Talk:David (Michelangelo)

Shattered Left Arm

According to The Agony and the Ecstasy (novel), Book 9 (The War), end of Chapter 3, during an attack on Florence (backed by the Pope to quell an attempt to restore the Republic of Florence) from the Duke of Urbino in 1525, the towns people threw furniture upon the cavalry. In the confusion, a wooden bench struck and snapped off the left arm of the David statue. The three detached pieces were kept in a chest in Cecchino Rossi's house. They must have be restored at a later date. [Close up of left arm.]

Indeed. Apparently Vasari wrote about this? http://pontecommedia.wordpress.com/2010/08/15/davids-broken-arm/ --109.132.11.248 (talk) 20:48, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Skewed Proportions

Jong Wrote: Would I be wrong in my recollection that the statue was originally commissioned to be placed at the top of the cathedral of Florence (hence the skewed proportions)? Jongo 00:36, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The statue, by looking at David's HUGE head and hands and long legs, I feel with my exp as an artist, that Michelangelo had intended David to be viewed from ABOVE, perhaps from a gallery or balcony somewhere. Giving the viewer Goliath's point of view of the future king David.

viewing from above you wouldn't notice davids weirdly proportioned genitals, his hands would also look more proportionally correct.

Michelangelo also could have wanted to draw attention to his head and hands symbolically, as they were what David used to kill Goliath. Katieb181 (talk) 18:35, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

btw has anyone noticed that the statue is circumsized? isn't that odd for a jewish king?

Can anyone explain the significance (if any) of the small penis? It seems to be an underground joke amongst non-art buffs that poor David is insufficiently endowed, and I was wondering whether Michelangelo was mimicking himself or if he was just trying to make his own package look bigger by comparison?

My guess is that Michelangelo's public would have judged David by the standards of the ancient statuary with which they were familiar. If so, an organ of that size in relationship to the rest of the body would not have seemed diminutive; in fact, they might even have been astonished at the sculpture's realism, particularly with regard to the fact that David has pubic hair.

Actually, they were quite aware that virility is in the testes, not the penis, and it was quite common to highlight the former. (It was also well known that engorgement often led to larger sizes in organs that were small in their flaccid state, but the main point was the focus on the testes.) When they were making the replica for Caesar's Palace in Las Vegas, there was actually discussion of making the penis larger to account for ignorant American visitors expecting more "endowment." --Warning: Spoofed IP Address 71.203.125.108 (talk) 04:34, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid I'm not convinced by the "Goliath's point of view" theory put forward by the second anonymous poster. Are you suggesting that the best location for a sculpture of the David's size is at the bottom of a well? Why in his right mind would Michelangelo expend so much effort on the front of the statue if that were the case?

My belief is that David's proportions are skewed because he is an adolescent who hasn't stopped growing yet, and that this aspect of the design was less exaggerated when the sculpture was in its original location, with almost unlimited space all around it, as opposed to its current position in a very enclosed space, filling a what is effectively a large niche at the Accademia gallery. [talk to the] HAM 20:13, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

The statue (or at least the block of marble when Donatello first started working it) was originally intended for the roof of the Duomo. There were, at the time, two statues of this size on the roof, but at least one was in cheap materials and not intended to last. (I've seen old sketches of the Duomo that show the statues, but I can't find anything quickly on line.) The intent was to replace it with a marble statue. (By the way, the original intent was not to get a single massive hunk of marble like this, but—I believe—four separate ones: one for each leg, one for the torso, one for the upper body.)

If someone wants to do some library research, this shouldn't be hard to find.

By the way, the thick ankles are almost certainly simply a structural issue. Even as it is, the recent restoration work found hairline cracks. - Jmabel | Talk 18:12, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Re the size of the penis, according to an article in the Guardian, by John Hooper, at http://www.guardian.co.uk/italy/story/0,12576,1396034,00.html , this might be explained by two Florentine doctors who attribute it to "a contraction of the reproductive organs"..."consistent with the combined effects of fear, tension, and aggression." Atraveler | Talk 7:16, 26 November 2006 (PST)

Um. It's a statue. There is such a thing as reading too much into something: this followed the style of the classical Greek and Roman public sculpture that was so en vogue at the time. Don't forget, Michelangelo got his start doing faux classical sculptures for the Medici. - Jmabel | Talk 00:12, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

That's advice best given to The Guardian and other newspapers reporting the conjecture. But there's also the possibility that the classical Greek and Roman folks were very observant, and the Florentine doctors just explain. Atraveler 09:38, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

In the ancient Greek tradition a small penis was de rigueur. Diminishing the apparent size would also decrease the likelihood that people would find it vulgar- the hands stand out to such a degree and they are common enough. People seem to focus on the penis to such a degree that I am not surprised that it is downplayed in proportion.124.168.163.223 (talk) 10:42, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

What's on his shoulder?

