Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Sistine Chapel

vatican.va

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 246 posts

Re: Sistine Chapel

#151

Post by hdyeh683 »

marcfawzi wrote: post #150

There's nothing technically novel about this. It's also kind of offensive given the mass genocide committed in the name of religion. Hacker News turning to Christian News.

The biggest genocides were committed by these atheist regimes -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mao_Zedong

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Stalin

Here's one excerpt, "Raised in the Georgian Orthodox faith, Stalin became an atheist. He followed the position that religion was an opiate that needed to be removed in order to construct the ideal communist society. His government promoted atheism through special atheistic education in schools, anti-religious propaganda, the anti-religious work of public institutions (Society of the Godless), discriminatory laws, and a terror campaign against religious believers. By the late 1930s, it had become dangerous to be publicly associated with religion.[97]"

Re: Sistine Chapel

#152

Post by reledi »

JonnieCache wrote: post #33

I saw a thing on TV once where some religious historian lady was pointing out how the robe enclosing god as he reaches out to adam resembles the human brain in cross section. She speculated that Michelangelo may have been leaving a clue as to what he really thought of his employers, based on his attendance at banned human dissections around that time. (It was a serious programme about art history BTW, not some conspi…

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Creation_of_Adam#Anatomical...

Re: Sistine Chapel

#153

Post by marcfawzi »

hdyeh683 wrote: post #151
marcfawzi wrote: post #150

There's nothing technically novel about this. It's also kind of offensive given the mass genocide committed in the name of religion. Hacker News turning to Christian News.

The biggest genocides were committed by these atheist regimes - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mao_Zedong http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Stalin Here's one excerpt, "Raised in the Georgian Orthodox faith, Stalin became an atheist. He followed the position that religion was an opiate that needed to be removed in order to construct the ideal communist society. His government promoted atheism through special atheistic…

That hardly obfuscates the fact that people WERE mass murdered in the name of religion.

Re: Sistine Chapel

#154

Post by tjr »

projectileboy wrote: post #131
tjr wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wish more places would specify "no flash photography" when that's really what they mean. I suppose some people don't know how to turn it off, but for those who do (or for those who don't bring a flash in the first place), it would be nice.

At the Minneapolis Institute of Arts they're very clear about this, as is the Art Institute of Chicago and the Metropolitan Museum of Art, and I'm sure many others. Outside the U.S., I don't know.

Good to know! Sounds like it is in fact increasing as a policy.

Re: Sistine Chapel

#155

Post by hrjet »

jacquesm wrote: post #56
lostlogin wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're quite right, but there is something strangely amusing to me about the idea of art inspired by religion in a thread about the Sistine chapel. It's almost more like science trumping religion. There are quite a few theories on just what some images are of - sections of brain, cross section of a penis, brain stem, eye, shoulder etc.

In this case I should have probably used 'funded', but in those days not having a religion was not really an option. Michelangelo was at continuous odds with his employers during his lifetime, he dissected corpses illegally at first, later with tacit approval of some of the church bigwigs in order to improve his skills as an artist. It was a continuous give-and-take to see who got the most out of the arrangement. In…

> "declared himself unfit as a painter" ?

Wasn't it more like "declared painting as unfit for him"? Michelangelo had a strong disdain for paintings and painters especially Leonardo Da Vinci and his friends.

My only source is [this biography](1). Not sure how accurate that is.

[1]: http://www.amazon.com/The-Agony-Ecstasy-Biographical-Michela...

Re: Sistine Chapel

#156

Post by tinker_27 »

jacquesm wrote: post #56
lostlogin wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're quite right, but there is something strangely amusing to me about the idea of art inspired by religion in a thread about the Sistine chapel. It's almost more like science trumping religion. There are quite a few theories on just what some images are of - sections of brain, cross section of a penis, brain stem, eye, shoulder etc.

In this case I should have probably used 'funded', but in those days not having a religion was not really an option. Michelangelo was at continuous odds with his employers during his lifetime, he dissected corpses illegally at first, later with tacit approval of some of the church bigwigs in order to improve his skills as an artist. It was a continuous give-and-take to see who got the most out of the arrangement. In…

The Agony and the Ecstasy, by Irving Stone, perhaps? Its the first thing that came to mind when I saw this. Irving Stone's Lust for Life, about Vincent Van Gogh, is pretty good as well.

Re: Sistine Chapel

#157

Post by visarga »

WoodenChair wrote: post #122
tormeh wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are uncovered breasts! Penises! Can't find any vulvas unfortunately. It's funny to think that they would have to censor this on American television because of the religious right. Another way to think of it: Miley Cyrus is actually more covered than many of the characters in the Sistine Chapel.

"It's funny to think that they would have to censor this on American television because of the religious right." Re: What would fit on American television today. Pretty specious argument. Just because something was appropriate in the 1400s, doesn't mean we have to find it appropriate today. We also don't find hanging people in public squares appropriate anymore, or a million other things... There are arguments to be…

> Just because something was appropriate in the 1400s, doesn't mean we have to find it appropriate today.

That means current church dogma is just temporary ... it has no 'absolute validity' in it, which is even worse than allowing the nude pics. Or current theology is just creative thinking that happened in-between then and now. Why should a religious man submit to recent theology instead of the original Christian theology of 2000 years ago?

Re: Sistine Chapel

#158

Post by visarga »

marcfawzi wrote: post #153
hdyeh683 wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The biggest genocides were committed by these atheist regimes - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mao_Zedong http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Stalin Here's one excerpt, "Raised in the Georgian Orthodox faith, Stalin became an atheist. He followed the position that religion was an opiate that needed to be removed in order to construct the ideal communist society. His government promoted atheism through special atheistic…

That hardly obfuscates the fact that people WERE mass murdered in the name of religion.

So, people were mass murdered in the name of both theism and atheism. What does that mean?

Re: Sistine Chapel

#159

Post by logn »

This is amazing. The paintings make a lot more sense seeing them in context.

Also, who knew, the Vatican knows how to hire good software engineers. I guess they did hire Michelangelo too though.

Re: Sistine Chapel

#160

Post by cgore »

dredmorbius wrote: post #135
jacquesm wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Mankind has made the most incredible art inspired by religion. Along the same lines, Bach's Chorales and in fact quite a bit of his other work. Try this, if you feel like some really nice classical music: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MC3Upv8DuRQ

Don't make that attribution error of associating the patron with the artist. Yes, religion was the primary patron of visual, sculptural, and musical arts for much of the period from the Renaissance to the Enlightenment. But it wasn't the only. And you'll find beautiful works among the secularist of the Classical and Romantic periods, say, the Pre-Raphaelites. Of whom neither the artists, models, nor subject are gener…

Bach was deeply religious, and not just because of some lap-dog sense of "that's who's paying the bills." He signed most of his works as "SDG", short for "Soli Deo Gloria", which roughly translates as "to God alone belongs all glory. His meaning being that any ability Bach thought he had was solely just God showing off: Bach made beautiful music, but God made Bach, and he knew it.
Post reply on HN