was thought to be an accident, the church members were so frightened by the crazy incident that they took a polaroid picture of his painting and then burned the entire building down. Is has recently been replaced by a Taco Bell."  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Squibblesoz (talk • contribs) 01:42, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  nonsense 

message: "but was also suggested to be Virgin Mary, Sophia, ..." - who is Sophia? Can an interlink be given? Tomer T (talk) 10:29, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Who is Sophia? 

message: This article seems to have functioned as a magnet for sophomoric contributions by random people.--75.83.69.196 (talk) 03:58, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: low quality

message: So how big is this painting?
I just removed ridiculous millimetres from the end of the dimensions -- these figures were exactly what you would get by converting the inch values (which themselves are suspiciously precise). Just how accurately could one measure a panel on the ceiling anyway?
But Even More Seriously: How big is it? Romance language WPs seem to agree on 570 x 280 cm, the others agree on 480 x 230 cm. This is too much to be accounted for by different measurement methods (does one measure the painting along the curve of the ceiling, or across a chord? etc). My rough calculations from pictures of the whole ceiling and the claim that it is 14m wide (oddly, just more than the 13.4m width of the chapel!) suggest that the width of the actual picture (inside the "frame") cannot be more than about 450 cm. Perhaps traditionally some of the "frame" (which I presume is also painting) is included... ?
But in such cases, citations from Real Old Books, or reliable measurements might help, but it might actually be more *accurate* to give a less *precise* value, "Approx. 4.8 by 2.3 metres".
Imaginatorium (talk) 08:24, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dimensions 

message: As the only other picture in the article besides the painting itself, it seems that the Simpsons are presented as having equal significance and cultural impact as the original painting. I suspect that hard-core Simpsons fans see the whole word through the lens of the Simpsons, but for the rest of the world, we have never seen the Simpsons and/or simply don't care what the Simpsons have to say about every facet of history. Wikipedia often has a bad reputation that needs to be overcome as a collection of useless popular cultural references, and the Simpsons picture fuels that case. 129.63.129.196 (talk) 15:00, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Picture of the Simpsons Needs to Be Removed 

message: Removed the link to Bob Henderson as the creator of the FSM, as the page seems to be removed.
Asciimov  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 145.97.230.178 (talk) 00:26, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bob Henderson 

message: There should be a section for famous derivatives of this, as it is an impact on culture. Such as the Flying Spaghetti Monster, or the Deadpool 2 movie poster, etc. Esp, the Pastafarian painting. -- 70.52.11.217 (talk) 21:21, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: And indeed the Monty Python version. -- Cimon Avaro; on a pogostick. (talk) 00:31, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

text: shouldn't all those and others be catalogued on an "adolescent humor satirizing religion" page? easier for everybody. 2603:8001:D300:A631:0:0:0:10D0 (talk) 18:56, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Derivations

message: In the section 
The_Creation_of_Adam#Studies_of_a_Reclining_Male_Nude:_Adam_in_the_Fresco_%22The_Creation_of_Man%22 
the article says "Michelangelo employed a male model to capture this effortful pose". it's uncited, but what is effortful about this? (effortful I suppose is technically a word, but I've never seen it before, and I'm old and well read) I mean, is that what is generally said about this pose or this painting? The reason I noticed it is that I came to the article for this very topic because I was sitting around thinking, "you know, it's always bothered me, why is this depiction so torpid or even languid, or especially, so unanimated given the moment of the event" 2603:8001:D300:A631:0:0:0:10D0 (talk) 18:55, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, cut the word. Johnbod (talk) 14:40, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  what is "effortful"