What happens when the two greatest artists of all times meet for a showdown?
That showdown actually took place.
The mayor of Florence commissioned the paintings (frescoes) from Michelangelo Buonarroti and Leonardo da Vinci. They were each told to paint a scene from the history of Florence on one of the walls of the Council Room of the Town Hall.
Expectation ran high. Of course neither of the artists allowed anyone to see what he was doing while he worked at home. Of the two, Michelangelo must have been the more worried. Leonardo was a generation older and had established his reputation. Michelangelo grew up hearing about Leonardo’s genius—was he jealous? His biographers speak of his dislike for Leonardo.
Leonardo was also an experienced painter and Michelangelo had painted very little so far. He had never painted in fresco. He was a sculptor.
What happened? Who won?
Officially, neither genius, because Michelangelo never painted his fresco and Leonardo ruined his.
However, copies of Michelangelo’s preparatory drawing (cartoon) and of Leonardo’s fresco have survived and give us a fair idea of what each man would have painted.
Here is Michelangelo’s (after an old copy):
(Click twice on thumbnail to enlarge)
He chose a scene of a famous battle between the Florentines and the Pisans. The soldiers were bathing in the Arno River when the call to arms was sounded and they had to dress and arm themselves in a hurry.
Leonardo chose a cavalry skirmish from another famous battle. This is a copy by Rubens of a copy:
(Click twice on thumbnail to enlarge)
As you can see, it is impossible to say which was “better”. Apples and oranges. That always happens when you compare the work of great geniuses, not only in painting.
Read here about the studies the two geniuses made for their frescoes.
And see here two great statues of David, the Bible hero, by Michelangelo and Bernini and decide for yourself which is better...
I found this post SO interesting, and I continually wonder HOW it is that you know all this interesting stuff!
Well, if I were on that committee doing the choosing, I would have chosen Leonardo’s, hands down. I saw Micaelangelo’s first and looked at it carefully for a full minute or two. I didn’t dislike it, but thought it was quite provocative, and I wondered what some of the figures were “doing.” Then I saw Leonardo’s picture, and it only two me about two seconds of seeing that to make up my mind definitively.
Not only was it more visually striking (to me personally), it also seems much more APPROPRIATE for a public works project. (The figures are DRESSED, and not so provocative-looking, for one thing.) I have no doubt the committee would have thought so, too! This choice of Michaelangelo’s really seems to support what you said in a previous post about his being a “show-off!”
Madame Monet
Writing, Painting, Music, and Wine
winewriter.wordpress.com
I agree with you– they’re impossible for me to compare. I think they’re both amazing.
I love the new look of your site!
Madame Monet, thanks a lot for all your comments and observations. Michelangelo was a show-off but he can show off the Moses and the David and the Slaves and the Medici tomb figures any old time as far as I’m concerned and I will be happily shown-off to.
This copy of his cartoon was done by nobody in particular and so it can only be used to get an idea of the original. The “Leonardo”, though a copy of a copy of a copy, was done by no less an artist than Rubens, and looks like it. Michelangelo’s accumulation of nudes, which worked on the Sistine wall, was probably a bad choice here. You’d think he would have been better off concentrating on just a few soldiers fighting, like big statues. Still, his cartoon was very much praised at the time and some of the best artists of Florence went to see and copy it and “learn how to draw”, as Vasari says.
Thanks, Moonbeam. I wonder which of my experiments you liked—I guess this one, which has been there all night. I had tried three of my own headers and rejected them one after another. Finally, in frustration, I clicked on this “standard” one. I think I ought to have one of my own making and will keep trying.
Yes, your new blog look is more visible, more easy to read, more pleasant. In the question who win the showdown I think we did… I wonder if you spoke of the Michelangelo’s dislike of Leonardo CAUSE…A misunderstanding, as so often happens: one day, Leonardo was in a group of admirers and discussing poetry and such…Dante came up as a subject and since Leonardo himself knew about Michelangelo’s fame as a connoisseur of Dante’s and Michelangelo just passed near, leonardo said “Why don’t we ask Michelangelo, who’s an expert?” (I think he said in good faith) But Michelangelo interpreted this as an ironical or mocking question and answered very rude, letting Leonardo and the others wondering about his sanity… He was very suspicious and at times grumpy… and so a coomunication problem developped in a hate-dislike relation… I hope I’m exact about the incident… Vasari as a source?
