Michaelangelo's David
 

Women- Proportionately, do you think DAvid is on the small side when it comes to penis size? Disappointed when you've seen the sculpture?

Bear in mind that Michelangelo was a very good sculptor - the small penis is not an accident. So, what was M trying to say? I think he was deliberately trying to play down the sexuality of David, in order to emphasize that the encounter between David and Goliath was not sexual.

David was supposed to be a boy... say 13. The fact that Mike gave him a 21-year-old rest-of-body is what's the "wrong" with the sculpture. Check out Donatello's David.

Remember, people were smaller back then. <BR> <BR>;-)

It's not the size of the wave, it's the motion of the ocean

Mr X, <BR> <BR>Do you really think that given a choice women prefer well endowed men over a man with a body like the David? There's more to a man than the size of his penis. And anyway, have you noticed that ALL of the nude statues are small that way? I don't know if it's because men were smaller then, or because the artists downplay the sexuality (I think Nope is right on there) or that the artists wanted to feel better about themselves. I'd take a David any day of the week! He's my idea of the perfect physique.

Since we just returned from seeing David himself, I think I may have some insight to your question. The statue was originally supposed to be on top of the Duomo. Therefore, Michaelangelo crafted this masterpiece to appear all one size, as if you are looking up at him. His head is proportionally bigger than legs and feet (smaller)to give the effect of proportion when looking at David from below. So you can guess what else is out of proportion.

Amy, I think somebody's pulling your leg! I've read a LOT about Michaelangelo and about his crafting the David and nowhere was he ever supposed to be on top of the Duomo. M took the David to the Piazza Vecchio (where it stood for 3 centuries before being moved indoors) at night. In the morning he found notes taped to the statue. Concerned that it would be poorly received he was moved to find the notes all praising the work. David represents Renaissance man's emergence and victory over the struggles of the middle ages.

I posted a question yesterday about male statues being graphic and female ones not, and it has disappeared. <BR>We were just wondering why. <BR>Anyone know?

Anyone who says the size of the wave means nothing has never ridden the Big Kahuna.

OH PLEASE!!!! Anyone who is impressed by the Big Kahuna hasn't met an "artiste"

One woman: Wow, Michelangelo found notes TAPED to his David? Are you sure they didn't just use Post-It notes? They had tape in the Renaissance? <BR> <BR>Sorry, couldn't resist.

I think they used a special Ren-tape. Gum stuck to the back of a paper. It was the pre-cursor to the post-it-note. Kind of like how the ancient Egyptians could figure out how to build an entire pyramid and then became a 3rd world nation.

Does size matter? As Kahuna Girl up there says, only if you've never ridden the big wave. Try surfing a tsunami for a while and then going back to the tidepool ripples.

I was not disappointed in any way whatsoever when I saw Michelangelo's David. <BR> <BR>Besides, size in the flacid state is not an indicator I would take to the bank...

Precisely, Michelle. As sex advice columnist Dan Savage puts it, some men are "growers" and others are "show-ers." <BR> <BR>What I find most amusing were how the genitals on many statues were covered up with fig leaves and the like. Wasn't this almost always, if not always, at the behest of the Catholic Church? <BR> <BR>

At one point the Pope demanded that clothes be painted on the figures on the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel. Michaelangelo of course was appalled. One of his amiche did the job, however, and consoled him that he was using a paint that would be easy to remove later.

Capo, you bet! Why do you think there was such a fight between Michaelangelo & the pope over the depiction of "creation" on the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel? And for heavens' sake, THAT wasn't even 3 dimensional!!!! <BR>BC

I just thought of the David's penis to be bigger and in the state other then flacid... I'm not sure the statue would be outdoors...

They say that you can't make butter with a toothpick...

OK. So he's hung more like a pony than like a horse, and moreover his penis is all of a piece with his testicles, so he might not even be UP to the challenge...but is there a straight woman or gay man on this board who'd refuse to check him out (all in the name of science, natch!) if he suddenly came to life?

National Lampoon magazine had a test once, that involved a picture of the statue and "circle the part(s) that you think are out of proportion." <BR>Actually, the art books will tell you that Michealangelo deliberately made the HEAD and HANDS excessively large for the rest of the body. No mention of other parts, which as has been pointed out, are comparable to other sculptures. It is notable that unless you stop and look carefully, the disproportion is not obvious. The larger hands and head emphasize the "power" of the figure. (Go figure!).

