Sistine Chapel-is it the art or the accomplishment?

The cities that were chosen for the exhibit is an interesting assortment.

is it marvelous art or a marvelous accomplishment resulting in the finished product?

Both

This issue isn't the Sistine Chapel itself but the larger contemporary commercialization scheme where businesses take known winners, like famous paintings, movies, songs, etc,. and then re-package and market them to paying audiences --
in the process they have to dumb things down for the masses and make things easier to digest in one viewing.

Hence the van Gogh spectacle and the Picasso spectacle also traveling in addition to this Sistine Chapel --
one of the great things about high culture productions is that there's something / some aspects of them for everyone to enjoy no matter what they do or don't bring to their experience of the art -- but it's great as well for the marketers, no?

Some people spend years, maybe their whole careers, on developing an understanding of Michelangelo, but most of us just stroll through the exhibit - we're all getting something out of it. The rub, for me, with the spectacles is that it's a slightly underhanded way of profiting off others' efforts -- not unlike cruise ship companies that get to make the profit off of the lodging and feeding of great numbers of people who are on the trip in order to see sights that the cruise companies had nothing to do with building or maintaining.

I am no art expert, but as an art lover, I have enjoyed visiting most of the great art museums in the World.
To me, the Sistine Chapel is the most amazing in the World. You are surrounded by great art of Michelangelo and the other early Renaissance art masters. I have visited it twice, once before the Japanese funded restoration and once after. There was no time limit when I visited and I stayed quite a while.

Sure, the accomplishment is a factor, but the art is magnificent.

Explain to me how you separate the "art" from the "technical accomplishment". Surely it was Michaelangelo's mastery of art that allowed him to utilize the techniques that in turn allowed the frescoes to stand out as they do in their natural setting. The individual scenes in the Chapel were never intended to be seen close up from a foot or 2 away, and were executed accordingly.

If you were to look at any great piece of art under a magnifying glass- in other words not as the artist intended, you might be less than impressed with the impression you get, because you are only seeing pieces, and not in context.

I have the same thing about cathedrals. I see the art, the soaring walls, vaulted ceilings and they are beautiful. But, I can’t help wondering how they did that. How did they do the construction? And so long ago before cranes, etc. How many people did it take? How did they feed and manage all of those people? What if you are carving a gargoyle and it breaks?
Michelangelo also had his marble Pieta. What tools did he use? What if he chipped it wrong? Hey, just once would mean a ruin of it.
I will probably never understand. And maybe that is why it is called art.

Wow, I had to step back a bit and think about this. Like CJean, I think it woud be difficut to separate the art from the accomplishment. And I agree with Joe32F; the answer is "both."

I think the more we know about anything - art, architecture, food, trial by jury, gardening, political machinations, anything - the more we can understand and appreciate it.

It is possible to be blown away by a painting, or a sunset, or that tiny little blue flowering weed in my front yard without knowing anything else about it. But the more you know, the more ways there are in which you can appreciate something.

For example: I've always enjoyed the almost Disneyesque Americana of Norman Rockwell; his paintings are absolutely delightful: technically wonderful, witty, thought-provoking, evoking an idealized image of the US... Sheer fun. But a few years ago one of our local museums had an exhibit that showed exactly how Rockwell worked. Not only showing photos of his studio and brushes, but sketches, rough drafts, and reference photos of the models he used for the paintings. The hours of work that went into each step of creation, the attention to detail, the masterful results... My appreciation for his work increased tenfold, seeing how much went into the process of creating his art.

For greater appreciation of Michelangelo, I recommend a book called "Michelangelo and the Pope's Ceiling," by Ross King. And an older one, probably less grounded in fact but interesting nonetheless, "The Agony and the Ecstacy" by Irving Stone. There was a movie made from that one, too.

Oh, and apropos of treemoss2's comment about cathedrals, David Macaulay's "Cathedral" is delightful, and helps to answer many questions.

Allan, as always, thank you for a thoughtful query.

Seeing the Sistine Chapel ceiling art up close would probably leave most people underwhelmed. It was specifically designed to be seen from the ground below, not up close like a painting on the wall. And anyway, most art scholars consider the technical aspects the real masterpiece. Michelangelo was not known for his fresco work, like Raphael. He was a better sculptor and architect.

If you really want to dive in more on this, "The Pope's Ceiling" is an excellent and very readable work.

I think that the Sistine Ceiling is most people's visual image of God the Father. Something so iconic is both art and achievement-and in addition to that, it was painted on a ceiling. And although it's not what this post is about, the Pieta in St. Peter's is a sublime expression of Mary's moment with her temporarily dead son.

most art scholars

Strictly speaking, some art scholars. And none of the giants.

Well Allan, you've given your lack of appreciation for art away on previous threads so its no surprise you feel this way 😉. I think your separation of art from accomplishment is missing the point. Of course its both. You have to consider not just the "how", but the "why". It needs to be appreciated in its historical and cultural context. It was 500 years ago! Sure you could reproduce it on a computer in a few hours now. But thats not the point. Four years on his back - who would do that now? Then there's the creative picturing all those characters and scenes in his head. This was at a time when formal religion and piety were a much more significant part of daily life, and people were willing to devote time and money to something that was bigger than themselves. To an illiterate world, paintings and recreation of religious stories was how you communicated important things. So, to your point, the "story behind the art" IS part of the art.

But recognizing most people dont need to go that deep, and just enjoy being overwhelmed. My own experience at the Sistine, was not enjoying it at all, because of the sweaty, noisy sardine-like crowd shuffling through in lockstep, so getting a better look now in the traveling exhibit here in my city, is actually welcome, even if it is a commercial exploitation.

