Arts feature

Michelangelo’s vision was greater even than Shakespeare’s

On the 450th anniversary of the Italian artist’s death, we should celebrate the impact this egomaniac had on Western art

13 September 2014

9:00 AM

13 September 2014

9:00 AM

It is 450 years since the birth of William Shakespeare. The anniversary has been hard to avoid in this country, which is entirely appropriate. Shakespeare helped to shape not only our language but also our conception of character and our understanding of the human condition. Our experience of love, of facing death, of loss and of glory, contains echoes of Shakespeare, even if we hardly ever read him or see his plays.

It is also 450 years since the death of Michelangelo. That anniversary has hardly been noticed here — although Michelangelo had as great an impact on visual arts in the West as Shakespeare has had on its literature. For centuries, every painter and sculptor felt the need either to emulate Michelangelo, or to escape his influence. Many still do.

Michelangelo did more than anyone else to create the idea of the artist as a solitary, divinely inspired individual, answerable to no one and nothing except his talent. Before him, painting and sculpture were viewed as a form of manual labour, and their practitioners were seen as artisans — and not particularly skilled or remarkable ones at that.

Michelangelo was the first artist who demanded to be treated as a special kind of person, outside the conventional social hierarchy; an individual who, because of his extraordinary abilities, stood on equal terms with his aristocratic patrons. He demanded not just their money, but their respect too. So eager were his patrons to persuade him to work for them that respect is what he got — even when he treated them, as he frequently did, with disdain bordering on contempt. Other artists were imprisoned for fraud when they failed to deliver work for which they had been paid. Michelangelo usually received another commission from a patron desperate to get something from the hand of the ‘Divine Master’.

This made Michelangelo by far the richest artist of his generation, and perhaps the richest, in inflation-adjusted terms, until the 20th century. He said he ‘always lived like a poor man’, often in two rooms, with only one servant — and it is true: he did. But when he died, he was found to have enough money to buy almost any palace in Rome in cash. That sum did not even include the value of his very substantial property portfolio.

Michelangelo was also the first artist to have an ego so great that no amount of flattery, however gross, was sufficient. When Giorgio Vasari published the first edition of his Lives of the Most Eminent Painters, Sculptors and Architects, he made Michelangelo the culmination of the story of European art. Michelangelo was the only modern artist to have surpassed the ancients. He was the greatest sculptor, painter and architect ever.


Michelangelo reacted to this fawning portrait with fury. Not because it was too adulatory, but because it was not adulatory enough. Vasari’s fault seems to have been to point out that Michelangelo had been apprenticed to the Florentine painter Domenico Ghirlandaio. Vasari also noted that, after leaving Ghirlandaio’s workshop, Michelangelo had been taught the rudiments of sculpture by a pupil of Donatello. But Michelangelo’s view of himself was that no one had taught him anything. If he had had any help, it came directly from God, and not from any merely human teacher.

Michelangelo was essentially self-taught in one of the arts in which he excelled: architecture. But he had that in common with several Renaissance artists, such as Leonardo da Vinci and Raphael, who ventured into architecture without any formal training. Michelangelo was 43 when he designed a façade for the Church of San Lorenzo in Florence. He won the commission jointly with Baccio d’Agnolo, an experienced architect who had already designed several palaces. Michelangelo must have picked up a great deal from Baccio. But true to his obsessive desire to control everything, he got rid of Baccio within a year, and had himself appointed sole architect.

Michelangelo came up with a drawing and a wooden model, but his audacious and innovative façade was never built. When the contract was cancelled, he drafted a furious letter to Pope Leo X saying he could never recover from the ‘enormous insult’ to his reputation. In fact, Clement VII, the next Medici pope, soon asked him to design a library to house the Medici collection of books and manuscripts. This was built, and it is one of the most beautiful of all Michelangelo’s works. The staircase alone, with its stone curves and scrolls, is stupendous.

Michelangelo was never wholly satisfied by anything he did. He seems to have felt proudest of two of his earliest works, both of which were completed before he was 28: the ‘Pietà’, now in St Peter’s; and ‘David’, the first colossal stone sculpture since antiquity. As he got older, his unfinished sculptures started to outnumber his finished ones. He frequently concluded that he was incapable of realising his vision and would abandon the block of marble he thought he had ruined.

Detail of ‘The Last Judgment’, 1535–1541, from the ‘Sistine Chapel (Cappella Sistina)’ by Michelangelo
Detail of ‘The Last Judgment’, 1535–1541, from the ‘Sistine Chapel (Cappella Sistina)’ by Michelangelo

He took a hammer to the sculpture known as the ‘Bandini Pietà’, smashing off one of Christ’s arms and damaging the Virgin and the other figures. His method of sculpting marble seems to have hovered perpetually on the edge of destroying his own work. Blaise de Vigenère, who witnessed Michelangelo sculpting, was astonished at the violence with which the artist, then over 75 years old, attacked the block of stone. De Vigenère thought the marble was going to shatter under the weight of Michelangelo’s blows. And he was sure that had Michelangelo’s chisel gone just slightly deeper at any point, he would have ruined everything.

Perhaps the most accessible of Michelangelo’s works are his drawings. His finished pieces, which he often gave as presents, have a captivating beauty. But when you look at the sketches in which he works out different poses, you get the spine-tingling feeling that you are seeing him thinking.