I came here trying to figure out what he's holding on his shoulder, but it doesn't seem to say. Does anyone know? Should that info be in the article? --Masamage 20:32, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

It is almost universally described as his sling. (John Paoletti remarks that a simple piece of cloth like that would not make an effective sling, part of why he questions whether the statue was originally supposed to be David. Sadly, I don't have anything in writing for Paoletti's remarks.) - Jmabel | Talk 02:03, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

According to one of the external links, he is holding the other end of the sling in his right hand, although you can't really tell from the photos. Appleseed (Talk) 04:18, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Although not at all a definitive answer, Leonardo da Vinci made some sketch artwork of the David pose. As he was a consultant for the project, this should not be surprising. The da Vinci art shows David holding a long sling in his lowered right hand (the sling as da Vinci has it is not likewise depicted in the statue), and the end of a piece of cloth is clasped in his left, with the cloth draping over the left shoulder. To my eye, and I am guessing, the cloth is David's bag of sling ammunition. In the rear view of the statue, you can see this is not at all the case. Perhaps problems with the marble prevented Michaelangelo from rendering the bag, or more likely his intended viewpoint made coming up with a bag irrelevant. I don't have a rear-view drawing of da Vinci's version as I am not European royalty. But the Windsors are, and they have the artwork in their library. If you can find entry RL 125911 in the Royal Library, you can see the thing for yourself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.68.155.138 (talk) 08:14, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

• The drawing mentioned above is RL 12591r in the Royal Library at Windsor [1]. The drawing is not a reliable source for Michelangelo's David as Leonardo appears to have drawn it from memory rather than from the object itself. He has used the pose as a statue of Neptune and has included horses. The catalogue suggests that it is reins that the figure holds in its hands.
• Goldscheider's book on Michelangelo has good photos from different angles. Regardless of Paoletti's opinion that the "piece of material" wouldn't make a good sling, that is almost certainly what it was intended to be. Michelangelo was not a realist. That is clear from his paintings on the Sistine Chapel ceiling. What we must assume is that the object symbolically represents a sling, even if the depiction of it is lacking.
• The sling passes over his left shoulder and across his back. He holds the other end in his right hand. That hand may also contain stones.

Amandajm (talk) 10:54, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

One can go to "ScanView:a system for remote visualization of scanned 3D models". and download a 3D viewer of the statue of David. I rotated the statue and it does look like a sling, kinda sorta. Donpayette (talk) 21:28, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

angry neighbours

I was under the impression that David was a symbol of the Republic of Florence conquering the Medici Family, not its neighbours. It was when the Medici family regained power of Florence that the statue of Hercules was comissioned and placed next to David to symbolise the power of the Medici family regaining control of the city. MDP 82.55.128.48 15:56, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

The broader point being that David is a flexibly applicable symmbol of power over brute force. --Wetman 16:40, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

MDP: While the meaning of David is flexible (the statue was begun under the Medici), you are certainly correct about Hercules. - Jmabel | Talk 18:45, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm curious as to how the people of Florence reacted to David when Michelangelo had finally completed the sculpture. That might be something to include. Bonannij (talk) 21:26, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Forest Lawn Replica

There have been at least two replicas of David at Forest Lawn Cemetery. The first was shattered in an earthquake. When it was replaced, the foundation was set on a thick layer of a recently discovered material: Teflon. The cemetery confidently announced that in case of future quakes the statue would merely slide about, undamaged. The last big quake snapped the statue off right at the knees.Saxophobia 02:45, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I find it interesting that some replicas of David appear in places like resorts and casinos. Could this be because David is seen as a victory over evil? Bonannij (talk) 21:31, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

In modern culture and modern interpretations

Considering the iconic status of Michelangelo's David I wondered if it might be an idea including a section on its continuing influence and use as reference in modern culture. For instance the issue of David's nudity provided a counter to Marge's campaign in The Simpsons, ninth episode, second series, which explored issues of censorship. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Itchy_%26_Scratchy_%26_Marge

