Michelangelo's statue "David" is anatomically inaccurate. How?

Question

Thank you all for your interesting responses : no-one has the right answer however, as yet.

Nessie, googly and resigned: nice to see you again : some humourless ape has had my last two funny questions removed. Would you believe Yahoo's density?

Answer 1

He isn't circumcised!

Answer 2

The proportions are not quite true to the human form; the head and upper body are somewhat larger than the proportions of the lower body.

Given the statue is over 5m tall, any observer would always have to look up to the statue. If it had been created in proportion, the statue would have looked distorted.

Thus Michelangelo created the statue to be observed from below and, accordingly, the proportions were deliberately altered for the benefit of the observer.

---

Since it is a representation of David, a Jew, the statue should have a circumcised penis. However, this is not an anatomical inaccuracy. Circumcision is usually carried out for religious or medical reasons.

It has been suggested that this was a conscious decision in Michelangelo's endeavour to emulate the ancient Greek aesthetic ideals, which regarded the circumcised penis as mutilated.

Answer 3

Michelangelo's David is based on the artistic discipline of disegno, which is built on knowledge of the male human form. Under this discipline, sculpture is considered to be the finest form of art because it mimics divine creation. Because Michelangelo adhered to the concepts of disegno, he worked under the premise that the image of David was already in the block of stone he was working on — in much the same way as the human soul is found within the physical body. It is also an example of the contrapposto style of posing the human figure.

The proportions are not quite true to the human form; the head and upper body are somewhat larger than the proportions of the lower body. While some have suggested that this is of the mannerist style, the most commonly accepted explanation is that the statue was originally intended to be placed on a church façade or high pedestal, and that the proportions would appear correct when the statue was viewed from some distance below.

There was controversy over the statue's supposed Biblical reference, since the statue seemed to portray an uncircumcised male, whereas the historical King David was undoubtedly circumcised. It was also suggested that this was a conscious decision in Michelangelo's endeavor to emulate the ancient Greek aesthetic ideals, which regarded the circumcised penis as mutilated.

Answer 4

David is anatomically incorrect not only because his right hand and head are disproportionately larger than his body, but also because his brow protrudes from his face in a manner that would be anatomically impossible.

Also, if you're speaking of the statue itself, the toe on the left foot was damaged with a hammer several years ago.

Answer 5

He has been designed to look in proportion when you look up at him hence his legs are too short, his neck and trunk are to long and he is ridiculously wide at the shoulders, it is a sort of visual pun on Michelangelo's part, oh I am proud of myself for remembering that as it is a very very long time since I took my A Level History of Art exams on the Renaissance in Florence!

Answer 6

I don' t know. I'm guessing that Michelangelo wanted his statue to be perfectly proportioned and anatomically, it wasn't that way. Or maybe he just didn't want it to be anatomically inaccurate, but I know he studied anatomy. Like I said , I'm just guessing

Answer 7

His pose is contrapposto yet his body is not leaning to one side; which means one leg is longer than the other.

Answer 8

The muscle structure is incorrect.

Answer 9

It's those lines that run from the waist over his hips.

Answer 10

Option One (Marble) gets my Vote.

Answer 11

His tail is not as long as mine?

Nessie xxxx