Leonardo, Michelangelo, Raphael


  1. Yare Yare Daze

    Yare Yare Daze13 日 前

    Stop zooming in on the pictures it creeps me out

  2. Francisco Santos

    Francisco Santos2 ヶ月 前


  3. username

    username5 ヶ月 前

    I thought this was the teenage mutant ninja turtles for a sec.

  4. Villie Stephanov

    Villie Stephanov年 前

    Blagodariq T :)

  5. 88feji

    88feji3 年 前

    Da Vinci and Raphael are some way ahead of Michelangelo in terms of aesthetics and a sense of mysterious mood in their biblical works ... Michelangelo is all physical musculinity where god, christ and mary are more a physical presence rather than being of unimaginable spiritual depth which is so wonderfully captured by Da Vinci .. I've always felt that ALL the biblical figures on the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel are actually the same muscle man repeated many many times over and over again because they all have the same physical proportions and facial features whether its Adam or God or other characters etc, where is the variation of body and face according to the personalities of the characters ? .. even Rapheal had much more variations in terms of dramatic compositions and that airy sense of depth, too bad Raphael dies young, he could have matured into someone like Da Vinci in terms of capturing the ethereal beauty of biblical stories ...

  6. Marcos S

    Marcos S28 日 前

    @JS Toms I totally agree with you, not enough credit to Michael Angelo as in "the whole artist" that he was. I go back to the reasoning of Da Vinci's fame being far ahead from Michael Angelo, he painted the two most famous paintings in the world since then, Mona Lisa because is very hard to make up or decipher her smile and The Last Supper simply because of the religious nature of the painting itself, which is the religion of the western world today, thousands of prints, replicas almost in every Catholic home. I'll give you the reasoning behind Michael Angelo's abilities to finish quick, as a matter of fact, there is another painting underneath the Mona Lisa, and in fact, it was never officially finished. Another fact that contribute to Da Vinci's fame is all of his inventions, way ahead of his time that still makes me think a little, two of the greatest, no doubt, for different reasons. Another factor I see in Michael Angelo's favor is the age gap between them, a whole generation and of course the newer always step ahead. Curious note on the Sistine Chapel. Michael Angelo almost lost that commission to Raphael, who was painting in the Vatican at the same time, when the pope saw Raphael's work, he said, I want you to finish the chapel, not Michael Angelo, somehow he kept going on it. Another great one without much fame, only to people that are curious about art. Michael Angelo is my second favorite artist.

  7. JS Toms

    JS Toms28 日 前

    @Marcos S Yes, Michelangelo ended up far more famous and wealthy. And I agree with you that one should not shirk off the genius of another if it is recognized. And I most certainly do for Da Vinci. However, this is exactly what I'm railing against- that people are incredibly dismissive at Michelangelo, even though he was far more than just a sculptor and painter. And his abilities in the arts truly were greater than Da Vinci's in many respects. For instance, even though the medium was not familiar to him, he took on The Sistine Chapel in fresco. This dries very quickly, and it cannot be corrected once set. Whereas oil paintings, even of Da Vinci's, are FULL of corrections. We can see this by looking into the layers of the painting like The Mona Lisa with technology. And Da Vinci also took enormous amounts of time to work, whereas Michelangelo often finished work quickly. So, I am at the very least of the belief that they were of equal talents, if one becomes acquainted to the depths of Michelangelo's gifts. As well, Da Vinci is a commonly celebrated mind, ad nauseam. So I am really fighting for more respect to be paid to someone who is provably being sold short. And I think that's simply because of a cultural bias.

  8. Marcos S

    Marcos S28 日 前

    @JS Toms Was Micahel Angelo's career bigger and famously accepted? Perhaps, just because he knew how and who to approach and obviously knew how to back up his statements, but a true artist will never insult another genius' work as garbage, Michael Angelo had more of a rigid idea of what a good painting should be, which by the way, he never liked to be called a painter, beautiful work, no doubt, but his paintings don't have the depth and subtlety of Da Vinci's, very own personal opinions, as beauty and art is in the eye of the beholder. Shame Da Vinvi had his mind on some many things that distracted him from finishing works, in my mind he was one of the biggest genius minds that ever lived. Kudos to Micahel Angelo to sticking to his career the way he did. All this is not criticizing your comments or admiration for one of the greatest, I personally prefer Da Vinci's paintings. Thank you for all your input, respected.

  9. JS Toms

    JS Toms28 日 前

    @Marcos S Apparently my prior statement was cut short. So I'll correct that. Michelangelo was a scientist also, but not as popular for it, because he never needed to be. Da Vinci was much older than Michelangelo. So much so, that in the early days, patronage of the arts was not nearly as well established. Therefore, Da Vinci turned to war machines to sell himself to a patron. This was the impetus of his famous book of sketches. However, I was saying previously that Michelangelo was hired as an architect. This was because Da Vinci couldn't figure out how to repair this ruinous project, as many before tried to refurbish it and failed. He wanted Michelangelo to take the project and fail too. But he did not. In fact, his skill at mathematics and physics was such that he completed the project and remedied the problem of it collapsing. Michelangelo was also an accomplished anatomist. He studied the human body in vast detail, stripping the bodies, examining the tissue and muscle fibers, vascular system and bones. This is why his art is so well endowed with the perfect sense of the body. Michelangelo also earned twice as much money as Da Vinci's entire life career... at half the age. He was also the richest artist, and one of the richest people, of the entire era. He had no need of pressing his talents for science further. Hence, no reason for there to be more of a historical emphasis on it.

  10. Marcos S

    Marcos S28 日 前

    @JS Toms I'll give you that for a second. I was born in Rome, 8 blocks from the Vatican, I've seen the Sistine Chapel many times over, tremendous achievement and work of art, but will never match the finesse and dominance of the sfumatura technique of Da Vinci's work, but Da Vinci was also a scientist which helped achieve that. Michael Angelo was one of the greatest of all times but will never surpass Da Vinci. If you want study some real painting techniques, look no further than Murillo and Velazquez, specially his "Las Meninas" painting, which to me is the best painting ever created, look at those two for a few minutes, don't forget Rembrandt either.