In this day and age,do we view Michelangelo as more of a sculptor or a painter? I think most people would know him for his David but the Creation of Adam is fairly popular too,not to mention the Sistine Chapel! I see him as a sculptor I think,especially they way he thought their was a spirit within the marble and he had to free it. Anyone else have any opinions on this?
2006-11-29 23:45:51 · 12 answers · asked by Bridgeridoo 5 in Arts & Humanities ➔ Visual Arts ➔ Other - Visual Arts
There are so many facets to the artistic abilities of Michelangelo. One can only wonder what he himself must have been feeling about his art creations. Drawings, paintings, sculpture, poetry, and architectural design make up his complex nature. I really think of Michelangelo as the quintessential Renaissance man.
2006-11-30 00:05:56 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
Sorry to disappoint you but most people born after 1970 think Michelangelo is a Ninja Turtle!!!!
In my view Michelangelo was an Artist. If he had turned his talent to crayons he would have made masterpieces. Primarilly though, a sculptor, his heart was truly in Stone, in Marble, to truly understand this one ought to read Irving Stones 'The Agony and the Ectasy.' Michelangelo was magnificent.
Peace...
2006-11-29 23:51:33 · answer #2 · answered by JVHawai'i 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think it is limiting to see Michelangelo as more of a sculptor than a painter, or vice versa. I think the following description of Michelangelo is more fitting:
"Italian sculptor, painter, architect and poet. He was one of the founders of the High Renaissance and, in his later years, one of the principal exponents of Mannerism."
2006-11-29 23:53:31 · answer #3 · answered by vusimhl 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
That's a very difficult question. To answer I'll ask a question--which is more famous David or the Sistine Chapel?
2006-11-30 00:53:26 · answer #4 · answered by Ace Librarian 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think he is popular for both, but he considered himself more of a sculptor. I think he liked sculpting more.
2006-11-29 23:47:28 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think people have their own opinions about it. I always think of the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel when I think of him.
2006-11-29 23:53:27 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
He couldn't be considered that bad at either of those things but i personally feel we should have reached the stage today where Art has moved on from just representing things realistically
2006-11-29 23:54:27 · answer #7 · answered by malcolmg 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Both. Michelangelo was an artist. He did not limit himself to one particular medium. It would be unfair to limit his mastery to one or the other.
2006-11-29 23:55:39 · answer #8 · answered by Paul K 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Sculptor, I guess
2006-11-29 23:48:34 · answer #9 · answered by emilie 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I see him as an artist..like leonardo da vinci he can't be defined just by one category and so he's always be just an artist with multiple talents
2006-11-29 23:53:39 · answer #10 · answered by xicofb 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