Michelangelo's secret message in the Sistine Chapel? | Hacker News Reader

Michelangelo's secret message in the Sistine Chapel?

scientificamerican.com

23 pointshardik28 comments

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...

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

This one almost seems more plausible.

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.

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 ... ?

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?

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

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.

>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.

I know this is the sort of hot-air comment that HN hates, but I lol-ed, thanks.

S/he is arguing, I think, (1) that if it were religious people seeing religious images, rather than scientific people seeing scientific images, then everyone would just say "these people are crazy"; (2) that what leads some people to see brain parts in religious artwork is "fundamentalist atheism", and (3) that there's some sort of equivalence between "actual human brains could have arisen by a natural process taking billions of years and a whole planet full of living things" and "an image of a brain in an artwork, even if accurate, could be mere coincidence", on the grounds that both of them can be caricatured as "brains could arise by chance".

I think #1 is probably true, #2 is idiotic, and #3 is idiotic. (Though I'd agree that believers in evolution -- and believers in Christian creationism, and believers in the Flying Spaghetti Monster, and everyone else -- should probably think that these alleged brain pictures in the Sistine Chapel could just be coincidence.)

You're too stupid to understand ;0P

I was trying my best to temper the language to ensure that it was clear I was being a bit flippant/tongue in cheek whilst also presenting a genuine first response.

Atheism? Well the Creation of Adam images have been presented in threads by atheists as a demonstration that Michelangelo was atheist and presenting the notion that God was a creation within the mind of man; and that this is self evident when the likeness of the brain is seen in the image.

Creationism? You bought that up, perhaps you can tell me.

Your final paragraph does sound like a reference to the Intelligent Design argument, which is just creationism in drag.

Intelligent design can not be falsified, creationism [as it is normally presented] can. They are quite different.

Interesting, you must be exposed to a strange variety of creationism that I've never encountered. The creationists I have encountered are always willing to ascribe miracles and motivations to god to explain away any evidence that is contrary to their belief - making falsification impossible.

The two have never been different in any meaningful way by my experience here in Nebraska. ID is just a trojan horse built by creationists to try to get creationism into the schools.

Edit, FWIW: turns out a court agrees: "...The plaintiffs successfully argued that intelligent design is a form of creationism, and that the school board policy thus violated..."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School...

I call Intelligent Design Creationism. Because it is.

Do you call French fries "potatoes"?

"...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.

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.

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.

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

Interesting, and speculative.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com