Honestly, how did Michelangelo get away with painting gay porn in one of the most important Roman Catholic churches? This is hilarious to be honest. Didn't anyone notice?
 Thalidomide Vintage Ad Shirt $22.14 |
 CRIME Shirt $21.68 |
Thalidomide Vintage Ad Shirt $22.14 |
Get away with? But that's what he was commissioned to do
But wouldn't devout catholics dislike this even if the pope wanted it?
>several semi-naked men kissing
lmao
no
nobody objected to it at the time, people objected to funding it (Peter's pence) but they didn't object to the artwork
there is no Christian reason to object to it , Jesus was probably naked on the Cross and the Roman legionaries gambled for his clothes, this is Bible
You can't think critically anymore. You have a block in your mind.
That block is most likely a stack of nickels for every post xhe submits.
This was a time when Greco-Roman art was being rediscovered and the tastemakers wanted art like that.
On another level yeah Michaelangelo was probably a homosexual and so probably was the Pope.
There are no pride flags, no children being molested, no ass stuff, what about it is gay?
What's pornographic in your image? Stop projecting your fetishes
The entire Sistine Chapel ceiling is deeply anti-Orthodox. If you spend time looking at each pannel you can see a kind of theology emerge that is quite gnostic. The best example is the Garden, where an Angel and the Serpent are entangled into one being. The message is clear: God sent the Serpent. This is my own observation.
The Renaissance is the beginning of the End of the West. Donatello's David is exactly what it looks like: a sexual celebration of the naked prepubescent boy. IE child pornography.
This was the first nude cast in bronze on the Italian peninsula in over 1,000 years.
The Renaissance generated an obsession with erotic beauty that surpassed the classical Greek celebration of human form.
It was not a great moment of progress but rather a backslide. It is no coincidence the Cult of the Artist or the Artist as Hero begins with the Renaissance. Michelangelo is the best example. Only one or two centuries earlier painters and sculptors were anonymous craftsmen.
This is more or less secret knowledge.
Frazer had the opposite take
>The saint and the recluse, disdainful of earth and rapt in ecstatic contemplation of heaven, became in popular opinion the highest ideal of humanity, displacing the old ideal of the patriot and hero who, forgetful of self, lives and is ready to die for the good of his country. The earthly city seemed poor and contemptible to men whose eyes beheld the City of God coming in the clouds of heaven. Thus the centre of gravity, so to say, was shifted from the present to a future life, and however much the other world may have gained, there can be little doubt that this one lost heavily by the change. A general disintegration of the body politic set in. The ties of the state and the family were loosened: the structure of society tended to resolve itself into its individual elements and thereby to relapse into barbarism; for civilisation is only possible through the active co-operation of the citizens and their willingness to subordinate their private interests to the common good. Men refused to defend their country and even to continue their kind. In their anxiety to save their own souls and the souls of others, they were content to leave the material world, which they identified with the principle of evil, to perish around them. This obsession lasted for a thousand years. The revival of Roman law, of the Aristotelian philosophy, of ancient art and literature at the close of the Middle Ages, marked the return of Europe to native ideals of life and conduct, to saner, manlier views of the world. The long halt in the march of civilisation was over. The tide of Oriental invasion had turned at last. It is ebbing still.
James Frazer - Oriental Religions in the West
t. Jonathan Pageau
666 get
The quoted text is an excellent summary of the currently common view of the Renaissance.
I dissent from this understanding, I see an obsession with sexuality and many instances of deliberately inverted symbolism. It is easy for me to think of the decadent Popes like the Borgias and Medici popes as participants in this.
Again this is my private musings, I did not read it in a book or hear it from someone. So I have no idea how to go about checking it for responses. I am certain others notice the same things I do, but I do not know any names. I have done minimal research into the Renaissance.
Nudity≠Pornography
Also they covered the genitals after Michaelangelo passed away
They did cover the genitals on the wall behind the altar, but not the ceiling the Vatican paid millions to restore just a few years ago.
Nudity is not pornography, I agree. Yet nudity is unavoidably pornographic. The pose, age, form, gender and scene all influence to what extent.
Michelangelo's figures in the OP are highly suggestive. Just ask what it looks like you are seeing.
I see now that some dudes are kissing in the top I didn't spot that until now. I can see how someone could see that as suggestive.
Michelangelo was a freemason, there's a lot more depraved things in his works in the sistine chapel than sexual perversions
Aha! That explains a lot actually. For those of you who don't know, the Free Masons are a kind of esoteric alternative to official Christianity. They provided a place and practice for those who could not accept Orthodox Christianity.
There weren't any Masonic lodges in Italy until the 1700s.
Think critically how, how is it pornography, and how was I wrong about what I said?
Ignore the tripgay.
>The love for what I speak of reaches higher. Woman's too much unlike, no heart by rights ought to grow hot for her, if wise and male.
Michelangelo (Sonnet 258)