virus: Re: Lesson 12

David Rosdeitcher (
26 Feb 97 20:43:04 EST

Stephen A. wrote:
>I still disagree. Many artists of the middle to late rennaissance (as
>well as the early baroque) layered subversive texts into their art work,
>especially when they were meant to support corporate interests.

Steve--I'm not going to speculate what Michelangelo thought by NOT layering
subversive text within his art. You can take an infinite number of such
negatives (ie. he didn't do this) to support any possible point.

>Michelangelo, as a humanist and a maker of sacred art did not sell out--
>his memeset worked well with the new movement of the church-- the
>*celebration* of the divine as flesh.

The "celebration of the divine as flesh" idea is very tricky. During the middle
ages the flesh was seen as disgusting. During the Renaissance there began a wave
of Aristotelian thinking that saw the flesh as acceptable. Just as when a tree
has to bend with the wind to survive instead of break, the church, to stay
alive, had to "go with the flow" and adapt the Aristotelian idea that flesh was
not disgusting to Christianity, by calling it "divine".

>>I suppose you could say that Michelangelo "sold out" by
>>going for a greater amount of temporary fame and fortune by devoting
>>himself to
>>the intentions of the clergy.

>I would love to be as "temporarily" famous.

It sounds like a strange comment, but here is an analogy: I once had an athletic
coach who told me not to take drugs, but I pointed out that a really good
athlete takes cocaine. My coach claimed that this athlete might be even better
if he didn't take cocaine. Michelangelo might have been better not selling out.