Talk:The Creation of Adam

Hidden Images

I propose an inclusion of a section entitled the above. For example, look at Adam's knee. Some believe that in it one can see the torso of a woman, with her breasts as the top part of Adam's knee. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.132.8.197 (talk) 03:12, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I came across this video tracing various heart shapes in the painting: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5jY1_9IgBjk. Honestly, I think you could make out just about anything if you try hard enough. Solomon Ucko (talk) 04:41, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Brain Theory

Havardk, What exactly is your objection to the inclusion of the brain picture? Kaisershatner 17:52, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The reason I removed the "brain theory" in the first place, is that I find this pretty far fetched. While it may be a funny anecdote, I don't think it is encylopedia material. I do see that the theory has been published in a serious journal, tough. With regards to the brain picture, I have no idea about what it is doing here. Is it to prove this theory in some way? I still very much think it should be removed. Havardk 17:45, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)

Well, we may agree on the validity of the theory. I'm not making any representation that it's valid ([[NPOV|neutral point of view), and we can disagree about that without consequences for the article. I see it as encyclopedia material, since it is an interesting interpretation of the art work, and it may have validity. I do agree that this would be a more encyclopedic article if it dealt with some of the facts about the work first (ie date of production, how long it took, details about the technique, materials, etc., and any info about the author's choice of this image, etc.), so if you like, add that stuff. It would end up making the "brain theory" a small part of this article, which would be more consistent with its (small) importance relative to this work. Finally, the brain pic is there because it graphically illustrates the similarity described in the medical journal in a way that the terminology would not. Kaisershatner 16:51, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I made the brain pic a link to the image, for people (like me) who dont want to see a brain picture when coming to an art article. This follows a precedent as used in some articles at wikipedia on sexual type subjects. Astrokey44 12:28, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Please ! Let's become serious... That thesis has absolutly NO LEGITIMACY in art ! :) The brain from a physician... not an expert or critic in Art ! His idea was not published in any magazine of art, or some sort of « serious » (legitim) medium for arts' stuffs. You made wrong, obsessed by the source/NPOV... you forget that a source must be pertinent... in the domain of the subject.

What's about new astrophysic theories published by painters in famous art magazine ? ;) Ok... I revert.

--Ironie 02:28, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

It is precsely this kind of CENSORSHIP that is completely WRONG. An encyclopedia contains IDEAS. To eliminate such theories based on your opinion that they are not worthy of anyone else's consideration is ABOMINABLE, on the same level as the destruction of the Library of Alexandria. There are no FACTS, only conclusions. It is one thing to remove something that can be SUBSTANTIALLY DISPROVED, it is quite another to remove a THEORY based on your personal opinion of it. To discredit a theory based on WHO presents it is a FALLACY. The fact that a professional publication like JAMA--whose members are exceptionally qualified with respect to evaluating the accuracy of an illustration of the human brain--is willing to publish the idea regarding the brain image IS testament to the ideas merit; I sincerely doubt that readers of an art magazine would, in comparison, be similarly qualified.

No, there is no wrong or true on Wikipedia. Only neutrality and... notability concept. Read that rules of Wikipedia, before claming for...

The brain theory has no notability in the discussion about Michel-Angelo works. A physician has no credibility to decide in the painting what is an important detail, or not (except if he is famous for his art knoledge). And the theory has to be prooved its notability, not in a magazine-not-competent-for-art, but in a serious one. Find any reference of that theory related in a media/magazine competent in Art ? An art critic who related the theory ? That's not a question of competence, but revelance. Are there any book about Michel-Angelo wich has related the brain's theory ? With a serious reference, I will have no opposition with the brain's theory.

There are lots of things to be writed about the ceil, and that painting. That's not a blog, please try serious work.