I think Michelangelo wasn’t necessarily jealous. I think he was intimidated and being very anti-social didnt help either. As for the pieces, I actually prefer Leonardo’s over Michelangelo’s on this one. I just think the composition is more interesting as it has horses and actually looks like a battle. Don’t get me wrong though, Michelangelo’s piece is just as strong and I’m a fan of both anyway.
Danu:
That story isn’t in Condivi or Vasari. There’s a slim chance it comes from a third contemporary Life, the first one, very short and full of errors according to everyone, by a man named Giovio. I’ve never seen that one. My guess is it comes from a movie or a fictionalized biography. As drama it’s good: in a short scene the author shows the character of both men and the cause or crystallization of their hate for each other. So si non e vero.… Shakespeare did that in plays like Julius Caesar with facts he picked up from Plutarch.
In his Life of Leonardo Vasari says: “Leonardo and Michelangelo strongly disliked each other, and so Michelangelo left Florence because of their rivalry [imagine!] after he had been summoned by the Pope to discuss the completion of the facade of San Lorenzo; and when he heard this, Leonardo also left Florence [imagine twice!!] and went to France.” No reason given for this spectacular aversion.
Hi Aryul. You may be right—maybe there was no jealousy. And I have to say that I have always preferred the Leonardo too, though I feel wrong basing my judgment on those copies (there’s a painted copy of the Leonardo that looks even more beautiful).
Vasari raves for two pages about Michelangelo’s lost cartoon. He says things like: “People who have seen these inspired figures declare that they have never been surpassed by Michelangelo himself or by anyone else, and that no one can ever again reach such sublime heights”. Vasari treats the cartoon as a lesson in drawing and anatomy, though, and doesn’t speak about its appropriateness as a fresco for the Town Hall wall.
Thanks, Madame Monet, for saying you like my new look (and the history lessons. Is that what they are? I don’t want to scare anyone away!). As I told Moonbeam, however, I’d like one with my own header and so I will keep experimenting. Maybe someone happened to see one with a marble dog I had on last night. I ended up deleting it first thing in the morning. It looked too plain. The present one has all kinds of options for the visitor, though it does look circus-y. And Cantueso is right about the way it messed up my pages.
Hold on until you see the final version, Cantueso.
Hi Moonbeam. You saw what I did to your last comments: I joined your second one to the first so people could see your amendment right away. But I knew right away you meant the statues and not my posts. I’m glad you like “the history lessons” and the provisional new look (you’d think we were talking about a hairdo!). I hope you will like the one I finally decide on too. I see by your front page that you are really good at handling the options and decorating in your own way.
Michelangelo represented a scene that occurred the day before the actual Battle of Cascina, the subject of his lost cartoon.
I am a sculptor and I favor Michelangelo so I would have thought there is no way for Leonardo to win if I judge, but in my humble and suprising opinion, Leonardo’s composition is superior.
Let’s see him try that in the round!
hi michelangelo
I love this website!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
And shouldn’t you rather do a Michelangelo vs Bernini or Cellini? I thought you can’t really compare apples and oranges (Michelangelo and Leonardo), but you could compare various types of apples and say that Bernini won’t set up his apples without the tree, for instance.
The hardest to do, I suppose, would be Cellini, because how am I to understand that he did mainly salt shakers for the royalty and then he did that Perseus? Was there a big demand for salt shakers?
According to Ruskin’s way of seeing these things, there would have been a rich merchant clientele that wanted artistic doorhandles and aesthetic coffee spoons rather than monuments to the gods.
Sigh.
Although maybe there can be an answer about wich was the best of these works is not for us to say it, would be too foolish, they were a league apart.
Sadly no living artist today can approach to their crafstmanship.
Those secret techniques got lost in history & is about time to get them back from the grave!
George: As to craftsmanship I’m sure quite a few modern painters approach those two. Remember that Leonardo’s “secret” (experimental) technique made him ruin the fresco. Those old secrets would never by themselves make a great painting, which is the work of a great painter. Someone like Leonardo would today find his own secrets and paint in his own way, don’t you think?
very nice
Davinci is cool BUT he’s very stylized(and overestimated) and some of his faces dont look look well proportioned. They look very cartoony and at times crossed eyed or flat. I think overall his colors need more contrast as well. His anatomy is OK but its nothing i would call serious. If you notice he hides much of the anatomy behind clothing.
As far as i can tell Michelangelo is much better on anatomy, You can literally see the skill from his figures and their poses, and isnt anatomically limited to the point were he has to cover up all of his figures anatomy. The connecting of the muscles is also more apparent in a more realistic way. Than again Michelangelo did have a nose problems.
Hands up Michelangelo is the better of the two, and this coming from a student of the arts.
To people who said Davinci’s was better than Michelangelo’s!!: are you serious??!!! I didnt even see the pictures posted. Michelangelo totally killed davinci! look at the anatomy and details!? Davinici’s battle isnt even great! Some people are out of proportion, its obvious how he trys to hide anatomy he is not familiar with, and the figure outline itself is pretty crappy(if i might say so myself) i could do better than this mess! Should i mention those weird faces? Or shadows that dont line up?? Seriously it looks very “high school”.
Just look how refined Michelangelo’s muscle structure is! You could virtually see the guys Michelangelo drew from every conceivable 3rd person angle with anatomical precision and detail!
Any bloody idiot can draw a piece of clothing around someone. Totally TOTALLY Michelangelo owns Davinci here. the two pieces are battle scenes outside of that Davinici shouldnt even be compared.
Hope I’m not getting on your nerves with my quotations, feeling inclined to quote once more from Delacroix’ diary. For him Michelangelo’s “Last Judgement” in the Sixtina lacks a coherent message. He notices there nothing but striking details, striking like a punch, but hardly anything of coherence, logical interlinking or overarching unity.
I would venture to say the same applies to Michelangelo’s fresco here in comparison to Leonardo’s. I find the Da Vinci composition quite superior.
-Just because John puts such a heavy weight on anatomy. Is correct anatomy everything in art?
To quote John: “Any bloody idiot can draw a peace of clothing around someone” – But those Da Vinci horses are pretty naked. And I enjoy every inch of anatomy in those.
Rich: All your comments and quotes are very interesting. Sorry if I don’t respond as quickly as they deserve. Sometimes the most interesting comments are the ones I find it hardest to answer and so put off.
Somewhere I quoted from Delacroix’s diary myself in one of these posts, though I had only seen the lines I quoted and have never read the diary. The Delacroix you brought in about Michelangelo’s exaggeration was brilliant and I meant to write something about it but never got around to it. I haven’t looked at the Sistine wall for a long time but when I last did, I had the same impression as Delacroix. Would the lack of unity or coherence be what strikes me now? I don’t know. I agree with you too about Michelangelo’s cartoon for the Consiglia Sala. It always struck me as a bunch of anatomy studies, no unity—no pleasing shape to the whole as there is in the Leonardo. There’s no focus (another way of saying it): your eye is thrown left and right. Step back to look and the whole is simply confusing—a tangle of guys.
I agree with you about anatomy too and now I’ll tell John.
John: Thanks for your comments. I think you underrate both Leonardo and Michelangelo. Of course Leonardo is “stylized”! His priority was beauty. Correctness was clearly secondary, as it should be. You make too much of anatomy, which isn’t every artist’s theme. Remember: what matters is what you “say” with it, not your copy of nature itself. I don’t think just any “bloody fool” can draw cloth or another object. But few, very few, can make it as beautiful as Leonardo did. Insisting on correct details of anatomy in a work whose general achievement is so great is just pedantry.
great story !
I prefer Michelangelo’s drawing, and I generally favour Michelangelo’s work due to all the muscularity combined with spirit he gave to every figure. Leonardo was great too, but for a best comparison, comparing the drawings of each is the best way to go, since thats what we have most of both. From these I think (*my opinion*) Michelangelo is a level above.
And for a shameless plug, please have a look at
http://www.quotemaniac.com/Leonardobio.com
AND
http://www.quotemaniac/Michelangelobio.com
I’ve worked for a week on these, hope people like :}
woops those sites were:
http://www.quotemaniac.com/Leonardobio.html
AND
http://www.quotemaniac.com/Michelangelobio.html
sorry!
To Rich:
Of course, quotes are most valuable. They are basic. Anyone can construe 20 opinions in favour and 20 against anything on Earth, so that mostly these IMHO contributions do not add up to anything. This is obvious, but not generally known.
To John: Those are some of the dumbest opinions I have ever heard about Leonardo. First off, Leonardo had a lot more variety then Michelangelo (who shined only when creating muscular nude men, while Leonardo drew practically everything).
Secondly, you should also realize that Leonardo’s piece is actually a copy of the piece by Rubens (so its not the original, I thought you would know that since you go to “art” school).
Thirdly, detail isn’t everything. Leonardo said of Mike’s anatomy “they look like a bag of nuts”. And its true! Glance at both pieces, and tell me which one depicts more of a “battle”. Michelangelo’s piece is idealized, he only created what he knew best which is buff nude muscular men of course… and even his women look like that.
Fourthly, Leonardo is NOT hiding anatomy: the guy studied 10 actual dead corpses to learn about the human body. Evidence of course is in his notebooks, which he clearly explains every vein and detail of the body.
Lastly, who the hell do you think you are to think you can “draw better” then Leonardo? Where is your proof? I’d be glad to look at your work and have a good laugh.
Leonardo can paint/draw circles around Michelangelo. I find it surprising that some have mentioned Michelangelo’s superior “anatomical correctness”, whereas I have always felt that is where Leonardo clearly surpassed any and all painters. He was the greatest anatomist/physician in the world at that time! If you don’t think Leonardo knew how to proportion the human form, check out the vitruvian man or many of his scientific drawings. Leonardo even made light of Michelangelo’s failure to correctly paint muscles in proportion in the sistine chapel, a commission that Michelangelo would have probably never even received if Leonardo had finished the Adoration of the Magi. Michelangelo was a phenomenal sculptor and a brilliant artist, but as a painter/sketch artist, he is NOWHERE near Leonardo’s level. In comparison to Leonardo’s work, the faces in Michelangelo’s paintings look like they were painted by a kindergartner, and should be hanging from the refrigerator. Take a look at the sketch “The Virgin and Child with St. Anne and St.John the Baptist” if you want to see human perfection on paper. Michelangelo simply could not have produced something so instantly striking, so breathtaking and so lifelike. When I first saw that sketch, I instantly concreted Leonardo as my personal favorite artist of all time. His work leaps from the canvas, whereas Michelangelo’s impresses, but stays put.
as for these two sketches in question… leonardo’s blows michelangelo’s away in terms of idea and execution… and this copy isn’t even from the hand of leonardo.
Leonardo DA VINCI’s art work is awsome,totally the horse ones.
Leonardo > Michelangelo
A few comparisons:
Leonardo:
- Contributed more to human civilization
with his discoveries in science and the arts, as well as living a whole life of trying to improve humanity.
- Was a scientist, mathematician, engineer, inventor, anatomist, painter, sculptor, architect, botanist, musician and writer.
- Left a huge amount of useful notebooks which all speak of truth because they are experienced based and seem to come from a more neutral standpoint. These notes inspired generations to come.
- Drew absolutely everything, which were all drawn with superior skill as well as accurate to nature.
- Disliked Michelangelo and criticized his figures for looking like a sack of nuts.
Michelangelo:
- Contributed to the arts for his own legacy (although he claimed to be “divinely inspired”), so he could go down as “the greatest artist ever”.
- Was a sculptor, poet, painter, and architect.
- Burned most of his work so nobody could view his innovations, or study them later. Instead, he left us self-directed biography which is also very biased and dishonest (can someone say, selfish?).
- His drawings are also masterful, but only knew how to draw exaggerated male figures really well.
- HATED Leonardo and taunted him for not finishing the horse sculpture (which was actually destroyed by war).
Leonardo da Vinci vs. Michelangelo is a really great article.
Its amazing to think that these two italian masters were up against each other, its like Ali V Frasier of the Art world :-)
As an art fan, but someone who has lots to learn about these great artists, i shall carry on reading some of your other articles,
Thanks.
Woah this is awesome
the paintings are in different style so really hard to compare
Wow, I’m amazed at how Michelangelo’s character is being judged especially as none of these voices of infinite wisdom actually happen to be anywhere near 500 years old. Or is there a fountain of youth somewhere we don’t yet know about?
I defend the biography. It is biased, but history has always been biased. Sexism etc. even during the times of the renaissance (I’m horrified! :o).
Michelangelo was supposedly an antisocial introvert so yes, he will focus on his highs and fail to see what other people around him see. And that is a crime most extroverts commit so HE has an excuse! So don’t judge!
Thirdly, misunderstandings are common. Especially those over 4 centuries old. They accumulate more misunderstandees over the years :)
For anyone that really feels Michelangelo was a fire-breathing dragon that belonged in a cave on his own should slate such artists as Caravaggio instead, who was meant to have killed a man.
I think both artists contributed greatly to history. Both have inspired other works, good feelings, subsequent culture and peoples’ passion. Both were hailed divine for their contribution. If you have done more in your life then feel free to slate Michelangelo.
I wish Leonardo had finished his painting.
The Ruben’s copy is amazing!
Michelangelo fresco would be a mass, just like… the Sistine Chapel is :)
(Leonardo was right about Michelangelo’s paintings.)
Although: Michelangelo is the creator of the most beautiful sculpture in the world: The Pieta (when he was 25 or so) and one of the most moving: Rondanini Pieta (when he was dying at 90).
Sorry… my English :)
Logos Amicus: Thanks for your comment. Did you say Michelangelo’s fresco would be a MESS?
Too crowded with figures, I guess you mean. “Bunch of worms”, as someone once told me in disgust, not at this painting but at the Battle of Centaurs relief he did when he was seventeen or so. I’m not sure what you mean when you say “Leonardo was right about Michelangelo’s paintings”. As far as I know there is no criticism by him, no mention of Michelangelo on record.
The photos on your blog are really spectacular. As I scrolled down the pages I was very sorry they weren’t accompanied by some little writing, some remark, however simple, to orient the viewer and tell him what to think, what to see in particular. People need that, however good the pictures are. Write them in English, pretty please!
You might also make an author’s choice of the best ten or twenty, so people won’t miss them. There are so many really memorable ones. I’m putting you on my blogroll.
Rubens… of course :)
Of course, I meant “the mess”.
That was exactly my impression when I was Michelangelo’s “Last Judgement” in Sistine Chapel.
I don’t particulary like Micheangelo’s paintings. But I admired his cartoons that I saw in Mediolan.
If Leonardo said about Michelangelo’s painted bodies: “they look like a bag of nuts”… so that is also my opinion. (Although I think the painting – or the sculpture – doesn’t have to present correct anatomy to be a masterpiece. Even in the classical time of the Renaissance.)
Michelangelo’s (finished) frescos are too flat and cartoonish to me.
PS. Thank you for the complements about my photos. And for Your advise.
But my blogs are written in Polish and my English is kind of… poor.
My primary blog is BRAIN GRAFFITI:
http://logosamicus.bloog.pl
Some of my readers know English so I am going to include your VERY inetresting blog in my “BLOGOSFERA” list.
I hope You don’t mind.
Wish You the Best!
“when I saw”… of course :)
when the mayor of Florence gave him the assignment to the two very young Miguel da Vinci while obviously had more experience ¬¬!,,, My Angel Miguel is the best artists of all time humanity is indeed a genius the greatest artist of all time living Miguel Angel
I’ve assembled a timeline of both Leonardo and Michelangelo’s works at http://timelines.com/topics/leonardo-da-vinci, and http://timelines.com/topics/michelangelo, respectively. Anyone is free to contribute to it and enhance it with images, videos, or commentary. Don’t forget about all of Leonardo’s technological and military innovations!
Our idea is to create an interactive historical record of anything and everything, based on specific events that combine to form timelines. We’re trying to achieve a sort of user-created multimedia encyclopedia, in which no event is too big and no event is too small, and where each event can contain various types of resources, such as video, images, maps, etc. It’s also a good way to direct traffic to your blog because your events will pop up along with anything else that’s thematically related. We’re also planning on creating an embeddable version of our timelines in the near future.
Erm…
so swallows
do YOU yourself think that Michelangelo or Da Vinci is more of a genius?
I never understood why it should be or/or and not simply too geniuses, each the greatest in his own right?