Having to choose between them is like saying do you prefer milk or dark chocolate? Both are yummy!
Michelangelo was more dedicated to sculpture and he saw painting as something he was forced to do on occasion. I'm an atheist, yet whenever I visit Rome I can't not give a visit to the Cappella Sistina and admire the paintings there and feel moved by the passion the man put in his work (even though as I said he saw painting as a chore, he still wanted to give his 100%).
His sculptures, particularly the David in Florence, the Moses & the Pieta in Rome are my personal favourites regarding his work. The anatomical detail he goes into is mind boggling, David & Moses in particular have such lifelike athletic physiques that you do expect them to talk to you.
Leonardo on the other hand was openly scornful of sculpture, but was a great painter & scientist. Unlike Michelangelo, he revelled in being a celebrity in his prime, dressed in the finest clothes etc. He was also very much into painting portraits (something Michelangelo despised), and his Last Meal of Christ ranks as one of the top paintings ever.
By the way, if you like both these artists, you will probably also like Caravaggio. His chiaro/scuro style is simply awesome.
tainogirlOPTrincity,West Indies,, Trinidad and Tobago3,777 posts
Konigsberg: Both! But Leanardo was a wee more edicated Master!!!!!!!!!
I think each had their genius. However I'm for leaning a bit more towards Leonardo. How many artists today can wrap their brain around so many things. The man was so diversely talented.
tainogirl: I think each had their genius. However I'm for leaning a bit more towards Leonardo. How many artists today can wrap their brain around so many things. The man was so diversely talented.
I'd say instantly Leonardo, although I prefer Michelangelo's paintings..Leonardo was into so much more..had he had the technology available today he would have been the best inventor ever..Dyson wouldnt have stood a chance with his damn hoovers!
tainogirl: I think each had their genius. However I'm for leaning a bit more towards Leonardo. How many artists today can wrap their brain around so many things. The man was so diversely talented.
Leonardo was more a scientist with a genius of an Artist.
If i were to choose any work to buy ... I would prefer Michelangelo Buanarroti such a power of feelings and technic.
He was a great poet too
DANTE
by: Michelangelo Buonarroti (1475-1564)
What should be said of him cannot be said; By too great splendor is his name attended; To blame is easier than those who him offended, Than reach the faintest glory round him shed. This man descended to the doomed and dead For our instruction; then to God ascended; Heaven opened wide to him its portals splendid, Who from his country's, closed against him, fled. Ungrateful land! To its own prejudice Nurse of his fortunes; and this showeth well That the most perfect most of grief shall see. Among a thousand proofs let one suffice, That as his exile hath no parallel, Ne'er walked the earth a greater man than he.
Translated into English by H.W. Longfellow (1807-1882).
tainogirl: I think each had their genius. However I'm for leaning a bit more towards Leonardo. How many artists today can wrap their brain around so many things. The man was so diversely talented.
I totally agree, when I had the chance I visited the town of Vinci and was enthralled by his works, I had no idea he had done such diverse and inventive stuff, plus is artwork is fascinating. Michelangelo has without doubt painted some of the best work in the world, but for me when you have seen 10 cherubs you have seen them all
rizlared: I totally agree, when I had the chance I visited the town of Vinci and was enthralled by his works, I had no idea he had done such diverse and inventive stuff, plus is artwork is fascinating. Michelangelo has without doubt painted some of the best work in the world, but for me when you have seen 10 cherubs you have seen them all
All right then, you may have your cherubs in bedroom. And I will take Michelangelo's Bacchus in a kitchen
I've studied both. Michelangelo was a master in the artistic sense. da Vinci was a master in all facets of the creative abilities of the human mind. He was easily bored and easily distracted, thus leaving many works unfinished by his own hand. I was forever reading about da Vinci and my ex used to accuse me of having an affair with him.
I enjoy the old masters of all genre (art, music, science). They were all born out of time. Had today's technology been available to them, who knows what they would have accomplished.
Speaking about greatest masters - Why the choice is to be made between these two? I don't also think that making a choice is appropriate as they are different and great each in his own way.
What about Rafael, Boticelli, Giotto, Palladio? Each of them is called a great master, and for a reason.
Report threads that break rules, are offensive, or contain fighting. Staff may not be aware of the forum abuse, and cannot do anything about it unless you tell us about it. click to report forum abuse »
If one of the comments is offensive, please report the comment instead (there is a link in each comment to report it).