--Ironie 01:14, 15 April 2007 (UTC) My baby discovered toys in the clouds

Ok, I founded the brain theory reported by NYTimes (serious). I put back the chapter. Sorry. -- ironie

Thank you, Ironie, for restoring that information. You are very clearly, sincerely interested in contributing to the overall quality of the Wikipedia content. I do think, though, that you are not completely clear on the idea of neutrality and notability. While a NY Times article may reflect a theory's noteworthiness, so too does an article published by JAMA--a highly regarded, peer reviewed journal (hence the reason NY Times bothered to report the story at all!). Please understand that it is far easier to burn books than to write them; so deletion should not be done capriciously but should be done with significant restraint and respect for the contribution of others. If you feel the article is too focused on this one idea, then the proper thing to do is contribute more of what you think should be there, not remove what you think establishes "balance". Again I greatly appreciate your concerns for the quality of the content on Wikipedia, and I hope that you will take to heart what I am telling you here. If you truly want to improve the quality of Wikipedia, consider contributing rather than removing. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 76.100.248.190 (talk) 17:36, 15 April 2007 (UTC).

Bigger images?

This might be a bit wrong place to ask, but would anyone for some reason know some place where to obtain a bigger images of that fresco? I would highly appreciate it.

Flying Spaghetti Monster wikilink

Hello. Someone has put in a wikilink to the FSM (presumably because someone made a "Creation of Adam" parody featuring the FSM). I've removed the link but it has been reverted at least once. I'd like to know what anyone else thinks. Wile E. Heresiarch 15:08, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

'See also' are bad in general, and this one in particular doesn't seem very relavant. Raul654 15:17, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I'd actually argue that it's extremely relevant, as Pastafarianism is fairly widespread and the parody is one of their prime logos, so to speak. 206.53.79.115 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:48, 10 November 2011 (UTC).

"Donnadio"

Googling this word (and excluding Wikipedia from the search terms) brings up only Donnadio as a surname. Can anyone support the claim that it's the Italian name for this section of the Sistine ceiling? Otherwise it'll have to go. [talk to the] HAM 19:53, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

A very small penis

I can't seem to find any reason for it, or anything referencing it, but clearly it's extraordinarily small. Why is this, and why is it never brought up? TrevorLSciAct 01:27, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

apparently Michelangelo himself was a homosexual - may this have something to do with the small penis's? i have also noticed that all of Michelangelo's male work have small penis' including Michelangelo's 'David'

Lewis Taylor aged 15 Nottingham England

Because of the theme (biblical...), the ceiling (Vatican...) was certainly not the better place to play with penis.

And homosexuality was not necessary interfering, for the artist, with the major standards of sculptur and painting. So the non-sexual cherubin's penis. Rules of aesthetic. I remember, that in some antic roman's artworks, the big penis was a sign of bestiality (Pan/Faunus) but of stupidity too. For example, the hated man drawed with a geant penis (at the opposite of today!). May be some walls in pompeii...

--Ironie 02:57, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

the reason this painting among many other famous sculptures around the same time period that the males have small penises is becuase the artists did not want to make it the/a main focal point of the art --69.230.211.183 (talk) 14:36, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

POV

I find the article to have too much POV. Adam, Eve, creation and God are presented matter-of-a-factly, rather than as subjects in a work of art. I also do not see how Lilith is any more mythical than Eve or God, except that she is a non-canon character in a belief system. It should be remembered that The Creation of Adam is a (technically brilliant) artistic depiction/interpretation/rendering of mythological events recorded in "the" bible.--The Chairman (Shout me · Stalk me) 08:59, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Totally agreed. I found this section of the talk page by chance after already preparing to write something similar. "The inclusion of Eve has led some people to believe the female figure must be Adam's mythical first wife, Lilith, although Lilith was also created after Adam." --> This passage very much implies that Adam is not mythical. Whether or not the stories in the Bible are true, they are myths. ("Use of the term by scholars implies neither the truth nor the falseness of the narrative.") The passage ought to be clarified without placing Adam in a literary position of infallibility. Tomalak Geret'kal (talk) 12:23, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Largely seconded. I was ok with the NPOV until I got to this statement: "These two representations show us that at any point in time, all man has to do is reach out to God, and he will be there to help, or lend a helping hand." Up to this point, the POV can be taken within the context of a religious painting, a discussion of the characters and their chronologies within a mythology. I'd expect no less POV in an article about the characters in a novel or other work of art. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.243.232.51 (talk) 18:24, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Image of God

