

Michelangelo's secret message in the Sistine Chapel? - hardik
http://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/post.cfm?id=michelangelos-secret-message-in-the-2010-05-26

======
dimarco
I thought this would be about "The Last Judgement".

During a tour of Vatican, we were told that Michelangelo snuck in a painting
of a Bishop who was very anti-Michelangelo into the bottom right corner of the
Last Judgement. The bottom of the painting representing hell(I believe), the
Bishop is getting his genitalia swallowed by a giant snake.

The story goes that, when presenting the Last Judgement, the curtain was
lifted from the bottom right corner. Pausing for a moment so everybody could
see the Bishop and the snake.

here is the image:
[http://www.archweb.it/arte/artisti_M/Michelangelo_G/images/M...](http://www.archweb.it/arte/artisti_M/Michelangelo_G/images/Michelangelo%20-%20The%20Last%20Judgment.JPG)

Edit(from Wikipedia): When the Pope's own Master of Ceremonies, Biagio da
Cesena, said "it was mostly disgraceful that in so sacred a place there should
have been depicted all those nude figures, exposing themselves so shamefully,"
and that it was no work for a papal chapel but rather "for the public baths
and taverns," Michelangelo worked the Cesena's face into the scene as Minos,
judge of the underworld (far bottom-right corner of the painting) with Donkey
ears {i.e.foolishness} while his nudity is covered by a coiled snake. It is
said that when Cesena complained to the Pope, the pontiff joked that his
jurisdiction did not extend to hell, so the portrait would have to remain

~~~
carbon8
Interesting. Here's a clearer image:
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Lastjudgement.jpg>

------
_flag
This is just like all those things people find in Da Vinci's paintings. If you
look long and hard enough, you can find hidden messages in just about
anything, but I seriously doubt this is anything more than a coincidence.

~~~
rokhayakebe
In the case of Michelangelo it may not be a coincidence. If you read "The Da
Vinci Code" you will find several such plays in his artwork.

~~~
bad_user
Don't tell you've read that piece of trash :) My respect for Tom Hanks dropped
a little when I saw him in the movie.

~~~
aohtsab
piece of trash it may be .. but his other book "Angels & Demons" introduced me
to CERN. :) It also opened me up to art & art history.

------
gamache
Here's some illustration of the previously-discovered hidden brain on the
Sistine Chapel ceiling:

<http://boingboing.net/2009/12/16/brain-on-the-sistine.html>

~~~
sesqu
While I have previously wondered about the fabric shape, I don't think the
similarity is great enough. Unless there is significant variation in brains,
the silhouettes differ in way too many places and only really share a couple
of major features.

However, the shape is similar enough for me to accept anatomical inspiration.
I could see him wanting to draw something around god, sketching a cloud, and
then remembering the shape of a brain and going with that. If indeed the
artist was fascinated with anatomy, it would make sense that anatomical shapes
could be found all over his more freeform work.

------
pbhjpbhj
This is reminiscent of Muslims seeing Allah (in Arabic script) written on
everything or Catholics seeing Mary's image, etc.. Flip reverse the tables and
these people would be being called wackos by the scientific press, very
interesting new step in the religiosity of fundamentalist atheism IMO.

That said, it seems quite likely to be truly based on the anatomical image - I
don't think the conclusion is obvious or follows without further assumptions
though.

There's a nice juxtaposition here with the argument by design - surely those
who would be most desirous of saying that the church commissioners were pwned
would also be those who would have to say that an image of a brain could arise
by chance and not be designed in at all ... ?

~~~
ugh
Am I just too stupid to understand you or are you talking gibberish?

What’s atheism got to do with this? What’s creationism got to do with this?

~~~
pohl
I think (s)he's suggesting that Michelangelo is a blind watchmaker and we're
seeing a brain on some French toast.

~~~
ugh
Problem with that comparison (seeing Virgin Mary in toast = seeing brain in
painting) is only that Michelangelo’s paintings are most definitely a product
of intelligent design – no surprise there.

If those who see Virgin Mary in a toast would claim that the toaster
manufacturer made the toaster so that Virgin Mary would be burnt into toasts I
would have no problem with that. That would be a testable hypothesis. It’s
just that they don’t. They claim a miracle happened and no amount of evidence
could convince them that isn’t the case.

~~~
pbhjpbhj
>If those who see Virgin Mary in a toast would claim that the toaster
manufacturer made the toaster so that Virgin Mary would be burnt into toasts I
would have no problem with that. That would be a testable hypothesis. It’s
just that they don’t.

I guess in those terms a hypothesis could be that the universe is
deterministic in some sense and that the image of the Virgin Mary was
effectively programmed into the initial state so as to emerge on that piece of
toast. Untestable fo' sure.

------
twidlit
"...God Creating Adam in the central panel on the ceiling was a perfect
anatomical illustration of the human brain in cross section..."

\+ "..construction the voice box of God out of the brain stem of man.." = The
human mind created God.

~~~
teamonkey
Michelangelo believed in God, even if he had issues with the Catholic church.
His meaning was probably the reverse - that man's mind was created by the
voice of God.

------
sesqu
_Pope Paul IV interpreted Michelangelo’s Last Judgment, painted on the wall of
the Sistine Chapel 20 years after completing the ceiling, as defaming the
church by suggesting that Jesus and those around him communicated with God
directly without need of Church._

I don't understand what thought processes are required for a pope to condemn
the idea of Jesus making do without the Christian Church. Apparently Pope Paul
IV was highly educated and very harsh, and fought Protestants (who had emerged
just a few decades earlier). While he understandably didn't want people
considering the spiritualist approach to faith, surely he must accept that at
least Jesus would have been a spiritualist of some sort? This sounds like
cognitive dissonance, and Streisand Effect-y. Must have been a hard time for
the church.

As for the artwork, I can't see the similarity even with the explanation. They
mentioned a plurality of examples, and that might be convincing if shown, but
as it stands the single examples are weak.

------
jmount
I think you are just hearing what a brain-scientist sees when he/she looks at
a cloud.

------
alttab
Interesting, and speculative.

------
sesqu
While I have previously wondered about the fabric shape, I don't think the
similarity is great enough. Unless there is significant variation in brains,
the silhouettes differ in way too many places and only really share a couple
of major features.