It has also had an influence in sculpture and I would suggest the Scottish sculptor Alexander Carrick's sculpture for the Killin War Memorial in the Scottish Highlands as being one of many sculptures using Michelangelo's work as an inspiration or cultural reference. http://www.alexandercarrick.webeden.co.uk/#/killin/4516803106 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamiemcginlay (talk • contribs) 21:02, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I have been considering David’s massive size compared to how he was depicted in the Bible. I believe the Bible characterizes him as much smaller than Goliath and not nearly as strong. I am wondering if Michelangelo used some influences from the time period he lived in to depict David. In the Renaissance, people were often depicted as godlike. Is it possible Michelangelo was just following the norms of his time when sculpting David? Bonannij (talk) 21:12, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Bizarre choice of photo

Why is the primary photo [2] instead of the much more commonly portrayed angle [3] (which is shown a bit further down)? The first photo is, quite frankly, rubbish. It looks like he's had a spray-tan on just his face, the background colours are all over the place, his head looks massive... just awful. Shouldn't even be in the article, let alone leading it when there is a much better alternative. --77.102.114.99 (talk) 22:21, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

I concur with 77.102 that the second photo should be moved back to the lead position (where it was a couple of years ago). However, I would retain the current lead photo, perhaps moving it down to the current second position. Although it isn't the greatest exposure, it is as close as one can get to David's important head-on gaze from his right side without a column being in your way. The headshot further down is as close as you can get to it from his left side. Better yet, move the column! I'll let someone else do the moving, however. HuMcCulloch (talk) 15:57, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Title photo once more

I would additionally address the problem, if this is the right place to do so - that Livioandronico2013 revises all day long the David title photograph (by me). Hopefully it is not just vanity on my part, but it appears to me, that his photo doesn't meet the quality requirements David deserves. This David appears too monochrome. The modeling of the marble is not visible enough. The torso should show the real play of the light. Here the middle around the navel is blown out. The light gives the statue the appearance of a plastercast. The wall behind David's left leg seems highly photoshopped. I have no time and enduring ambition to play this in-and-out game. So I would appreciate, if someone else could decide in this matter (if this is possible in Wikipedia.)Livioandronico2013 played this exchange-games more often as older discussions show (e.g. german David page) and one cannot contact him by email (I have tried). Maybe someone knows how to arrive at an agreement. Thanks JB Unna.

Consensus is the name of the game, which photo the community prefers. My 2-pence is that I prefer the original photo, yours. There's something funny going on with of the new photo, like it's been superimposed on the background. Яehevkor ✉ 18:58, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Excess photo

Hey Modernist! The article has two similar photo and we can simply use one of them for the sake of avoiding excess photos. You must have a good reason for you revert, don't you? --Mhhossein ^talk 04:33, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes, It's two photos that should both be included. This is an important sculpture by an important artist; and both images are useful...Modernist (talk) 12:11, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Modernist:You failed to explain why you think we technically need two repetitious photos. I think, the solution is two have an RFC. --Mhhossein ^talk 17:35, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

• I most certainly have explained why they are both important. They are not repetitious because one focuses on his waist to his torso and the other on his genitals. This is a work of art, a stone sculpture - an important stone sculpture by one of the most important sculptors in history. Most wikipedia's in other languages host both pictures as well. Wikipedia is not censored by the way...Modernist (talk) 18:19, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

• If I were in favor of censoring I would say both had to be deleted. I did not ask you to present a summary of the sculpture and I know what it is. Moreover, what other Wikipedias do has absolutely nothing to do with our case. They are different communities! The last comment before the RFC: The photos are repetitious because one of them is showing the details of genitals, waist and other parts clearly and we don't need an excess photo! --Mhhossein ^talk 11:25, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

RfC: Is the photo excess?

The consensus is to include both File:'David' by Michelangelo JBU10.JPG and File:'David' by Michelangelo JBU11.JPG.

Opponents argued that the images are excessive and are not helpful in understanding the text.

