David vs David

The Two Davids

I also caught the replica of the statue of David on my way to the second museum in the old spot of the original, looks the same I think, I didn't react to it as much as to the original, I don't know if that's because I sensed it somehow or because I'd already seen it or just the context. Although it is need to see it in town Square how it was intended as public art.

While I was in the museum, taking pictures of David's butt, I overheard someone ask what he has in his hand, which shows you people just know it as a statue of a guy. I'm sure if she was pressed she could figure out what David, him from Goliath, is holding. But I think we can all fall into that trap, where iconic works of art cease to be reflections of the world, attempts at capturing something, and just become a thing in themselves. No longer Michelangelo's David, but just Michelangelo's David.

You think you know them, because these kinds of works, other people's snapshots of them, the cultural idea of them, have implanted themselves into your head, probably before you've had the time to form your own proper thoughts on art, but when you actually see them it's different. That's why I think the first thing that struck me, it's so big, is less trivial than it seems. Nothing about the cultural ideas about the statue that had dug their way into me seemed to have communicated that basic observation.

Ok, so what were my initial thoughts when I saw it in person for the first time? It's very serene, this is not a man mid-fight, his sling casually, err, slung over his shoulder, looking off into the distance. He's either trying to clear his mind before the fight or contemplating it afterwards. And the detail, the perfect anatomy, the vein running down his arm.

Bernini's David is all different. He is not serene, he is not large, they have him on a pedestal but if he wasn't you'd be eye height with him. His pose is not static, it's dynamic, it captures him mid-movement, mid-fight, his face strained and puffed up by effort. It is intense.

The guide told me the artist did not intend to have him on a pedestal, and he wasn't put there at first, and I think that's the right call. He was also meant to be up against a wall, you can tell by the fact that the part that was meant to be against the wall is not given as much detail. Imagine walking into a room and having the statue eye-height leaping at you from an alcove, I think you might fall down from the intensity.

I understand the practical issues with placing it eye level, of course, you can't do it in a museum with this many people visiting it each day, you'd hardly get a view at all.

After David

The day I visited Mikey's David I did two museums, the Academia, where the statue is housed, and the Uffizi Gallery. The Academia has a mix of renaissance paintings and and sculptures, whereas Uffizi mostly focuses on paintings. And the paintings were amazing. I hardly need to tell you that the renaissance was an artistic rebirth and jump forward, other people have done that much better. What struck me most this time were the reds.

The colours and use of light in general was fantastic, but these Venetian reds? Wow. Amazingly vibrant. I don't know how they do it. It's called Venetian Red apparently and used iron oxide in its pigment. I'm sure it's also technique, either way the colours are just fantastic on these paintings.

I'm usually more of a painting man, when I go to a museum the other installations don't appeal to me that much, even the sculptures. I appreciate them more as historical artefacts and achievements of craft than as works of art that really speak to me. But this time it was different.

I don't know if I was primed for it by the statue of David, but I was much more taken by the other sculptures I saw afterwards than I usually am, but I loved these. Most of the ones I saw after David where sculptures from Lorenzo Bartolini, who I'd never heard of before, and I think he's wonderful too. It's amazing how much humanness you can extract from solid rock, not just human likeness, by carving out the right curves, the right folds, the flow, the indentations, it didn't just look human this time. The statues felt human.

While I really liked Bartolini and the others after seeing Michelangelo's David, I absolutely loved Bernini after seeing his David.

His David is good, but I think I was more impressed by his other ones, the imprints from a grasp in the skin, the mole on someone's back, the button mid-pop, fabric, indented cushions, it's indeed all very alive. Bernini was really on yet another level when it comes to getting so hard and solid as marble to portray the delicate fleshiness of life.

Conclusion

Comparing Bernini's David to Mikey's, supposedly the premise of this post, here's where I land: Yes, it's more dynamic, it's in action, his face is full of effort, it's powerful, but I still think I prefer Michelangelo's, it's serene, but imposing. I don't think I can really explain why very well though.

I think part of me is fairly convinced that Bernini's is technically better, the dynamism and intensity feels to me more advanced, I might consider him a better sculptor. But, still, Michelangelo's David just had a certain effect on me, which could entirely be down to the fact that I saw it first, or due to its iconic nature, but at the end of the day it just had something indescribable.

It doesn't matter of course, in no way is this a real competition and in no way does my call tell you anything more than what it did to me.

In short, I think he should look like... Danny DeVito. Yes, if I ever pick up sculpting I'm going to make him look like Danny DeVito.