The Renaissance of Michelangelo

In my mind, Michelangelo’s David is one of the most significant artistic achievements in the history of humankind. Michelangelo was only 26 when he accepted to make it, and he took a block of marble and carved it with a hammer and smoothed it into an incredible piece of art, working around the flaws in the marble is impressive. And he did it in only two years. Few in history had the talent as a sculpture and as a painter. He made David in a block of marble over 14 feet tall, and he brought, out an impressive statue, which was unlike anything created before. In David’s forehead you can even see a slight wrinkle, maybe showing concentration or anger as he holds his slingshot over his shoulder. His muscles and veins are bulging through his skin, as David appears ready to attack his adversary. Moreover, to get every tendon in hand, a line of muscle in the calves, dimple near the back of the shoulder, the jut of the hip, absolutely right and that he put all of his gifted skills into this huge fantastic sculpture. I think that while he was making it, he asked himself the question, What would David look like when he was facing Goliath? The unique style and meaning of Michelangelo’s statue of David probably come from the way in which he approached his art. He saw his figure as symbol be a feature of in the marble. So, he thought that the Sculpture would look huge with its size and confidence with its stand. The statue confidence can be seen in the way that David stands strong without any apparent fear of the giant Goliath, David sculpture looks like he is not scared. He seems like He’s ready, he’s poised and full of confidence and ready to take the challenge of fighting a bigger and stronger opponent.

I think that Marcel Duchamp’s ready-mades do is to force the questions of art and how it attaches to the idea of art. With his galleries, I think he tried to express “If I say it’s art, it’s art.” His idea was about the artist applying control over the idea and its expression. He makes us think and analyze really hard into his ideas of art, picking “special” everyday items like the snow shovel, the bicycle or the urinal was strange to me at first. In my opinion, his art doesn’t even compare to the Renaissance-era sculptural tradition of Michelangelo, because the only credit I can give Duchamp is that he picked regular items and made it work somehow. While I was watching the Khan video, my first thought was that his art is not to be taken seriously, even quite comical. But it doesn’t mean that they are not as important art objects, and I agree with the narrators, he was a bit cynical, but he had a point to make. These works are not masterpieces in a traditional, romantic sense, where a genius like Michelangelo creates unique art-forms from his inner visions and skills. I understand that he made this as a protest against the culture and values which he thought had caused and supported the carnage of The First World War. What he aimed was to undermine the value system of the art establishment which he viewed was linked to the fallen European socio-political society at the time. I can only see his vision as artistic because he pick the right items in his mind to undermine the value if the art hierarchy, not the ready-mades he probably picked in a store. Overall, I think that the importance is not in the effort of making them, but in the experience, they offer and their challenge to the idea of what art is or can be.