The Birth of Humanism?

By Greg -

This panel from the Sistine Chapel was never given a name by Michelangelo, though it is commonly referred to as "The Creation of Adam." I don't think I'm the only one puzzled by this description. Adam has obviously already been created, so what's God doing now? And why does God appear to be struggling to reach out and touch an Adam who couldn't care less? God seems to be gathering his loyal legions around him while reaching out for one more who appears to be casually telling God to go ahead without him. Could this be a representation, not of God in the act of creation, or even in the act of endowing man with self-knowledge, but of humanity in the act of rejecting God -- the birth, that is, of humanism? That God and his angels together form a remarkably precise outline of the human brain is, I think, no coincidence; it might very well be a symbol of God as a creation of the mind rather than the reverse.

Click on the image above to go to site where you can view each panel in detail. Once there, click the center panel to view its description, and then click the thumbnail to view the full-screen, high resolution image. Now, in the high resolution image, look at the eyes -- of Adam, of God, of the angels. Adam is looking, casually, into the eyes of God. God is looking, much less casually, at his own hand. This had to be deliberate on Michelangelo's part. What does it mean? The angels are wide-eyed, staring, as if with astonishment, anger, or fear, at Adam. What are they thinking?

Comments

Mazzba said…
Hey Greg,
Interesting speculation. Here's another way to look at it. M. is painting the moment when God breathes life into Adam: "GOD formed Man out of dirt from the ground and blew into his nostrils the breath of life" (a paraphrase of Genesis). Of course, in this case, God is aiming at Adam's finger, not his nose, as though he were going to give him an existential "jump start."

As for the brain shape, I don't know what M.'s theology was, but it's hard to believe that he was intentionally trying to start a counterrmovement to Catholocism. If he really was aiming for a brain shape, maybe instead he meant "this is how I imagine God in my head but of course God is much much bigger than can be imagined."

Looked at another way, the fact that God is depicted at all is pretty radical. Early Hebrews couldn't even pronounce God's name, let alone paint his likeness. I believe Islam takes this prohibition even further. IMO,showing God as a guy in a white beard on a (brain-shaped) cloud is more of an obstacle to spiritual growth than an aid.
February 3, 2007 at 3:07:00 PM PST
Greg said…
I think perhaps you've read too many political thrillers. Propaganda isn't usually the primary aim of art, and I didn't mean to imply that Michelangelo's intent was to insert some secret message on the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel to rally the forces of a countermovement. There was no secret society of humanists intent on bringing down Catholicism; besides, I don't think that you believe (and neither do I) that humanism, and all that it implies about free will and responsibility, is necessarily incompatible with Christian doctrine.

I doubt that even Michelangelo was fully aware of what he was doing. Great art is inspired rather than calculated and, yes, this may be intended to represent the moment when God breathed life into an Adam who was as yet just a lump of newly-created flesh. But the symbolism here is very different from that used with the creation of Eve in the next panel.

I'm intrigued with alternate readings of art sponsored by those in power. Many of Shakespeare's plays were written for royal patrons and few would disagree with modern interpretations of their satirical undertones. Ideological certainty is incompatible with artistic genius, and I'd be surprised if Michelangelo were as true a believer as many Catholics would like to think. He couldn't help but let his skepticism show -- even if it was only to insert a few anatomical references here and there, knowing the pope was as adverse to anatomical research as George W. Bush is to stem cell research.
February 5, 2007 at 4:30:00 PM PST
Margaret D. McGee said…
Hello all,

I've always been puzzled by Adam's languid pose in this painting. Here's a thought that came after reading Greg & Mazzba's analysis & looking at the panel more closely. As Greg says, Adam has already been created. And how. This is a whole man, head to toe. And he is alive (eyes open, muscles in arm working, etc.) So I'm wondering whether God might be reaching out for relationship here.

What if God were trying for a new & unique relationship with one of the created beings. And this relationship matters to God. Matters to God and to all the heavenly host. The question is, will it, can it matter to the created being? God is the instigator & energetic force for the relationship. Adam has just enough juice in him to hold out his hand. If the spark flies across the gap ... then what happens next?

I'm sure that my dog has a relationship with God, and that it's a lot more constant & less fraught than mine is. Maybe M. is showing the start of a new kind of relationship with a new kind of being ... a being with a brain that includes free choice, a sense of time, and a sense of self.

Can they relate? God's into it.
February 9, 2007 at 11:16:00 AM PST
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

My Stacy's are Soaking Wet

By Greg -
It's the 50th anniversary of one of the great coming-of-age songs: "Sitting on the dock of the Bay watching my time slip away." But for me, it was Tom Traubert's Blues by Tom Waits, and the line, "No one speaks English and everything's broken, and my Stacy's are soaking wet." If I was a few years older I might have separated myself from my feelings like Bob Dylan when he asked, "How does it feel to be on your own, like a complete unknown, like a rolling stone?" There was also Cat Stevens: "I keep on wondering if sleep too long, will I always wake up the same, or so? And if I make it to the waterside, will I even find me a boat, or so?" There was Catcher in the Rye before popular music got serious. And there was Danny Boy before literature acknowledged that generations were coming of age in America, and we were all doing it alone. For most of us, there was no apprenticeship, no ceremony, no mentors. There was onl...
Read more

Jitterbug from Sphere to Concave Octahedron?

By Greg -
Image
If the jitterbug were modeled as a sphere collapsing to a concave octahedron, the counterclockwise-rotating triangles would transform from a convex spherical triangle to a flat concave triangle, while the clockwise-rotating triangles would simply invert themselves, exposing the concave surface of the same spherical triangle. This may be difficult to animate in SketchUp. But that's not what happens. The spheres transform into concave VEs, the concave VEs expand to spheres (or convex VEs), and the concave octahedra simply turn themselves inside out. I'm working on an illustration of this.
Read more

The Rhombic Dodecahedron and the Closest Packing of Spheres

By Greg -
Image
The rhombic dodecahedron is basically a cube turned inside out and has been shown mathematically to be a projection of the tesseract (the four-dimensional cube) into three-dimensional space. It is, like the cube, an all-space-filling polyhedron and directly corresponds to the closest packing of spheres, enclosing the sphere and the space surrounding it. Rotations of the rhombic dodecahedra demonstrate its projection of the tesseract and show the potential of the isotropic vector matrix as a model of four-dimensional space.
Read more