It strikes me odd - that nothing is mentioned of the violation of one of the Ten commandments - not to draw images of God. So why has something like this not been included?Tourskin 06:32, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Just to explain my recent deletions

God is depicted as an elderly bearded man laying on a kidney which he shares with some cherubim. The kidney was considered to be the organ that is essential for the body to stay alive in Michaelangelo's time, so it often represented life in art.

I couldn't let this claim stay in the article unsubstantiated. If this theory has been put forward in a reliable source, it may be restored to the article, but only under the special section for 'Anatomical theories' (with the brain theory and the uterus theory – both of which indicate their sources) to emphasise how non-mainstream this view is. And I'm afraid 'kidneys often represented life in art' is just plain humbug.

Another theory of the meaning of "The Creation of Adam", is that God's position in the piece is that of full outreach, indicating that he is giving all effort to reach the hand of Adam. Adam, seems very relaxed, and doesn't seem as interested to reach out, which is shown in his loose arm and hand. These two representations show us that at any point in time, all man has to do is reach out to God, and he will be there to help, or lend a helping hand.

This is valid enough as a personal interpretation of the work, but it has no place in an encyclopaedia. It's hard when describing works of art, but we have to try to be as objective as we can here. Sorry. Ham 11:15, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Reliable source for title?

This page has a misleading title and nomenclature throughout. The name for this fresco, still the Italian name, is La Creazione dell'uomo (1.48 million Google hits on phrase)—"The Creation of Man". In fact, The Creation of Man is still its normal title in reliable English sources, that know how to translate Italian. Wikipedia looks a little odd in a Google search on the standard title in English, because we have renamed it according to our own editorial decision. The Italian is theologically accurate, as one would hope for a Vatican entity, but that's by-the-by. Editors interested in rectifying this according to sources may like to compare La Creazione di Adamo (73,200 hits) and La creazione dell'uomo e della donna (1,840 hits). Searches are, of course, complicated by picking up many references to the Bible. Alastair Haines (talk) 10:04, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

On the other hand, at the present time (2011 11 27), the Vatican refers to Adam throughout their website : italiano deutsch and, well, every other language. Sounds like a reliable source :) Ab930 (talk) 22:40, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Not the proper title

It is not the creation of Adam, it is the awakening of Adam.

It was bomb essay  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.192.189.32 (talk) 01:17, 16 September 2008 (UTC) 

I think more likely it represents the creation of God. God was created inside the brain of man and is an construct of man. Michaelanglo, you recall was forced to paint the chapel. Perhaps this is what he thought of a God whose servants would force him to do such a thing and waste 10 years of his life. Michaelangelo was a sculpter, not a painter and clearly a modern thinker who I believe painted this to show his belief that god was a construct of the brain of man.

LSSS —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.68.30.230 (talk) 21:28, 25 February 2010 (UTC) new art — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mehran.rabienia (talk • contribs) 20:14, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Left-Handed Suggestion