So many worthy responses that I want to comment on when I have a bit more time. My intent with these questions isn't to be a smart-ass or insult the artists or even the art lovers. It's to figure out what I'm not getting. Jane and Stan, as usual your patient explanations are appreciated. I sometimes picture you shaking your heads in disappointment at the art rube in the room.

Hey Allan, no eye-rolling here. I dont consider myself an art-lover at all, and, in fact, do not enjoy visiting art museums while traveling (takes up too much time). I just appreciate the cultural and historic significance of some things (like the Mona Lisa) and think I need to see them when I have the opportunity. No schooling in art (besides paint-by-numbers) and have seen lots of highly regarded art that I think is junk.

When I visited the Sistine Chapel the first time, you could take photos without flash then. I took some great telephoto shots of the ceiling that show it up close. I was NOT underwhelmed.

I saw the "Exhibition" in Tacoma before my trip to Italy a few years ago, and it really helped me understand more about what I would see later in the Sistine Chapel. The up-close perspective and labeling prepared me better for the real thing. No doubt it gives people who can't go to Rome an exposure to Michelangelo's accomplishment -- both technical and artistic.

The actual Sistine Chapel was a crowded, noisy ordeal, with many distractions from the great art overhead. I appreciated going and it expanded my understanding of the work, but I would have enjoyed and learned a lot less without the previous visit to the "Exhibition."

Another thought-provoking topic from Allan and thoughtful replies from many, especially Jane and Stan.

I do agree that it may not be the greatest masterpiece in the world - painting wise. But I don't think there's any doubt that it's certainly one of the greatest, if not THE greatest, masterpiece in the general world of art. And I agree with whoever said it that when seen up close it loses some of the impact it has when seen in situ, the way it was created and meant to be seen by those in the chapel.

At least for me, it's impossible to separate the art from the singularly great accomplishment of it's creation. But, like all art, not everyone feels the same. Art is, by it's nature, individual and the greatness of the art, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder.

Explain to me how you separate the "art" from the "technical
accomplishment".

Some of the technical accomplishments that wowed us was that he had to figure out a good plaster mix to use and then replastered the entire ceiling before he could paint. He also didn't like the scaffolding guy he hired and wanted to do it differently and so he figured out a different scaffolding method. He had to figure out how to do it, not just paint it. Project management stuff that didn't have anything to do with the artistic side of the project.

Surely it was Michaelangelo's mastery of art that allowed him to
utilize the techniques that in turn allowed the frescoes to stand out
as they do in their natural setting. The individual scenes in the
Chapel were never intended to be seen close up from a foot or 2 away,
and were executed accordingly.

I get the perspective thing and having to paint for people looking at it from far away, however, when you see it up close we noticed he seemed to have a pattern for feet that was repeated for men and women. We also noted that both men and women sometimes had the same large, muscular biceps. It was like he realized he had a large project to do, and to save time he made a few templates to sketch onto the ceiling with the women sometimes having abnormally muscular male characteristics.

we noticed he seemed to have a pattern for feet that was repeated for
men and women. We also noted that both men and women sometimes had the
same large, muscular biceps. It was like he realized he had a large
project to do, and to save time he made a few templates to sketch onto
the ceiling with the women sometimes having abnormally muscular male
characteristics.

I actually had a chuckle about this. If you know anything about Michaelangelo as a man, not just an artist, you might understand why many of his women ( both painted and sculpted) have rather masculine features. Supposedly one of his young lovers was the model for some of his female subjects.

The rub, for me, with the spectacles is that it's a slightly
underhanded way of profiting off others' efforts

I love how you can add to a topic from a completely different angle. I'm just wondering though if the Vatican isn't doing the very same thing? It isn't free to get in. And I don't know what the copyright laws are on 500 year old ceilings, but I have to wonder if the Vatican doesn't get its cut on these exhibitions.

If you know anything about Michaelangelo as a man, not just an artist,
you might understand why many of his women ( both painted and
sculpted) have rather masculine features.

I didn't know that. I'll have to tell my Son. After I pointed out the feet, he pointed out the biceps. I'm going to check out that book a couple of you recommended.

Recall that male actors played all the parts in theater plays?

In a similar way, the models that artists used to strike a pose for paintings were rarely unrelated females, because that would have been considered indecorous. Getting pre- or peri- pubescent males to pose for female figures might have been influenced by the sexual preferences of the artists, but not necessarily.

And I don't know what the copyright laws are on 500 year old ceilings,

Neither do I, but the right of property has no expiry date and the Vatican definitely owns that ceiling.

I didn't know that.

To be honest, nobody knows that for sure. Very likely he fell in love with some men and one women during his long life, but We know nothing about his sex-life.

I love the way Michelangelo's bisexuality is given as a fait accompli these days. Decades of discussions wiped out by the spirit of the times.
Art historians are still debating if the Last Judgement is a actually full of clues left by Michelangelo about his Protestant sympathies, but today there can't be any doubt that he was bisexual. Just like our ancestors, we find the things we are looking for.

Years before the Sistine Chapel, As a young artist Michelangelo was asked to paint the Battle of Cascina in Florence. In the same room where Leonardo, the greatest painter alive, was supposed to paint his Battle of Anghiari. Nobody but Michelangelo thought at Michelangelo only as a sculptor. Julius the 2nd was not known for running the risk of wasting money.

I love the way Michelangelo's bisexuality is given as a fait accompli
these days. Decades of discussions wiped out by the spirit of the
times.

I've been reading a bunch of articles this morning about his muscular painted women and you may be right. There are so many theories out there and crediting the reason to his sexuality seems to be the flavour of the month theory.