Supporters argued that the images are both useful for understanding the text and noted that the second photo helps "mak[e] it quite plain that Michelangelo's conception of David is at odds with Jewish cultural norms, as is noted in the immediately accompanying text". The article's text currently notes:

Commentators have noted the presence on David's penis of his foreskin, which is at odds with the Judaic practice of circumcision, but is consistent with the conventions of Renaissance art.^[23][24]

Based on this, I conclude that the supporters' argument that the photo helps illustrates the text and adds value is stronger than opposers' argument that photo is excessive.

Cunard (talk) 01:07, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Should the article include both of this and this photo? Please consider that this photo details genitals, waist and other parts well while this one seems excess and does not make further help for understanding the text. --Mhhossein ^talk 14:15, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

• Keep both. The second, detailing David's doodle, makes it quite plain that Michelangelo's conception of David is at odds with Jewish cultural norms, as is noted in the immediately accompanying text. --Pete (talk) 17:11, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
• Keep Both as I commented above they are both important...Modernist (talk) 19:18, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
• Delete the second, I think it is repetitive and it does not add more value to the article. I noticed the photo is not in the Italian article. I also think adding other detail photos from other angles would be more valuable to describe the statue.CuriousMind01 (talk) 11:42, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
• Delete the second, It's excessively repetitive, and it doesn't add value. It also doesn't seem serious, it seems like a fun idea, but in that way I don't think it shows respect for the greatness of the subject. The point about cultural norms is clearly illustrated in the first photo, so the 2nd photo is not really needed. Biderbeck (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:25, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
• Keep both. They are in different parts of the article, illustrating different things. Scolaire (talk) 15:07, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
• Keep both. They're used to support different sections of the text. There are a lot of close-up photos in the article, but you'd expect that in an article about a work of art and they're all used effectively. The only argument advanced for removing one is "excess". But what exactly does that mean? By what standard? Why have you chosen these two photos out of the ten in the article? Also, in the section above you decided to have an RFC after two comments on this issue. This barely constitutes a dispute, and further discussion on the talk page and, if that didn't work, a third opinion should have been pursued first. Summoning the entire community here with an RfC is excess(ive). Joe Roe (talk) 13:24, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
• Keep both and endorse comments by Joe Roe, and Modernist above. Johnbod (talk) 13:28, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
• Delete the second - Remind me to never comment on these "Bot Feedback requests" when I just wake up!, Anyway the 2nd is way too close and doesn't add any value to the article - The first image is more than enough ... You don't need a close up of it. –Davey2010^Talk 12:24, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Masterpiece?

Isn't explicitly calling the piece a "masterpiece" kind of a breach of the objectivity implied by an "encyclopedic tone?" 2601:642:C481:4640:95C6:7D9B:2093:9C16 (talk) 00:43, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Possibly, but editing it to floppy and crusty as one user is doing just recently is both vandalism and the same violation. Two wrongs don't make a right, of course... Ellenor2000 (talk) 13:23, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

• To the IP's question, David is a recognized masterpiece. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:52, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

  This is true, but imo specifically denoting it as a "masterpiece" violates WP:Encyclopedic style; it is neither "impersonal" nor "dispassionate". It's not objective either, whether something is a "masterpiece" is purely something of personal opinion. I feel like a better way to convey this info would be by writing something along the lines of "David is widely considered a masterpiece of Renaissance sculpture". RoadSmasher420 (talk) 10:09, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

  In my opinion, "widely considered" is non-encyclopedic and absolute clap-trap.

  David is the most famous, the most cited, the most reproduced, the most visited, the most written about, the most photographed sculpture of a male figure in the history of the world.

  These are the facts concerning this work.

  There are topics in the encyclopedia which are of unique significance.

  And I use the word "unique" here to signify its meaning accurately. I do not mean, great, or important o famous. I mean "unique", i.e. "one of a kind".

  A masterpiece, originally, was not simple a "value judgement". It was the piece produced by an apprentice to pove his worth. The word hace taken on a wider meaning and indicates the greatest work produced by the artist. This work is beyond doubt Michelangelo's masterpiece, because, even though he went on to produce the Pieta and the Moes, this is the work hat pose the greatest challenge and the greatest achievement.

  The David is Michelangelo's sculptural masterpiece.

  Amandajm (talk) 17:15, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

  Lol "widely considered" is used all over Wikipedia, have no idea where your notion that its a "clap-trap" stems from.