ive heard this alot about this painting and am suprised that its not included, many have suggested this represents adam the first man as being a lefty, because he is reaching out with his left hand towards god. considering all the subtle hidden meanings we find in this type of art these days, and the fact that michaelangelo was a lefty, this one is pretty obvious.--69.230.211.183 (talk) 14:41, 2 October 2008 (UTC) The so-called left-handedness of Adam can be explained by the cameo Augustus (please see the "notes" section that I have written). If you go to Google Image, and type "Augustus, cameo, capricorn", you will see this cameo figure of a nude Augustus Caesar serenely holding a whip in his left hand. Michelangelo slightly elevated his left arm, closed the gap between his legs, and invented the right arm and hand. A mirror image of this gesture of Augustus above the waist also appears in the ignudo to the upper right of the Erythraean Sibyl. Here instead of grasping a whip, the ignudo is grasping a fold of drapery. Michelangelo painted this ignudo at least a year before he painted the "Creation of Adam". The ignudo's legs and supporting arm are Michelangelo's inventions. The cameo Augustus is so lethargic and passive looking that he creates an excellent foil to the powerfully dynamic image of God on the right side of the fresco. Artists tend to like contrast. The only parts of the cameo Augustus that could not be construed as having been borrowed for the sake of making the figure of Adam are the right arm and hand of Augustus. Would this explain why when Michelangelo sketched the figure of Adam on a sheet of paper, he had to draw his right hand and arm three times? This drawing is in the British Museum. The aforementioned ignudo also looks lethargic or tired. Apparently, Michelangelo extended the use of the cartoon for this figure when he made his lunette figure "Eleazar". Since the same head and much of the slanted arm appear in both figures in mirror image, Michelangelo apparently used both sides of the cartoon. The symbolism of the left ("sinistra") hand can be easily overly applied. Has even a saint ever chosen to have his or her left arm amputated except for medical reasons? You also might want to re-think whether Michelangelo was really left-handed. According to Michael Hirst's Michelangelo and his Drawings Yale University Press, 1989, p. 110 at the bottom, he was right-handed based on a close examination of the stroke patterns on his drawings. Giorgio Vasari in his "Life of Raffaello da Montelupo" reported how fascinated Michelangelo was to see him draw with his left hand.Bsutherlandb (talk) 01:35, 14 April 2013 (UTC)71.106.54.117 (talk) 17:58, 14 April 2013 (UTC)Bsutherlandb (talk) 18:18, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Belly button

Why does Adam have a belly button if he didn't have a mother and presumably never had an umbilical cord? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.35.84.219 (talk) 15:36, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Sophia, gnostics, Eve--original research?

The article currently includes this paragraph:

The woman in the crook of God's arm is often depicted as Sophia by the Gnostics. Christian tradition places Eve under God's arm as the next creature that He intends to bring into existence. The green ribbon that flows from the woman represents the human life that will be borne through the woman.

I see a few problems with that. First off, what does it mean to say that the image is "depicted as Sophia by the gnostics"? (I think the editor meant either something like "modern-day gnostics interpret this as a depiction of Sophia", or perhaps "Leonardo might have meant this to be a depiction of Sophia as understood by the gnostics"--either one of which really needs a citation.)

Likewise with the bit about Eve. I'm not aware of any Christian tradition that "places Eve under God's arm", or that bit about the green ribbon. If the editor is saying Leonardo meant this, I'd love to see a citation.

I'm sticking an "original research" tag on that paragraph for now, but if I don't hear comments back in the next week or so, I'll remove the paragraph. -- Narsil (talk) 00:29, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Hearing no objection, I'm removing that paragraph, and also the following one:

The two figures behind God's left and right shoulders are an allusion to the Trinitarian God. Both faces are aligned with that of the Father. The one on the right just behind the woman has his hair blown back, symbolizing the Holy Spirit. While Jesus' divine nature sits behind the shoulder on the left, Jesus' human nature can also be found on the right with God's finger resting on His shoulder. Adam's fall is foreshadowed with Jesus' human nature turning away from creation representing the agony he will experience as the New Adam.

That paragraph also looks like OR to me. -- Narsil (talk) 04:00, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I've restored some of the information (Eve, Sophia) with a reference written by Leo STeinberg; I'm not too happy with the way I write (feel free to edit) but I believe the ref is a reliable source with an interesting timeline of the possible interpretaions Ab930 (talk) 03:51, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

'Positive' critique?