Michelangelo diminished his dependence on assistants to an extent unparalleled among the artists of his time. The Sistine Chapel seems to have been entirely his own work. He had workmen to grind and mix colours for him. But he did all the actual painting himself.

The image of God creating Adam has become less an icon than a visual cliché, reproduced so many times that it can be difficult to realise just how extraordinary it is. As for the Chapel as a whole — ‘The Last Judgment’ on the end wall included — it is, as Goethe said, ‘impossible to have a full idea of what humanity is capable of achieving’ without having seen it.

The Sistine Chapel commands admiration but not love. It is not, as a totality, beautiful. Even for the committed Christian, its grim vision of sinfulness, death and damnation is not easy to share.

Michelangelo aimed to make those who viewed the Sistine Chapel feel reverence for God’s creation, and humility in the face of his power and implacable judgment. In a secular world, perhaps the sense of awe is as close as we can get to those feelings. It is a testament to the power of Michelangelo’s vision that he can evoke such a response. Not even Shakespeare can quite do that.

Alasdair Palmer has been public policy editor at the Sunday Telegraph and a speechwriter at the Home Office.

You might disagree with half of it, but you’ll enjoy reading all of it. Try your first 10 weeks for just $10


Show comments
  • Carter Lee

    Alasdair Palmar errors in his comparison of Michelangelo with Shakespeare.

    Michelangelo with undoubted skill celebrated only empty, manufactured religious dogma and superstition. Shakespeare was a far greater talent in celebrating the wonderful complexities of human existence whether it is through his comedies or tragedies.

    • Paddy Kilshamus

      No there is something more than dogma in his works. I cannot remember who coined the term but it is ‘terribilita’ . A sense of the supernatural, more than human. Shakespeare had a wider scope I admit but only in Macbeth and the Tempest does he touch that dark and bright hollow that Michelangelo carved out. Far from being dogmatic the Sistine Chapel incorporates veiled neo-platonic ideas and images which were heretical and the Last Judgement was fed by his experience of the preacher Savonarola another heretic. The utter darkness shot through with radiant light and the play of these violent extremes held together somehow are the beauty of Michelangelo. It is spiritual in a way that Shakespeare never was. The presence of something other than man is in his work and in Shakespeare you have all of humanity. Michelangelo is limited but deeper.

      • Carter Lee

        Very nicely said. You make some points I didn’t think of and are indisputable.

        Because of my bias against religious themes I find a secular Shakespeare very refreshing for his age. In an age warped and disfigured in the name of religion Shakespeare opens a window to allow in the light and darkness of humanity.

        • Paddy Kilshamus

          Thanks. I was lucky in that I somehow separated the religious sensibility from religious people and institutions so I have never rejected the ideas because of the hypocrites and fools claiming to represent them. You know there is a number of works which claim that Shakespeare was a Catholic writing in the period of great anti-Catholic sentiment in protestant England. It is quite interesting.

          • Carter Lee

            Well, of course all England was Catholic at least in name less than a century before.

            And while I have no insight into Shakespeare’s religious convictions (if he had any) it would seem logical that out of self-interest in public view he he embraced Protestantism.

            My reading of Shakespeare makes me sense that religion was not a central focus in his life so perhaps he was more or less a deist?

          • Paddy Kilshamus

            Yes I have always felt he had no particular religion or creed and that is why his work is still alive. He seems to have resisted dogma and remained open and curious. Keats spoke of his ‘negative capability’ that openness to life without the need to impose an ideological/cultural map upon experience.
            Emile Cioran, a great pessimist but to my mind the greatest prose writer in the philosophical field, wrote that ‘Shakespeare was fortunate in not serving any idea or creed which cripples the work of many writers’.
            So yes I agree he was just a man with an artists eye to penetrate the depths of human nature.

        • Freedom

          Right the first time, Carter. Shakespeare is the greater thinker, the greater man, and the greater artist.

          • Paddy Kilshamus

            You must be American.

      • Freedom

        Shakespeare had philosophy. Michelangelo did not. Shakespeare’s superiority rests right there. Your last sentence is simply untrue.

  • donna

    i would say he had a rather well deserved self regard in view of his enormous capacity. Many geniuses do not suffer the less endowed gladly

    • Freedom

      Nor do they create a David to show one equally well… endowed. (Sorry, but your comment gave rise to the thought.)

  • Liz

    The Sistine chapel is an anti-climax. Channels Liberace rather than God.

    • Paddy Kilshamus

      I must admit there is a lot of pink in it. It may have to do with the restoration that occurred under the guidance of a very camp art expert. Quote ‘Dear oh dear, this is all too too gloomy, it’s our job ladies to bring out Michelangelo’s flamboyant extrovert side! Look at the fabulous gorgeousness hidden under those layers of soot! It’s showtime ladies!’ End quote.

    • Freedom

      Or: it’s too much climax. M. worked himself into a lather over male bods, but was terrible at the women inside of drapery.

  • Freedom

    First: no one’s vision was bigger than Shakespeare’s.

    Second: If Michelangelo showed how an artist can be a tyrant, that is no accomplishment worth celebrating.

Close