Another good example was DaVinci, the ass he gave god in the Sistine chapel in itself is a damn good argument for him being gay and a troll along with his journals (though a theology major once argued with me it'd be blasphemy to give an artistic rendition of god anything but the best ass possible).
A sculptor who hated painting btw. Was basically kidnapped and forced to do it. Got paint in his eyes and almost went blind. Also probably closeted gay.
Yea that's what we ended up agreeing on, that and a lot of the Renaissance artists probably saw love and divinity as the same thing. To have a poor art history major in that room lol.
Ikr, his argument was 'oh it wasn't as severe in those days' (total horseshit) also something about pre-modern man seeing the world-universe as perfect, not just sacred, and by extension the human form. Idk about that neither, in those days pretty much just existing and being born was a sin, there's a gap between whatever he was arguing and real world shaping things imo. Whatever, too much religious exhilaration in an academic setting poisoned him.
He's like...sorta kinda right about the human form stuf, man being made in the image of God means that God would be the hottest man is the quick version, but a theology major is pretty likely to have a pretty eack view of history, cause that does play into things but is far from an exclusive factor. It's not like...totally wrong but is so reductive that it's worse than just being wrong cause it requires a long multidisciplinary explanation that I'm too about to make supper for to deal with
Another good example was DaVinci, the ass he gave god in the Sistine chapel in itself is a damn good argument for him being gay and a troll along with his journals (though a theology major once argued with me it'd be blasphemy to give an artistic rendition of god anything but the best ass possible).
Sistine chapel was Michelangelo. The one with the nunchucks.
Oops, I'll leave it since that's funnier
the saltine chapel
The sissified chaple
A sculptor who hated painting btw. Was basically kidnapped and forced to do it. Got paint in his eyes and almost went blind. Also probably closeted gay.
That makes sense tbh. Also makes sense to get a gay guy to paint God for that exact reason.
Yea that's what we ended up agreeing on, that and a lot of the Renaissance artists probably saw love and divinity as the same thing. To have a poor art history major in that room lol.
I'm sorry, this is the religion whose followers are commonly seen being homophobic?
Ikr, his argument was 'oh it wasn't as severe in those days' (total horseshit) also something about pre-modern man seeing the world-universe as perfect, not just sacred, and by extension the human form. Idk about that neither, in those days pretty much just existing and being born was a sin, there's a gap between whatever he was arguing and real world shaping things imo. Whatever, too much religious exhilaration in an academic setting poisoned him.
He's like...sorta kinda right about the human form stuf, man being made in the image of God means that God would be the hottest man is the quick version, but a theology major is pretty likely to have a pretty eack view of history, cause that does play into things but is far from an exclusive factor. It's not like...totally wrong but is so reductive that it's worse than just being wrong cause it requires a long multidisciplinary explanation that I'm too about to make supper for to deal with
Probably was, in those days I knew even less about sociology and things than I do now. Remember hearing the form of man in an elective I took.