Couldn't the word 'positive' be taken as read? 78.146.161.176 (talk) 23:24, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Fuller Image

A fuller image of the painting would be nice. The current one is cropped and is missing the right side, where the characters' feet are. --69.157.28.33 (talk) 05:28, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I have replaced the image with a better quality and much more complete one that also includes part of the frame around the panel. Hope I did everything right; I'm a new editor. Someone please fix it if I messed something up. --The Pachyderminator (talk) 20:51, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

nonsense

Someone has been messing with this article. Please fix!

"The secret lover seeing his destruction ran from the church and Michalangelo's death was thought to be an accident, the church members were so frightened by the crazy incident that they took a polaroid picture of his painting and then burned the entire building down. Is has recently been replaced by a Taco Bell." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Squibblesoz (talk • contribs) 01:42, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Who is Sophia?

"but was also suggested to be Virgin Mary, Sophia, ..." - who is Sophia? Can an interlink be given? Tomer T (talk) 10:29, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

low quality

This article seems to have functioned as a magnet for sophomoric contributions by random people.--75.83.69.196 (talk) 03:58, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Dimensions

So how big is this painting?

I just removed ridiculous millimetres from the end of the dimensions -- these figures were exactly what you would get by converting the inch values (which themselves are suspiciously precise). Just how accurately could one measure a panel on the ceiling anyway?

But Even More Seriously: How big is it? Romance language WPs seem to agree on 570 x 280 cm, the others agree on 480 x 230 cm. This is too much to be accounted for by different measurement methods (does one measure the painting along the curve of the ceiling, or across a chord? etc). My rough calculations from pictures of the whole ceiling and the claim that it is 14m wide (oddly, just more than the 13.4m width of the chapel!) suggest that the width of the actual picture (inside the "frame") cannot be more than about 450 cm. Perhaps traditionally some of the "frame" (which I presume is also painting) is included... ?

But in such cases, citations from Real Old Books, or reliable measurements might help, but it might actually be more *accurate* to give a less *precise* value, "Approx. 4.8 by 2.3 metres".

Imaginatorium (talk) 08:24, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

The Picture of the Simpsons Needs to Be Removed

As the only other picture in the article besides the painting itself, it seems that the Simpsons are presented as having equal significance and cultural impact as the original painting. I suspect that hard-core Simpsons fans see the whole word through the lens of the Simpsons, but for the rest of the world, we have never seen the Simpsons and/or simply don't care what the Simpsons have to say about every facet of history. Wikipedia often has a bad reputation that needs to be overcome as a collection of useless popular cultural references, and the Simpsons picture fuels that case. 129.63.129.196 (talk) 15:00, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Bob Henderson

Removed the link to Bob Henderson as the creator of the FSM, as the page seems to be removed.

Asciimov — Preceding unsigned comment added by 145.97.230.178 (talk) 00:26, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Derivations

There should be a section for famous derivatives of this, as it is an impact on culture. Such as the Flying Spaghetti Monster, or the Deadpool 2 movie poster, etc. Esp, the Pastafarian painting. -- 70.52.11.217 (talk) 21:21, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

And indeed the Monty Python version. -- Cimon Avaro; on a pogostick. (talk) 00:31, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

shouldn't all those and others be catalogued on an "adolescent humor satirizing religion" page? easier for everybody. 2603:8001:D300:A631:0:0:0:10D0 (talk) 18:56, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

what is "effortful"

In the section

The_Creation_of_Adam#Studies_of_a_Reclining_Male_Nude:_Adam_in_the_Fresco_"The_Creation_of_Man"

the article says "Michelangelo employed a male model to capture this effortful pose". it's uncited, but what is effortful about this? (effortful I suppose is technically a word, but I've never seen it before, and I'm old and well read) I mean, is that what is generally said about this pose or this painting? The reason I noticed it is that I came to the article for this very topic because I was sitting around thinking, "you know, it's always bothered me, why is this depiction so torpid or even languid, or especially, so unanimated given the moment of the event" 2603:8001:D300:A631:0:0:0:10D0 (talk) 18:55, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Yes, cut the word. Johnbod (talk) 14:40, 16 September 2022 (UTC)