No he wasn't. Da Vinci was gay, you got them mixed up.
shareThey were both gay.
I would also like to direct you to:
http://www.glbtq.com/literature/michelangelo,4.html
Use markup:
http://www.glbtq.com/literature/michelangelo,4.html
§« The Sleep of Reason Produces Monsters. »§
I think Michelangelo's sexuality remains the subject of some debate. He certainly wrote a lot of erotic/romantic poetry for various male "friends", most some years younger than him. He also apparently had at least one fairly intense relationship with a woman (Vittoria Colonna, not Contessina de Medici)while he lived in Rome, although many speculate that this was more of an intellectual or spiritual attachment. It's possible that he was celibate, at least in the later part of his life. However, it would seem likely that his orientation was most likely homosexual, or at least bisexual. I suppose this would have been completely impossible to portray in a 1965 film.
share[deleted]
I've read much the same as Phocas - that Michelangelo simply hadn't much interest in sex - he isn't known to have had any sexual union with anyone. I think the movie shows this rather well - when he speaks with some anguish of his inability to love another person.
I remember reading once that Winston Churchill said that although he might be ridiculed for saying it, he was glad that he didn't seem to be as interested in sex as other men, because the pursuit of women and sex had consumed so much of others' energy that he was pleased to have put into other pursuits. (Of course he did have five children, so tihs is relative!).
Not celibate. Chaste. Everybody gets that wrong.
shareyes he was gay. his sculptures are all masculine, even the figures of women are just men with breasts. he had many "companions" that we young men who he composed poerty about, one that had died a year after he met them he wrote 48 poems for. also he had a longtime "partner" in cavalieri wo was with him until he died. there were many renaissance artists that were openly gay, some which were pedaristic in their realationships. of course a movie at that time, along with the fact it takes place at a single point in his life instead of a biopic, would probably not include his inclinations.
shareI thought that he was asexual.
share
Many of the subjects Michaelangelo carved were of gods, heros, prophets, kings, et al. Of course they would be male. And if you think his women were just "men with breasts", I suggest you go back and study his sculptures. The "Madonna of the Stairs" he carved is certainly no effeminate man.
As to his "companions", great masters in those days took in apprentices, much as Micahelangelo himself had been apprenticed as a boy. They were almost universally boys, and did everything from cook, wash, do the shopping, and whatever else, while learning the craft from their master. This was no more odd or unusual than today seeing people go off to college. Just because one is surrounded by boys does not make one a deviant. That he wrote poetry is also hardly a telling point. Many artists are/were multifaceted, and Michaelangelo as we know could do much, much more than just carve stone. And many men have had deep friendships without their being any erotic aspect to it whatsoever.
Wishful thinking.
The 'men with breasts' comment Slinter, was made in earnest.
If you look at the figures of, well any of the 'women' you will notice broad shoulders, and not much in the way of hips.
If your homophobia really won't allow such herasy, there is already an 'out' made especially for you. Someone thought that perhaps the grave robbers that gave cadavers to Michaelangelo for study were too concerned that something untoward were going to be done to the female ones, so they only handed over male.
(strange scruples to be found in grave robbers!)
I can't comment on the great man's sexuality, there are valid points that he might have been gay, bi or chaste-- but whether or not he could sculpt or paint women properly would have nothing to do with his sexuality. There are many wonderful artists who were, and are gay and could paint women very well.
IMHO, Michelangelo could sculpt and paint women beautifully. One example is the "Pieta", an amazing example of feminine beauty at it's finest and most sacred.
His sexual orientation is irrelevant to his life's story.
share[deleted]
How does being gay or being straight impact on his talent? Do you mean that he was so talented, because he was gay, and that if he were straight, he wouldn't have created the works of art that he did?
Nice ad hominem attack, too. That really adds weight to your argument.
Don't change your position - you originally said that his orientation had no bearing on 'his life's story' - your words, not mine. If you had said it had no bearing on talent, we're in a different ballpark altogether.
shareHi nosnojsirhc-- I don't usually like posts that lead up to name-calling (bigoted pig), but in this case I have to begrudge you some kudos.
I guess "pig" worked with the truffle-hunting metaphor, and is something a little meatier and more issue-directed than a simple insult.
Not sure why the remark about irrelevancy is bigoted, though. The guy who made it could be:
1. A hetero-oriented "art lover" who wants to enjoy Michelangelo's work without conjuring the specter of sexuality.
2. A gay person who thinks the whole topic is an attempt (by bigots) to diminish Michelangelo-- and he's being defensive about it.
3... (make up your own theory)
Your post was to the point, though, and it made me laugh heartily. Thanks!
wish i could see the original post to know what you're talking about - they've deleted it and it's been quite some time since i posted it... anyway, thanks. and thank you, imdb, for editing my posts for me.
shareThere's no way any of us will ever know the answer to this question, and that's exactly what Michelangelo would have wanted.
Privacy. And he probably could not care less whether we speculate.
Personally I believe he leaned more towards asexual, though there were speculations about personal relationships with a few of his companions, however, like the person above me, I believe that it is his and only his business alone and all we can do is speculate.
www.myspace.com/marcina_d
im awesome, be jealous
His sexual orientation may be irrelevant to his life's story,
BUT it is very relevant to the life stories of the many gay and lesbian artists
who are told they are perverted, and evil. Michaelangelo is presented as in touch with the divine. He was called (Il Divino) even in his day. I can't tell you how many religionist have heard lament that if only there were holy and inspired artists like Michaelangelo in our day and age. The idea that Michaelangelo might have been gay is very important to Church types. It flies against their prejudice about gays and holiness. The suppression of the idea that Michaelangelo might have been gay is a potent political necessity for churches. It is also important to gays if he were gay. Obviously, he would serve as a great example of hope- and make a sham of oppression.
I wonder what Michaelangelo would have thought of our day and age...
Would Oral Roberts tell him that he is going to hell? That his talent is the result of a pact with the devil?
I've read William Durant's book on the Renaissance and another book focussing on the Sistine Chapel painting. Both discussed the question and decided that the "gay" stores were just rumors, deliberately spread by Michelangelo's rivals in a culture where it could ruin his career. For that matter, Pope Julius' enemies claimed that the Pope was gay, too. The rumormongers didn't have much imagination.
shareMichelangelo was certainly homosexual oriented. Other than his poetry, he spoke greatly and vastly of his love of the male form. In the writings of his journal, he constantly wrote of the youthful male body as the greatest creation to ever be(as did Da Vinci). But Michelangelo had very little serious relationships. He made it a stressing point to his first biographer that he never indulged in the physical luxuries of life and always lived like a pauper despite being the equivalent of a millionaire during his time. This is after all the same man who ate little, rarely bathed, and never ever changed clothes. He had little time for anything other than sculpture and art. But as for this wonderful film itself, it only concerns Michelangelo painting the Sistine chapel, a time when he certainly was not involved in any romantic relationships so his sexuality did not need to be brought up during this film, and then there's the fact that it was made in '65.
shareThis is in Goofs:
yet in the movie he seems to be strictly heterosexual.
[deleted]
He was excessively gay.
Even compared to our times he would be considered freaky.
Some of the debaucheries attributed to him would make even a modern Cardinal blush and they are already red so it is quite an accomplishment.
However, no matter what one may think of what he did in his personal life, it should not detract in any way from appreciation of his art.
.
Excessively gay?
Is that like being excessively pregnant?