The only proportion of David's that I'd like to check out is the important one the artist omitted: the size of his wallet.

Who knows what it could be if David were "uplifted". I'm always amazed at what looks small just "hanging" around is quite nice once standing "up".

So what is it, ladies? Penis size important or what?

No. You are all exactly the same, except for technique. Sorry.

Yeah but check out the size of his hand...now what could make his hand that big except come good old dong flogging?

Everyone knows the biggest sex organ is between the ears... not between the legs.

Now everyone here, please excersize your imagination and visualize whatever size you prefer. <BR>Where would you look at seeing the sculpture? You would glare only there. <BR>It's my personal opinion that Michelangelo intentionally downplayed this part to highlight the body itself. <BR>Everyone looks there first, but then you have the chance to notice the rest - the whole body that is amazingly beautiful.On my scale it's the best sculpture I have ever seen. <BR>And for those who are really interested, usually there is a corellation between hands and that significant part, which to me is another proof that Michelangelo did it on purpose.

There was another post talking about why female bodies were less graphicly portrayed than male and that seems to have been removed... I can't help wondering why that one was removed and this one remains. <BR> <BR>(Just so that I'm not misunderstood, I'm not offended by anything anyone has said here; I think it's been kind of amusing.)

To: Nope, Re: "I think he was deliberately trying to play down the sexuality of David, in order to emphasize that the encounter between David and Goliath was not sexual." <BR> <BR>Interesting thought, but why on earth would people have assumed the encounter between David and Goliath was sexual? There's not even a hint of that in the story, is there? Furthermore, I'd think if Michaelangelo wanted to emphasize what happened between David and Goliath he might have sculpted David in a more "action-oriented" pose, like Bernini did with his David (in the Borghese Gallery in Rome.) <BR> <BR>To: Larisa, Re: "It's my personal opinion that Michelangelo intentionally downplayed this part to highlight the body itself." <BR> <BR>Another interesting thought, but isn't a penis an integral part of a man's body itself? Most, if not all, of us guys would certainly feel that way. :~)

Here's what the art historians at Cornell have to say about David's proportions... <BR> <BR>Artists frequently take liberties with the natural proportions of the human body to achieve their expressive goals. An example is Michaelangelo's David, in which distortions of proportion are used by the artist to depict both the youthfulness of the boy David, together with the power of the hero about to conquer the giant Goliath.

What Art History Student said is the same idea, but in better words. <BR>Capo, it is the most integral part in life, but here we have art and probably censorship. <BR>And by the way, assuming that Michelangelo gave David the part up to the knee, how many men would feel happy and adequate next to him? <BR>And what if one unhappy man cuts it off (or orders to cut it off, if in position, pope, for example)? Isn't it safer this way? <BR>Have you seen the sculptures found in Pompei and now on display. <BR>Trust me it was not a beautiful sight, and males on the tour had not been happy at all. <BR>

SHRINKAGE!!!!!

I agree with art history dude. As David himself reportedly said: I may have the weenie of a 12 year old but I've got the hands to kick your ass, Goliath!

Are you sure he said exactly "kick your ass"?? <BR>Because that's what my son says, I am pleased to know, David was speaking the same way too.

Hmmm, what did happen to the site that was here about women not being graphically depicted? All this talk about maleness instead.....

if all you have to talk about is the six=ze of david's pecker then you have too much time on your hands. go do something useful with your life-volenteer, work in a food kitchen. it tdakes alll kinds to make up this world

Larisa, Re: "And by the way, assuming that Michelangelo gave David the part up to the knee, how many men would feel happy and adequate next to him?" <BR> <BR><I>Up</I> to his knee? You mean it was growing out of his foot? If that's the case, I'd bet David <I>scared</I> Goliath to death! :~)

Sorry, typo. I meant "down". <BR>You got me here. But I still promote the idea that he highlighted the beauty of the body, and he did an awesome job. <BR>The sculpture of David is a perfection, even though someone mention it as an overrated hype. <BR>Never argue about tastes, they do differ. <BR>