Interestingly, I also have an undergraduate degree in art history and we talked about this stuff... a lot. I will nder where the difference lies--my studies were a few years later, I think, but not many (I graduated in 2001). My professors talked about how when they were in school, discussing authorship--anything about the personal lives of the artists--was frowned upon. Maybe your school had a different philosophy of art history from mine. The 90s (as you remember) were also a time of such rapid change in queer theory, both popular and academic.
--you want to see a good one, check out Donatello's version of David.
I had a paragraph in here that I ended up cutting for length about how I learned everything having to do with the private lives of straighter male artists--Picasso's womanizing, Van Gogh's prostitute, Gauguin's teen wives and his syphillis—but not that half of the Italian renaissance was queer!
But I actually graduated in 1993, so quite a bit earlier as these things go, and my school was super traditional and far from the cutting edge on anything, so I'm not terribly surprised. I like to think the classes would be more encompassing now, but who knows? Some ships are very slow to adjust course (sigh).
This is so interesting, and beautiful. I knew little of this. And this last line nails it: Because queerness is not only our history, it is also our humanity.
this article pop in my google search because i was searching for some specific info- that i did find but your way of writing is so engaging and neat that i ended up reading the whole thing. Thank you for gathering all this info and putting it in this coherent article, it was very insightful
I remember when I had a elderly relationshipship being around 21year old with older man possibly 58 years old. The moment I saw the two hands almost touching well fingers. It clicked. Yes MIchael Angelo was clearly gay. Here he is making a joke of the religious dogma etc.. where only men can be priests etc. he secreatly knows deep down it is a lie and false to say its not creation, he is by showing that he was so close to love that it was not possible, in this case I feel he may have been the elderly man who was being blown away by the gods etc.. external forces to something that he knew was so normal and unjustifiable. The expression of the lady yes younger and pretty is what is seen as the norm her expression is saying to me I know you love him but get away from the young lad. If you want children innocents in this case angels etc.. normal life need to not touch the temptation. The younger mustcular man with his sad loving expression can see the problem michael angelo is facing his eyes looking directly at the younger wooman, the wooman being confused saying lets go. Michaelangelo is so close, soooo close to touching but the winds and force of nature essentially the church on those days were to strong to allow it. he is older that he needs the support of the younge manunder him unlike the muscular younger man. Yes I believe this fully as I was in the same situation and that connection was as he portrayed it here. In order to be part of society the older man was pushed away by the winds, I believe the laws of the day, and the ways society looked as the younger laday was looking. It is sooooo clear to me. I even sent an image of the two hands almost connecting, the youthful hand mine and my elderly partner. Yes 100 percent clear, this is Michael Angelo making a mockery of the Church and a mistake which he personally felt that he wanted to stain the church for ever which his great art has done, Just sad that to this date it is still being wrongly translated thought very clearly in words to all that are honest. This is his lesson to all. The Church also has faults, which must be accepted. Charels
Thank you for sharing this comment, Charles. It is fascinating, isn't it? And so sad we are still trying to grapple with it so many years later. Thank you for your insight and wishing you well!
Interestingly, I also have an undergraduate degree in art history and we talked about this stuff... a lot. I will nder where the difference lies--my studies were a few years later, I think, but not many (I graduated in 2001). My professors talked about how when they were in school, discussing authorship--anything about the personal lives of the artists--was frowned upon. Maybe your school had a different philosophy of art history from mine. The 90s (as you remember) were also a time of such rapid change in queer theory, both popular and academic.
--you want to see a good one, check out Donatello's version of David.
That is so interesting!
I had a paragraph in here that I ended up cutting for length about how I learned everything having to do with the private lives of straighter male artists--Picasso's womanizing, Van Gogh's prostitute, Gauguin's teen wives and his syphillis—but not that half of the Italian renaissance was queer!
But I actually graduated in 1993, so quite a bit earlier as these things go, and my school was super traditional and far from the cutting edge on anything, so I'm not terribly surprised. I like to think the classes would be more encompassing now, but who knows? Some ships are very slow to adjust course (sigh).
And YES, Donatello's David--SO queer. Camp, even!
(If anyone wants to see: https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_%28Donatello%29)
Thanks for weighing in! So interesting to hear your experience. Where were you at school?
This is so interesting, and beautiful. I knew little of this. And this last line nails it: Because queerness is not only our history, it is also our humanity.
this article pop in my google search because i was searching for some specific info- that i did find but your way of writing is so engaging and neat that i ended up reading the whole thing. Thank you for gathering all this info and putting it in this coherent article, it was very insightful
Thanks so much for your kind words. I appreciate it!
I remember when I had a elderly relationshipship being around 21year old with older man possibly 58 years old. The moment I saw the two hands almost touching well fingers. It clicked. Yes MIchael Angelo was clearly gay. Here he is making a joke of the religious dogma etc.. where only men can be priests etc. he secreatly knows deep down it is a lie and false to say its not creation, he is by showing that he was so close to love that it was not possible, in this case I feel he may have been the elderly man who was being blown away by the gods etc.. external forces to something that he knew was so normal and unjustifiable. The expression of the lady yes younger and pretty is what is seen as the norm her expression is saying to me I know you love him but get away from the young lad. If you want children innocents in this case angels etc.. normal life need to not touch the temptation. The younger mustcular man with his sad loving expression can see the problem michael angelo is facing his eyes looking directly at the younger wooman, the wooman being confused saying lets go. Michaelangelo is so close, soooo close to touching but the winds and force of nature essentially the church on those days were to strong to allow it. he is older that he needs the support of the younge manunder him unlike the muscular younger man. Yes I believe this fully as I was in the same situation and that connection was as he portrayed it here. In order to be part of society the older man was pushed away by the winds, I believe the laws of the day, and the ways society looked as the younger laday was looking. It is sooooo clear to me. I even sent an image of the two hands almost connecting, the youthful hand mine and my elderly partner. Yes 100 percent clear, this is Michael Angelo making a mockery of the Church and a mistake which he personally felt that he wanted to stain the church for ever which his great art has done, Just sad that to this date it is still being wrongly translated thought very clearly in words to all that are honest. This is his lesson to all. The Church also has faults, which must be accepted. Charels
Thank you for sharing this comment, Charles. It is fascinating, isn't it? And so sad we are still trying to grapple with it so many years later. Thank you for your insight and wishing you well!