![]() How could it be that they were not completely outraged by Michelangelo showing the naked arse of God? I used Google to try to find if they were. ![]() ![]() I know that Popes regularly rejected paintings for problems in picturing Christ that seem very minor to the modern eye. It’s a neat, nicely round bum, perhaps, I conjecture, very attractive to a gay guy. God features twice in the picture: on the right a fierce God with a long grey beard, the classic picture of God, is, with the assistance of cherubs, dividing the sun and the moon the God on the right is flying away to get on with creating plants, and we see only the back of his head, the soles of his feet, and his bare bum showing through a gap in his purple robes. God’s bum is to be seen in the The Creation of the Sun, Moon and Plants, which I learnt from Wikipedia featured on postage stamps of Vatican City in 1994-so the Vatican must feel good about the painting. But in the empty, quiet iciness of a gallery in Winchester where I looked at high quality, life-size photos of the pictures I was astonished to see God’s naked bum-and I wondered what point Michelangelo was trying to make by showing God in such a way. ![]() I have visited the Sistine Chapel, but as I stood in the heat and crowds trying to take in the extravagance of the painting (and, of course, failing), I never noticed God’s naked bum. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |