Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. And I hope you can all hear me.
If not, I don't know what to do. I've been asked to remind people it was mentioned last week that maybe not everybody was here last week,
that there is a glass of wine outside after the lecture.
You're all, most welcome. And people who want to interrogate me.
This will be your best chance. Probably the only other thing I wanted to say before starting to give the lecture proper is that this is Michelangelo.
And on the 14th of December of last year, Professor Michael Hirst of the Court Held Institute,
who was my absolute great mentor in the history of art, died.
He hadn't been well for a while. And he, I think, is the great Michelangelo scholar of his generation.
And I'd like to dedicate this letter lecture to him. So.
It might seem that there can be nothing new left, say, about Michelangelo's fresco decoration of the Sistine Chapel, seen together with the Mona Lisa,
it has dubious honour of contending for the unofficial title of the best known masterpiece of Renaissance art,
which, alas, makes it extraordinarily hard to see it fresh in the present series of lectures.
The task will, above all, be to understand how Michelangelo used drawings to create the ceiling.
And it comes as something of a surprise to realise that this has seldom been undertaken in a comprehensive and at the same time detailed fashion.
It is a popular misconception that Michelangelo painted lying on his back a doodle of a drawing,
which you can see accompanying Sonnet about his sufferings on the job.
Shows him standing up and painting over his head.
Another drawing shows his stepped scaffold, the red chalk legs the other way up belong to God, the father in the creation of Adam.
Michelangelo famously and memorably denied that he was a painter on various occasions, not least in.
The site which you see.
It is therefore not entirely surprising if his claim has been, at least in part, believed as will emerge more fully in due course.
This will not be the last instance where Michelangelo's own pronouncements need to be treated with a measure of scepticism.
Or at the very least, understood in context. The reason Michelangelo was so unhappy about having to work on the ceiling was that he
was already engaged on the Herculean task of creating the tomb of his papal patron,
Julius. The second Fusari and Con DeeVee, his two biographers, are both in agreement in assigning the blame for this change of plan to Bramante,
who supposedly wanted to confound Michelangelo in order to boost the fortunes of his and I quote, friend and relative Rafale.
This may well be what Michelangelo himself came to believe,
but it is not all that straightforward in terms of chronology, at least as regards the involvement of Rafil.
It is not known when Rafeal moved from Florence to Rome, but his first recorded payment for work on the stand of Senior Toura,
which is my subjects next week, dates from January of 15 09,
and he cannot realistically be supposed to have left Florence before the end of fifty seven.
Yet a letter dated Sunday, the 10th of May. You know, six from Piara recently in Rome to Michelangelo in Florence.
For all that, the finer points of its meaning have been much debated.
Clearly already refers to Bramante in discussion with Julius about Michelangelo painting the Sistine Chapel ceiling.
In. The early 16th century, the vault of the Sistine Chapel still retained the decoration it had received at the time of the original campaign.
Of the 14 80s to fresco the walls.
This consisted of a relatively simple design representing the heavens with gold stars in the form of constellations on a blue background.
And I'm showing you a drawing that seems to be for it.
Neither the sari nor can D.V. make any mention of what was originally intended for the overall design of Michelangelo's ceiling.
But a later letter written by the artist, which survives in two redactions, is extremely informative on this point.
Towards the end of December, fifteen twenty three Michelangelo in Florence wrote to Drew a van Francesco fatuity in Rome,
and recalled that on his return to Rome in fifty eight,
he was charged by Julius to work on the vault and not on the tomb in the first version of the letter, he states.
The agreement was that he should be paid three thousand ducats.
I would cover all the expenses and then just be simply a few figures.
And this is somewhat expanded in the second version to reveal that the first design for the work was for twelve apostles and he says in the loo nets.
But he must mean what we would call the squinch is the triangular elements and that the rest would be filled with a decorative ornamental design.
This is Camisea Loser as it is or was common in both texts.
Michelangelo explains that he soon came to realise that this conception would be a poor thing in the first version.
He understood this after executing some drawings in the second, after beginning the work,
after having begun the said work which might in isolation be taken to mean after he began painting,
but should presumably instead be translated loosely as after having begun to plan the set work.
Last but not least, in the second version of the letter. He relates his characteristically mordant quip to the Pope to the effect that
painting the apostles would be a poor thing because they themselves were poor.
That's a typical Michelangelo joke by a curious irony.
The major sculptural project Michelangelo had left unfinished in Florence was for a series of statues of the Twelve Apostles.
But the drama that part of the letter relating to the second scheme will be discussed shortly.
But before that, the two principal surviving sheets you're seeing one already which confirmed the veracity of
Michelangelo's count of the initial plans for the declaration of the ceiling need to be analysed.
Some elements of both of them, especially the studies of hands and arms in black chalk,
undoubtedly belong to the second scheme and will therefore be returned to later on.
But the rectors of both sheets have in common.
Simple, diagrammatic first ideas for the general layout of the vault.
What is universally regarded as the earlier of the two is a drawing in the British Museum, executed in brown pen and ink with minimal hatching.
It shows a single seated figure placed between the curving forms of the arches, which divide the vault from the walls of the chapel.
Only knowledge of Michelangelo's letter allows the figure to be identified as an apostle.
He's seated on a throne whose side pieces of bracket like colonics with capitals at the level of the tablature.
It is backed by a shell nitch and topped by two winged Caryatids, flanked by curling volumes.
Why the side of these figures in above them is a geometrical pattern of circles, rectangles and diamond shapes,
which may be presumed to extend to the centre of the ceiling, with the other half being its mirror image.
The study on the rector of the second sheet in Detroit is even less detailed, but proposes a somewhat different solution here.
The figure of the seat of the puzzle is not included in the shell.
Nitch is possession significantly lower down the bracket like interruptions of the tablature, a more monumental but are at the same level.
Now there is what appears to be a swag of foliage between them.
Two figures seemingly winged but naked pooty as opposed to angels,
stand on top of the brackets to either side of an illusion mystically rendered occulus.
Apparently with some sort of decoration within it, the notion here of endowing elements within the geometrical pattern of the main part of
the ceiling with a sense of depth is already hinted at in the British Museum drawing.
Well, one of the tonti is similarly shaped for the rest.
The differences in the design seem to consist of the introduction of a large octagon to replace the diamond shape.
And in the realignment of the rectangular form to enliven the potential monotony of the scheme,
it is surrounded by Arab basking flourishes, which are an elaboration of more tentative but comparable forms in the London sheet.
The vassa of this sheet also includes some very summery pen lines, which are once again first ideas for the shell niche.
But I'm not showing you them, as has been noted on numerous occasions.
This type of decorative scheme was common enough in Rome at the period where Pinta requires quite a vault in the Church of Santa Maria.
Popolo, which you see here, represent characteristic prototype and Michelangelo implicitly slightly dismissive phase phrase sorry use.
That is absolutely to the point. In his letter to Farm to Tree, Michelangelo said that the Pope then drew up a second agreement with him,
which Ruka required him to paint down to the story.
The sort of the histories below. This must be understood as meaning down for quite Magento frescoes and not literally down to the histories
which would have necessitated the destruction of the series of likenesses of the popes above them,
and that he should paint whatever he pleased.
The first part of this statement is confirmed by what he actually painted and is much more convincing them.
This is misleading statements to the effect that it was a scheme to destroy the earlier frescoes entirely.
While the second part of the statement is potentially more problematic,
especially for advocates of the notion that a mere artist could never have devised such an icon, iconic, graphically elaborate conception.
The truth is, however,
that there is no need to regard it as proving that Michelangelo received absolutely no guidance over the programme of the vault.
Like most lay patrons, he may have had a general idea about what he wanted to see represented and then sought out specialist advice.
I will now give a quick guided tour of the ceiling. Some of you will know it off by heart.
Back to front and inside out. But others will not. When it comes to the drawings, I will be examining them section by section.
So it should be helpful to know how will those sections fit together.
The first point to be made is that Michelangelo started at the entrance and in
terms of execution of the work and worked his way towards the wall to wall,
which means that he executed the narratives in reverse order.
The started painting at this end went along that way.
These narratives are a species of prequel to use the Hollywood term to the 15th century,
parallel narratives of episodes from the lives of Moses and Christ along the walls of the chapel.
And they form three triplets, respectively, focussing on God, the father, Adam and Eve and Noah,
and in each case alternately occupy larger and smaller picture fields thus.
And I'm now. As it were coming along, yeah.
That's the separation of life and darkness is followed by the creation of the sun and moon and God moving over the waters.
The creation of Adam by the creation of Eve and the temptation and expulsion sacrifice of Noah by the flood and the drunkenness of Noah.
The flood should, of course, precede the thanks offering.
But presumably Michelangelo finds it impossible to think of a way of squeezing the panorama of the near end of the world into the cramped space.
Amazingly, this through the sari refers to the sacrifice as that of Cain and Abel, in spite of the.
In that case, inexplicable presence of a goodly number of extraneous figures.
Far too many people around. Cain and Abel around the narrative scenes are seven Old Testament prophets and five classical symbols,
all of whom were believed to have foreseen the coming of Christ.
They alternate along the sidewalls, but both end walls are dominated by prophets, respectively, Zacharias and Jonah,
which explains the numerical imbalance between them and the narratives of paired seated male nude figures commonly known as the New Deal,
which is simply the Italian word for male nudes. They said to either side, secular medallions, infective gilt, bronze,
some of which contain recognisable Old Testament narratives such as Elijah's ascent to heaven and his farat very chariot.
While others are harder to work out. More crucially, the new Deare,
accompanied by garlands of gigantic oak leaves and acorns which clearly refer to the family code farms of Michelangelo's patron, Pope Julius.
The second Della Rovere Ray Rovira means oak in Italian.
The coat of arms is visible elsewhere in the chapel, not least because Julius's uncle, Pope Sixtus.
The fourth was the founder of the chapel, and it is after him that it is named.
It may also be that the acorns had the additional role of alluding to the Golden Age as it is described in of its metamorphoses,
when the more perfect mankind only drank milk and honey.
I think we'll be getting something a bit more boozy in a minute. And eight, amongst other simple foods, acorns.
The. These guys, the Four Corners span brawls, contain the ceiling,
contain further Old Testament narratives with David and Goliath and Judith and Hall
of Families at the entrance to the chapel and the adoration of the brazen serpent.
And the story of Esther. Has your son Haymond at the altar. Last but not least.
And they're not on that overviews. I'm jumping on.
Last but not least, especially since I revelator.
Re-emergence from the stygian gloom of their pre restoration's state in the 1980s when I was one of the happy few,
had the good fortune to ascend the scaffolding ceiling, see the ceiling close range and even furtively touch it.
Are the ancestors of Christ drawn from the list that opens the Gospel, according to Matthew?
These are the figures who occupy the triangular zones between the prophets and symbols.
I'm not sure I knew in the lunette above the post,
the top of the world's sorry as account of the execution of the ceiling defines three stages of work.
He reports that there was an interruption when Michelangelo was about a third of the way along.
An explicitly states that he checked this with the artist to clear up any doubt that was on account of mould,
that it was then unveiled when half complete. And finally, that the remaining part was completed at considerable speed in 20 months.
And he finishes in fifteen. Twelve. Sorry does not actually specify where the break between the two halves occurred,
but it is now generally agreed that it came after the creation of Eve and therefore that the first
be executed by Michelangelo after he had had the opportunity to see the ceiling from the floor,
was the one containing the creation of Adam. The Sari also claims that all the cartoons were finished before work began.
But the available evidence suggests that this was not the case.
This evidence consists above all of the very different style of the two halves of the vault,
but also of the surviving drawings in the case of the drawings.
This also hinges upon the testimony of the so-called Oxford sketchbook, which is in the instrument in this series of double sided sheets.
Now, this bound but seemingly originally forming a small volume has enjoyed a chequered history in the
notoriously contentious annals of Michelangelo drawing scholarship frequently doubted in the past.
Often the most mystifying of reasons. They were the subject of an exemplary study by Michael Hirst published in nineteen eighty six,
which seems to have allayed the doubts of all the most perfervid disbelievers.
What is crucial in the present context, however, is the fact that whereas they contain studies for the zones of the narratives,
prophets and symbols in beauty and answers Christ, these all belong to the second half of the ceiling, which seems to prove two things.
Firstly, it demonstrates Michelangelo must have plan the decoration bay by bay rather than zone by zone.
So a bay at a time and not, as it were, the narratives and then the province and symbols and so on.
Secondly, it indicates that he worked on the two halves of the vote independently for given the dazzlingly spontaneous nature of these tiny scribbles.
It is hard to imagine why Michelangelo should have confined his preliminary explorations to the second half of the vote,
other than because he had already painted the first. Observe sketchbook contains drawings of different scales and kinds in different techniques,
of which the most abundant of the incredibly diminutive and simplified pen scribbles which must truly represent Michelangelo's first thoughts.
Unsurprisingly, given the fact that they involve what might be described as thinking out loud on paper,
some of these visual ideas can only be associated in the most generic way with the end product.
But what is far more remarkable is the number of instances where it is evident that Michelangelo's initial inspiration was,
in essence, unmodified in the final work. Very often, although not invariably,
he drew in the segment of a circle as a shorthand for the relevant lunette in
order to anchor the figure or figures in question to their ultimate setting.
And many of their poses are responsive to that curve.
What is more examples of the establishment of a near perfect solution are not confined to any one section of the ceiling.
Thus, and this is the page or seeing one of the less well preserved but still perfectly decipherable
pages combines three studies for the scene of God separating light from darkness.
Yeah. Combine them with various ideas for the David Solomon that and within you, though,
you know the bears no particular resemblance to any of its counterparts on the road.
In the case of the figure of God, however, the corkscrew pose, the raised arms and even the daring Desart to ensue.
Presentation of the head. All adumbrate the fresco.
The actual disposition of the outstretched arms seems to be the main area which cause
Michelangelo difficulty with the result that the various solutions show them respectively,
closer together and wider apart only at some later stage.
However, did he decide to move from having the match one another towards a deliberate, different Neff's.
Finally, it is extremely telling that the most polished of the three ideas which is conceived of horizontally as opposed to vertically,
not only includes framing lines and a definite sense of background,
but is also resolved very full extent to which the figure should fill the available space.
It will never be possible to establish whether Michelangelo worked in exactly the same fashion on the preparation of the first half the ceiling.
The sense of creative intelligence operating at breakneck speed in the Oxford sketchbook is
as humbling as it is exhilarating and should encourage a note of caution on this point.
There is ample evidence in the form of drawings for earlier projects of Michelangelo's predilection for tiny pan or chalk scribbles.
But it may well be that his progress was ever so slightly less effortless in the first half of the ceiling.
Consideration of the rest of the drawings for the ceiling could, in theory, be approached in one of two main fashions.
One way would be to work from the beginning of the vault to the end.
Day by day. And to examine the drawings for all the various parts in each isolated case, endeavouring to postulate a sequence of evolution.
The main drawback to this approach is that it is almost bound to be needlessly repetitious and that any
sense of stylistic development conveyed above all between the two halves of the ceiling runs the risk,
since the sequence of execution of the fresco is known of being a consequence of a natural tendency to find what one is looking for.
The other obvious way which will be adopted here is to work from the assumption that Michelangelo had something approximating to a
working method and that he made roughly the same sorts of drawings in the same sorts of sequences for all the figures on the ceiling.
The main potential hazard of this approach is that it may make his practise appear to have preceded overly mechanistically,
but it has the advantage of giving a clearer sense of the kinds of drawings Michelangelo actually made,
and also allows one to form a view about whether he produced different kinds of drawings for the two halves,
or rather, if it was the style of the post,
the types that evolved inevitably and not least since Michelangelo notoriously destroyed a vast number of his own drawings,
the surviving record is extremely uneven, and it would be unwise to draw overconfident conclusions.
Ex sealants here.
The overwhelming majority of the extant drawings for the Sistine Chapel ceiling are of individual figures or of details of individual figures.
Many of these clearly depend upon earlier composition or drawings which served to
establish their specific locations and which parts of them would and would not be visible.
Alas, without exception, no such finished composition or drawings survive.
Virtually all the remaining studies for the ceiling, with the exception of a single drapery study, were executed in black and red chalk.
The differences between the two techniques in terms of the visual effect are very striking.
But it also seems to be the case that Michelangelo, as a rule, employed them for different purposes.
In terms of Michelangelo's drawing practise. Black Chalk was a tried and tested stand by,
whereas red chalk was something of a new development and may only have been employed on the second half of the vault.
It is also demonstrably the case that black chalk was his preferred medium.
Still, exploratory studies and read for more finished solutions.
One of the most intriguing drawings for the narratives is a black chalk sheet and the calves are born Arati, which you are seeing,
which is a quite remarkably spare avocation of the figure of Adam being driven out of Eden in the fresco of the temptation and expulsion.
In spite of the fact that the head and the left leg are basically omitted and that the left arm comes to a dead end.
The wrist is already captures the fundamentals of the pose and is arguably even more
graphically able to convey Adam's need to fend off the assault of the avenging angel.
The breathtaking decisiveness of such a sheep might almost tempt one to imagine that Michelangelo had the happy gift of seeing perfect
solutions for all his figures in his mind's eye and then simply had to transcribe the form with or without the aid of opposed model.
Other drawings make it plain that everything was not invariably that complicated.
Another, more resolved and detailed sheet is in to be found in Rotterdam.
And it underlines both how crisp Michelangelo's handling of black chalk could be and also how rubbed many of his extant chalk drawings, alas, are.
It comprises two studies for the patriarchs sons gesticulating over his recumbent form.
In the drunkenness of Noah, which makes it a rather drawn survive from the first half of the season in the finished work,
the pointing hand is below the open palmed one. But otherwise, the changes are minimal.
They do nevertheless show just how precise the artist's adjustments could be.
Since in the fresco, he felt the need to separate the middle and fourth fingers of the open palm hand, which had joined together in the drawing,
the most celebrated of all the fingers on the ceiling is unquestionably the Hirak protagonist in the fresco of the creation of Adam.
And given how few of the enormous numbers of drawings Michelangelo must have made, a few of them have survived.
It's fortunate, indeed, that his study from the model for this figure in the British Museum should chance to be amongst them.
This is perhaps the appropriate place to observe that the outstanding physical
specimen who posed for this life drawing must have been carefully selected.
There is an unfortunate tendency to refer to all such feats as gaffed.
So nature studies gaps only as an assistant sort of lad.
But while some life drawings do give the impression of having taken teenage workshop assistances, their models, others.
And this is an exemplary case in point. Equally emphatically, do not.
There was no narcissistic male cult of the body beautiful in the 16th century,
and this sort of anatomical development would have been the exclusive preserve of men whose employment required them to be exceptionally strong.
As regards Michelangelo, that does not appear to be any evidence concerning the identities of his models.
But somewhat later, there are biographical records of artists studying the bodies of porters and even galley slaves in search of bulging musculature.
The actual pose of the figure is, in essence, unmodified in the fresco, but the deep shadow of the drawing is bleached out on the ceiling.
The fact that the surface of the torso is more simplified and, um, modulated in the painting should perhaps come as no surprise.
Nor should the confidence of the hambling in the drawing, which is unaffected by the slight contour pentimento be over the top of the left thigh.
Both hands are restudy to round the figure, the right hand and the bottom left corner being the most resolved.
These details that. A double sided sheet in the Tilers collection in Harlem includes a whole array of
studies for the group around the O Mighty in that crucial scene on its Vasso.
And in a new dose study to which we will return on its recto upside down to them.
And that's what I'm saying now. The Vasso also shows a powerful study of gods Adam creating right arm.
Together with a close up of the hand, which are accompanied by the left one.
Right. Way up. So see.
The left one, that's well. Yeah. For the rest, the central study is for the figure of much debated identity nestling under God's left arm.
In essence, the area's drawn in detail, all left blank matched the requirements of the fresco,
especially blatantly where the left forearm, the wrist will be occluded by God's sheltering breaks.
You need that because it's going to be covered up a supplementary study towards the bottom left hand corner of the sheet.
Restudy is the right shoulder.
The final study, which is cropped by the bottom edge of the page, is for the figure whose profile is adjacent to God's left shoulder.
It, too, is a partial study of the figure in question.
But unlike the other sketches on the sheet, it does include elements of the extended right arm and the foreshortened torso,
for instance, which were to be invisible in the final conception.
The Vasso of a second tilers sheet comprises no fewer than five distinct studies.
Most substantial of them is for the buttocks and back of the blonde angel immediately below.
God, whose pages implies that he is lying down but who is clearly drawn from a standing model.
The resulting figure is notably smoother than the drawn prototype.
There were then two studies the right margin of the sheet, which are for the Angel Puti in front of God.
The upper one is sketched from an older model than the chubby child in the fresco,
presumably because this was a difficult pose to sustain since it involved hanging on to some kind of support and leaning backwards.
You can get strange poses as long as you remember that somebody is holding on something, we can all stand on one foot for a very long time.
Well. The lower one probably involved model sitting down and crossing his right leg in here to the model is an adolescent or even a young adult.
The final two studies are for a right knee, conceivably Adams,
although it is habitually assumed to be gods and an exquisite and all but definitive detail of the latter's creating.
Right hand this hand. This hand was previously glued onto another of Tyler's drawings.
The sheet of study stood for the crucifixion of Haymon, which will be discussed in due course,
but was reintegrated into its rightful place here in 1952.
It now looks paler and oranger than the liver coloured studies that surround it, which is presumably a consequence of its different fate.
Across the centuries, in terms of exposure to light, as already mentioned,
there are a number of black chalk studies for hands and arms on the British Museum and Detroit projects.
The original plan for the ceiling. They all appear to relate to Adam for all that some of them make one wonder.
I'm thinking of some of these. If Michelangelo toyed with the idea of placing him on the right of the composition as opposed to the left.
Finally, in terms of the narratives.
One side of Red Chalk Street in Cleveland again shows two details of a figure accompanying God,
this time in the large scheme of the creation of the sun and moon.
Here, too, the model seems to be significantly older than his realisation in the fresco.
Moving on to the prophets and symbols. One of the pages of the Oxford sketchbook includes what is clearly a schematic first
idea for the prophet Jonah amidst a whole mass of other inventions in scratchy pen.
General up there, amazingly enough. He is already in his definitive pose, yet another Ashmolean drawing.
Also in pen. But in this case, with extensive wash added is a study for the Erith Rand Sebel, who is to be found on the first half of the ceiling.
This may well explain its comparatively tentative and in a way retrospective handling,
which almost harks back to the drawing style of Michelangelo's teacher medical deal and diet.
Its focus is exclusively on her brief parade with the pose of the head and
upper body simply being suggested by a ghostly presence executed in pure wash.
Interestingly, for all its precision, by no means every fold.
The drapery in the drawing is replicated in the fresco as executed.
Double sided sheet in the Metropolitan in New York includes studies of the Libyan symbol on both sides.
As elsewhere, black chalk is here implied for thinking and red for pinning down the black chalk study on the Vasso.
It is, above all, concentrated on the lower body and the twisting clothes of the legs,
but does also seem to indicate that the dramatically turning attitude of the torso, which we see in the fresco, was only arrived at gradually.
Conversely, the main study on the Recto, which is plainly drawn from a male life model,
already fully anticipates the dramatic twisting POWs found on the ceiling.
It is surrounded by a whole host of details, which include a further adumbration of the torso and an elegant close up of the head in profile,
but also studies of the left hand, the left foot and the pair of studies of its big toe.
I know of no evidence that Michelangelo was toe fetishist, but it is not easy to think of other artists who pay such close attention to
what might be thought to be a very minor detail in their preparatory studies.
In fact, another Ashmolean drawing for all that it is unconcerned with Toes does underline
what might be described as the artist's infinite capacity for taking pains.
The page in question also includes summary ideas in pen connected with the Julius Tomb.
But what concerns us are the constantly executed red chalk studies.
One is for the right hand of the Libyan symbol herself and is a virtual twin of its counterpart on the map, drawing just exactly the same, really.
While the other is a meticulous but far from an energetic life study for the foremost of the two boys who accompany her.
If such a bit part player within the vast panorama of the Sistine ceiling is him is accorded to study of this kind,
then it seems hard to imagine who was not. Given the idea of how much sheer hard work was involved in its creation seems even more daunting.
As a result than it does anyway, a head study in black chalk in Euphrates for the prophet Zack Ariah, who commands the entrance wall to the chapel.
This study, too, must have been made from opposed model in what is arguably the most remarkable thing about it
is the minimal extent to which Michelangelo felt himself obliged to modify the profile head.
Above all, because of the inherent nobility of aspect of the old man chosen.
The line of his nose is very slightly more Roman in the fresco, and his beard is fractionally more bushy.
But nothing much else is changed. The economy of means is no less impressive.
Few boldly applied strokes outline the contours and complemented by simple parallel
hatching lines of varying thicknesses which defined the areas of shaddick.
This same study was probably also used as a point of departure for the head of nowhere in profile in the scene of his drunkenness.
For all that, the nose is completely different. A second head study in black chalk for the Kumail and Sebel in Turin,
who inhabits the second half of the ceiling, is unquestionably even more spectacular,
which makes its frequent rejection in the scholarly literature, at least the earlier scholarly literature hard to credit.
It must presumably have been drawn from an old man.
His hair concealed beneath the skull cap, which transformed into a turban in the fresco rather than an old woman.
And again, the type appears to have been selected to order.
The prominence of the double chin is slightly moderated in the fresco, and the wiry musculature of the neck is also toned down.
But on the other hand, the gaping mouth and pugnacious jaw of the final rendition are the very opposite of idealising.
The joke is once again employed with dazzling brio, and the white heightening is unusually dramatic.
In effect, a few curve touches a sufficient stress, the right shoulder and [INAUDIBLE] to head to a body which in the other sense is not really there.
I saw both these sheets. That's to say the one from the efficiency and the one from Turin in the same room a fortnight or
so ago in the stunning Michelangelo exhibition currently nearing its end at the Met in New York.
And this opportunity was an absolute education in in the benefits of comparing two originals and not
having to rely on one's memory across the years or thousands of miles seen in the books or on my screen.
These two head studies may look pretty similar in handling,
but virtually side by side they came across as being totally unlike with the command, Sybil being incomparably more bold and advanced when it.
The annuity for whom, incidentally, there are incomparably more studies than for any other group of figures on the vault.
There are a number of drawings whose character comes very close to that of their counterparts
in the Oxford sketchbook by virtue of their being small in scale and rapidly executed,
perhaps simply as a consequence of what happens to have survived amongst their number chalk and especially black chalk predominates.
But it makes more sense to begin with the rare sheets in.
The Versova bilateral drawing in the British Museum and that top left here comprises four studies,
including the considerably more substantial one at top left,
which was initially drawn in black chalk and then partially gone over in lighter brown ink, was probably the first to be executed.
As has been pointed out, the figure in question is kneeling rather than sitting.
And it has been suggested that this may reflect a stage in Michelangelo's thinking when the Inugami would not have been seated.
It seems more likely, however, since it is copied from an ancient statue that it instead chose Michelangelo only very slightly,
modifying his prototype on the vault.
Michelangelo. Sorry.
I'm going to jump on to this one, which is, as you see, a much more sophisticated drawing.
And that here. I'm sorry, I'm getting mixed up.
I get back Sorry, on the vault where I was on the vault, my clothes were adapted.
The figures pose the now almost wholly destroyed in UDAR above and to the left of Delphic symbol whose original appearance is known by print.
The three remaining studies, the bottom two of which comprise variants of a single pose,
have been linked with various of the Nuti in the early days of the ceilings.
But none of these connexions is precise. The fact that they showed the figures on taller blocks confirms that they precede the final design.
And then below to the right, an imposing sheet and the cows are born.
Arati contains a whole host of studies for the annuity in the second half of the ceiling.
Together with the study for a framing element, presumably for the ceiling spammed rules adorned with the Delarue ovary emblem of the
acorn and is predictably close in character to some of the pages of the Oxford sketchbook.
But this. It consists of one largest study in black chalk,
partially gone over in pen for the left hand in Yuda above the command Sebel together with the number of first ideas in black chalk.
One of these is also inked in respectively for that same figure and for the right hand in you two above I Zaya.
It seems more likely that Michelangelo initially experimented with two conceptions for the same figure in both versions.
The further leg, regardless of whether it was the right one or the left, was shown in such a way that its upper half was nearly horizontal,
while its lower half was either tucked underneath the upper half or dangled free.
Oddly enough, in view of the fact that some of these little scribbles seem to do little more than repeat one another,
there is yet one more version in black chalk of the same new dough with raised, which was presumably originally part of the same sheet.
There exist at least three further exploratory studies in black chalk, which are the ones on the right hand side of the page,
so to speak, in which a chaos of lines reveals Michelangelo battling to find the right pose an altogether more resolved.
I finally got to. Life drawing black chalk for one of the nudie's above the right.
The Delphic symbol comes far closer to the final result in the fresco.
However, the treatment of the anatomy, as is invariably the case, is somewhat idealised and simplified.
There are three full dress red chalk life drawings for a new day,
of which two are for the figures above the Persian symbol, the one on the left above.
The symbol is studded in the magnificent sheet, which I'm showing you here in the Albertina,
which has stylus and drawing and some white height thing, which may not be.
Incredibly easy to see. Bits of the equivalent of two packs almost there.
This drawing has the additional distinction of having belonged to no lesser figure than Rubens.
In comparison with the study, the figure of Adam, the approach here is far more meticulous but never lacking in spirit.
On the contrary, the tension running through the twisting torso is brilliantly conveyed,
as is the fall of light across the body, no doubt because he planned to revert to it later.
While the attitude of the head is already established, it is only drawn in very faintly.
This sheet, like so many others for the ceiling, has clearly been trimmed at the edges.
But it may never have been all that much larger. In any event,
Michelangelo seems to have elected not to focus upon the hands or feet in any
detail in the main study and then re-examine them in the bottom left corner.
The study of the nude on the right above the Persian symbol is on the Double-Sided Street in Harlem, whose Vasso was already been discussed here, too.
The head is only summarily indicated and then dramatically focussed on in yet another red chalk sheet in the same collection,
which also includes three studies, the legs of God in the creation of Adam.
The third and final study is in Cleveland and is for the new DOE above and the
right of Daniel Michelangelo's authorship of the sheet has often been doubted.
And it is missing from some of the standard old catalogues of his drawings, but seen at the Met in close proximity to its counterpart from Vienna.
I felt it was entirely convincing.
There only exists one large scale head study for any new doe in intensely characterised all but final solution for the new DOE above Isiah.
And to his left and this drawing's in the loof. One of the very few studies for the corner spam trolls is for the fresco of Judith and Holofernes,
which was one of the first parts of the ceiling to be painted and is a delicate black chalk invention for the whole scene.
The drawing could hardly be more summery, but does at least reveal the fact that in his initial conception,
Michelangelo intended to divide the scene into three distinct sections, a schema he stayed true to in the drawing on the left,
he shows Judith and her maidservant fairly much as in the fresco with Holofernes,
his head held aloft on a platter in the middle there as the mutilated and foreshortened body of Holofernes is feetfirst final.
It's the right to standing eavesdroppers. In the final version, the cast of characters is much the same,
but they have all changed places so that there is a single sleeping soldier in darkness to the left,
Judith and her maid in brightly coloured garments are set against the light marble wall in the middle and the dead.
Holofernes is again in the half darkness of his tent. But to the right.
The other important difference seems to be that in the drawing, Judith was presented semi frontally, looking back over her shoulder,
whereas in the fresco for all that she still gazes back at her victim, her face and most tellingly, the expression upon it are not visible.
The only other studies for the Corner Spaniel's very different in character and
relate to the scene of the crucifixion of Hey man at the other end of the road,
this one in the British Museum is a masterly and highly finished study in red chalk for his entire body,
which is flanked by close ups of the legs while another.
In the. I'm very sorry. Better.
It close up another.
In the Tilers Museum completes the process by closing in on the head and upper body in the main study and by also homing in on the arms and even.
Even the right ear. Bit like big toe.
He's gone for the right ear. There also exists a cartoon fragment connected with the concealed part of the head of Hey Man,
whose purpose was only relatively recently understood in the 1980s.
So you could sort of see Magath nostro on nose, side of face matching up this.
Since the time of this suggested connexion, the restoration of the sealing was still in progress.
It was possible to match it up to the actual fresco.
They made it sort of one to one photocopy, as it were, of the drawing, and prove that it was exactly the same size.
It fitted perfectly.
All the other cartoons for the ceiling no longer exist, and many were quite possibly destroyed during the creation of the frescoes.
Although Vasari does record that the Florentine Bindu Alta V.T., whose portrait was painted by Rafil own the one for the drunkenness of Noah.
So in theory, it may be hiding in someone's admittedly rather spacious attic.
We can take. Intriguingly, and for all that, this has not previously been observed.
A copy drawing of the boldly foreshortened figure of Hey man must have been made at a very early date and then have been sent to Venice,
where it was inserted with minimal adaptations of the pose intercut patches, altarpiece of the 10000 martyrs of Mount Ararat that work.
And you see the complete complete picture on the right is signed and dated.
Fifteen, fifteen. And I remind you, the Sistine ceiling was only unveiled in fifteen, twelve and.
Finding. And I flipped him.
To make the connexion more obvious, turning finally to the ancestors of Christ.
All that really needs to be explained is that Michelangelo startlingly immediate
inventions in pen for them are the chief glory of the Oxford sketchbook.
Many of them are faithful figures. Such as these two.
While others are concerned with details like within Penn, which seemingly required no modification when they were translated into paint.
And I think you can see that the. And the.
More details on. That drawing, incidentally, is in the show Inishmaan.
They were complimented by more resolve. Black chalk studies for a couple of the figures, including one in one of the lunette above the altar wall.
Which were destroyed when Mike Lansley subsequently fresco the last judgement.
However, it is not with them that I will close that with a final suggestion.
If the red chalk drawing in Cleveland for one of the new D I showed earlier is inverted,
it is revealed as having a head study at what is then its lower margin.
The endless literature on Michelangelo in the Sistine ceiling has nothing to offer concerning its possible function.
But I cannot see why it should not be a study for the rigidly frontal and upright head of the male figure in the inner Dabb lunette,