  What is also a fact is that "masterpiece" is a subjective descriptor. Look for any dictionary definition of the word and it will almost always be defined as something along the lines of "a work done with extraordinary skill" or "an extremely good [...] work of art". It is not encylopedic to objectively claim that any piece of work is "extremely good" or "done with extraordinary skill". Again, you can state that critics consider it to be these things, but not that they are those things.

  Even the Wikipedia page for masterpiece states that "the novel David Copperfield by Charles Dickens is generally considered a literary masterpiece", not that it is a literary masterpiece. RoadSmasher420 (talk) 10:06, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

  This is nonsense, and this school of thought leads to the reader being misled or badly-served if such important points are omitted. You might as well say "New York City is widely considered to lie on the Hudson River..." Johnbod (talk) 15:29, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

  Yes, Of course. And others might say that Great Expectations is Dickens's "masterpiece", rather thanDavid Copperfield

  But would anybody question that the Sistine Chapel ceiling is Michelangelo's Masterpiece of painting, or that St Paul's Cathedral is Christopher Wren's Masterpiece of architecture, that the Cellini Salt Cellar is Benvenuto Cellini's Masterpiece of gold-smithing, that Wuthering Heights is Emily Bronte's masterpiece of literature, or that Kubrik and Clarke's 2001: Space Odyssey is anything less than a masterpiece of film-making?

  The point that I am making to you is that some artistic creations are so highly regarded, that a term like"widely considered", is an absolute cringe and demeans the greatness and universal fame of the work under consideration.

  "Widely considered" does not apply to the Great wall of China, to William Shakespeare, to St Peter's Basilica, to the Hallelujah Chorus, to Stonehenge, to the Mona Lisa, to Jesus, or to the planet Jupiter. Each is superlative in its class, and that is that!

  Amandajm (talk) 22:53, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

If we had a reliable source that says it's a masterpiece that would settle it. Without such a source it's unacceptable OR. Also the lead summarizes the article per WP:LEAD. And there is no mention of "masterpiece" anywhere in the article. It could be removed from the lead for that reason alone. GA-RT-22 (talk) 00:26, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

I can't be bothered with this type of cringe.

It is one of the serious weaknesses of Wikipedia.

Michelangelo's David is a uniquely important work in the History of Art.

The lead is nor necessarily a summary of the content of the article. Matters such as the location, the architect, the date, the material, and the precise reason why it requires an encyclopedic entry of its own, might appear in the intro, and not elsewhere in the text. Particularly in a short article.

I cannot tell you, off-hand, where to locate an article for reference that calls this a "Masterpiece".

Despite that, the word, "Masterpiece" sums up an artwork of extraordinary importance.

It might be that in most cases one would say "This work is considered the masterpiece of Name Surname"

But this is not simply Michelangelo's masterpiece. This is the supreme masterpiece of sculpture for the entirety of the Renaissance period.

This is the work for which Gian Lorenzo Bernini, as a 12 year old boy, was prepared to risk his life.

This is the work so reproduced, despite its huge size, that copies of it stand in cities around the world, from Copenhagen to Queensland.

The very first sentence in this article needs to reflect its singular importance. If thew reader fails to understand just how VERY dignificant this work is, then they are failing to understand the work itself, and, as an encyclopedia, Wikipedia has failed its reading public.

Amandajm (talk) 01:02, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Here's your reference. You can sort it.

https://www.accademia.org/explore-museum/artworks/michelangelos-david/

Amandajm (talk) 01:04, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

and again

https://www.dailyartmagazine.com/david-by-michelangelo/

https://mymodernmet.com/michelangelo-david-facts/

https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/cultureshock/flashpoints/visualarts/david.html

https://tuscany.tips/michelangelos-david/

https://www.thecollector.com/10-facts-about-michelangelo-david-sculpture/

https://medium.com/in-living-color/michelangelos-david-568e4d84b8c3

https://www.italian-renaissance-art.com/Michelangelo-David.html

http://www.infocobuild.com/books-and-films/art/PrivateLifeMasterpiece/episode-01.html

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Ebros-Michelangelo-Masterpiece-Renaissance-Historical/dp/B07BH41CXV

Amandajm (talk) 01:13, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

I didn't bother reading all of that. GA-RT-22 (talk) 01:55, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Ok, bye-bye then. Johnbod (talk) 17:52, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

"Michelangelo's David"" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Michelangelo's David" has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 November 10 § Michelangelo's David" until a consensus is reached. TNstingray (talk) 13:55, 10 November 2023 (UTC)