GOAT man

We know that many artists used photographs, for example, to save money on life models, but many did not publicise the fact. You are right, the Box Brownie made photography massively popular and it was launched in 1900 and cost $1. In 1925 the first 35mm Leica was released and more than 57,000 Leica A models were sold between 1925 and 1936. It was expensive, it cost $114 (about $2,000 today) but it was the first truly portable, high quality professional camera.

I agree, I have done the same and suffered for it. Michelangelo could easily have had a platform built to enable him to paint lying down so it was his choice. He must have been a tough guy.

Perhaps the Pope breathing down his neck for years kept him loose !@@LaurenceShafe

Let me answer in two ways. First, I feel sympathy because there are many paintings by famous artists where I notice something that looks wrong and I cannot get it out of my mind. A good example is the incorrect reflection in Manet's 'A Bar at the Folies-Bergère'. We know from sketches that he moved the reflection to the wrong place intentionally. Another example is the disproportionally large woman in the background of his 'Le Déjeuner sur l'herbe'. Second, I would argue that the hand is a deliberate choice by Michelangelo to symbolise the strength of her compassion and support for her son and it shows her as a powerful figure able to bear the sorrow of her son's death. He often exaggerated anatomical features to convey emotion and narrative, for example, the right hand of his sculpture of 'David' is disproportionally large. I hope that avoids the need to seek professional help :)

@@LaurenceShafe Thank you Dr. Shafe ! Given Michelangelo`s technical mastery, I doubted that this was a technical error. I suspected that there could certainly be a "symbolic" value to this, and you have indeed confirmed it. Merci beaucoup ! I have cancelled my medical apointment. ;)

I partly recorded the talk in the hope that a few people might look at some works of modern art again and find something of interest or at least appreciate the back story. Marcel Duchamp, for example, submitted the urinal to test the board who had said publicly they would accept any work properly submitted.

@@LaurenceShafe and I think that is where your lecture was really informative. To date I had no wish to engage, but learning about Duchamp's reasoning for submitting the Fountain has got me to at least pause and consider the piece. I do think a great deal of the problem with modern art, (if it can be considered a problem ) is that most of it cannot be readily appreciated from a purely aesthetic point of view, and this is where, in my opinion, the root of the issue of what art is; is. Back to Duchamp's Fountain which proves your point. Too many people, (and I include myself in this), cannot be bothered to take the time to try and understand the piece and I wonder if that is because art tends to be a visual medium and due to the nature of being human we tend to see and then evaluate in a particular way and then, conciously or sub-conciously, judge a piece based on our own in built bias/taste, which in the main I would say is driven by instictive aesthetic values. Fascinating stuff and thanks again for getting me thinking.

Apologies, I can't find where I said the Pope called him to Rome. San Lorenzo is in Florence and Leo X, who was a Medici, visited Florence in 1515 and held a competition to design the facade. Many of the leading artists took part and Michelangelo was keen to win and in 1516 Leo X gave him responsibility for the design of the facade as well as the sculptural decoration. When Leo X died in 1521, Hadrian VI became Pope and then Clement VII, another Medici, who said he would continue the work but little happened and on his death 1534 the project died with him.