There’s this:
And then there’s this:
‘Nuff said.
This entry was posted
on Saturday, August 18th, 2012 at 12:44 pm and is filed under Baseball and sports, Painting, sculpture, photography.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
Previously a lifelong Democrat, born in New York and living in New England, surrounded by liberals on all sides, I've found myself slowly but surely 
August 18th, 2012 at 1:51 pm
Of course, I like the first David you posted above best. One interesting side note about it for me was when I saw it in Florence, I was surprised at how “un-grand” the building was in which it was housed. That kind of thing happened often for me in Italy. The Trevi Fountain in Rome left me with the same impression…it was beautiful but its surroundings were not so hot.
August 18th, 2012 at 2:08 pm
I knew David and Beckham is no David.
August 18th, 2012 at 2:29 pm
One of the things that strikes me these days when I look at Michelangelo’s David is how comparatively normal he looks when viewed against the images of some of the models we see today in advertisements or some of the more bulked-up and chiseled film stars. Michelangelo’s David is lean and muscular and fit, but he’s not exactly what would be called “ripped” today. One can discern the abdominal muscles, but they don’t stand out in high relief; likewise, the legs and arms are muscular but not huge. Although women like to complain about unrealistic images of female beauty portrayed in the media, I think what Michelangelo’s David illustrates is that, now, even compared to the David, the images of male beauty we see in the media today are just as unrealistic.
August 18th, 2012 at 3:22 pm
My goodness but David’s (I) right hand looks enormous. Looks like he could palm a basketball. Wonder if he had any ‘ups’?
August 18th, 2012 at 5:33 pm
If ever commentary wasn’t really necessary!
August 18th, 2012 at 6:44 pm
“My goodness but David’s (I) right hand looks enormous. Looks like he could palm a basketball. Wonder if he had any ‘ups’?”
I’ve always thought David’s hands were kinda too big…but I still like the statue.
August 18th, 2012 at 6:48 pm
Saw the Beckham underwear statue. UGLY.
August 19th, 2012 at 1:59 am
I’ve read somewhere that Michelangelo deliberately made David with imperfect proportions, and his hands bigger to signify that he would use his shepherd’s hands to wield the slingshot that brought down Goliath.
I have a small copy of him in my apartment (the David). You men who say women are beautiful but men aren’t just don’t know how gorgeous you can be.
August 20th, 2012 at 1:44 am
I believe the large hands on Michelangelo’s David may have had something to do with the fact that it was originally intended to be placed atop one of the buttresses of the Cathedral of Florence. Thus, it would have been viewed from below as an architectural decoration, and Michelangelo may have felt the need to enlarge certain parts of David’s body to compensate for the perspective from which it would have been seen. There was a precedent for something like this. When Donatello was a young man he carved a marble statue of St. John to be placed in one of the niches of the Duomo’s west front. He deliberately elongated the proportions of John’s face, because he knew the statue was going to be placed high up the wall of the church and viewed from below.
August 20th, 2012 at 7:00 pm
Yes, abdul7591, I remember hearing something similar in an art history course I took in college.
August 21st, 2012 at 12:56 pm
Enough about David’s right hand. Has anyone noticed how out of proportion Beckham is?
His feet are the same size as his hands, his arms don’t extend past his hips, and his legs are about equal to the length between his hips and his shoulders. He has the proportions of a midget.