Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
* FanWank: The statue depicts David -- a Jewish man -- as uncircumcised. Some have suggested that Michelangelo was trying to time-accurately show ''milah'' (the circumcision used before 2nd century AD, which only removed a bit of skin at the end) instead of ''periah'' (the whole circumcision established afterwards to make impossible to restore the foreskin). This is probably not Michelangelo's intention because the statue still shows no skin removed at all, and it's very unlikely that Michelangelo would have had access to such info in his time and place.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 2 (click to see context) from:
* BestKnownForTheFanservice: While the work masterfully tells the story and character of David in his appearance, stance, and expression, the work is best known for depicting an idealized male physique. Whenever the work is brought up, it's almost certainly to reference David's beauty rather than anything else.
to:
* BestKnownForTheFanservice: While the work masterfully tells the story and character of David in his appearance, stance, and expression, the work is best known for depicting an idealized male physique.physique, including his... well, y'know. Whenever the work is brought up, it's almost certainly to reference David's beauty rather than anything else.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 1 (click to see context) from:
* {{Awesome}}: The ''David'' was made out of a flawed block of marble that nobody thought could be salvaged.
to:
* {{Awesome}}: SugarWiki/AwesomeArt: The ''David'' was made out of a flawed block of marble that nobody thought could be salvaged.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
* {{Awesome}}: The ''David'' was made out of a flawed block of marble that nobody thought could be salvaged.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 2 (click to see context) from:
* JustHereForGodzilla: While the Galleria dell'Academia hosts other art, its patrons come mainly to see ''David''.
to:
* CommonKnowledge: Many people mistakenly think that Creator/MichelangeloBuonarroti's {{sculpture|s}} includes a [[SceneryCensor fig leaf covering his privates]], most likely due to it often being [[{{Bowdlerized}} shown that way]] in cartoons and children's books. And because [[https://collections.vam.ac.uk/item/O85428/fig-leaf-for-idavidi-fig-leaf-d-brucciani/ such a leaf]] is, in fact, sometimes used in case of some important yet sensitive visitors.
* JustHereForGodzilla: While the Galleria dell'Academia hosts other art, its patrons come mainly to see''David''.the ''Art/{{David}}''.
----
* JustHereForGodzilla: While the Galleria dell'Academia hosts other art, its patrons come mainly to see
----
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 1,2 (click to see context) from:
* BestKnownForTheFanservice: If someone mentions ''David'', the first thing that comes to mind for many people is ''not'' the fact that it portrays him before the battle with Goliath. Michelangelo broke from the norm by depicting David ''about to fight'' Goliath, instead of after his victory. Thus, David is missing the artifacts that would normally give it away to the uninformed viewer, such as the head of Goliath or an empty sling. This is probably what happens when you show generations of people a statue of a nude man with the only explanation "This is David; he's a beautiful work of art." The statue itself is supposed to be meaningful both in its grasp of human determination to fight oppression and in its portrayal of human anatomy, but all anybody remembers is "naked". His relative lack of... um... endowment is also often brought up, as well as the fact that he is not circumcised, as would have been the Jewish practice. The most likely reason that he's a TeenyWeenie is because of Renaissance ideals. In Ancient Rome and Greece, which is where the Renaissance gets its ideals from, larger sized junks were considered 'unseemly' and barbaric by the educated and only barbarians, ugly men, and animal-men had them. In fact, the ideal was small, thin and uncircumcised. A forgotten example of male PetitePride!
** It's also been argued that its small size is a result of blood rushing away due to stress as the statue depicts David immediately before he went to fight a gigantic, possibly part-angel mutant with nothing but a sling.
** It's also been argued that its small size is a result of blood rushing away due to stress as the statue depicts David immediately before he went to fight a gigantic, possibly part-angel mutant with nothing but a sling.
to:
* BestKnownForTheFanservice: If someone mentions ''David'', While the first thing that comes to mind work masterfully tells the story and character of David in his appearance, stance, and expression, the work is best known for many people is ''not'' the fact that it portrays him before the battle with Goliath. Michelangelo broke from the norm by depicting David ''about to fight'' Goliath, instead of after his victory. Thus, David is missing an idealized male physique. Whenever the artifacts that would normally give it away to the uninformed viewer, such as the head of Goliath or an empty sling. This is probably what happens when you show generations of people a statue of a nude man with the only explanation "This is David; he's a beautiful work of art." The statue itself is supposed to be meaningful both in its grasp of human determination to fight oppression and in its portrayal of human anatomy, but all anybody remembers is "naked". His relative lack of... um... endowment is also often brought up, as well as the fact that he is not circumcised, as would have been the Jewish practice. The most likely reason that he's a TeenyWeenie is because of Renaissance ideals. In Ancient Rome and Greece, which is where the Renaissance gets its ideals from, larger sized junks were considered 'unseemly' and barbaric by the educated and only barbarians, ugly men, and animal-men had them. In fact, the ideal was small, thin and uncircumcised. A forgotten example of male PetitePride!
** It's also been argued that its small size is a result of blood rushing away dueit's almost certainly to stress as the statue depicts David immediately before he went to fight a gigantic, possibly part-angel mutant with nothing but a sling.reference David's beauty rather than anything else.
** It's also been argued that its small size is a result of blood rushing away due
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
** It's also been argued that its small size is a result of blood rushing away due to stress as the statue depicts David immediately before he went to fight a gigantic, possibly part-angel mutant with nothing but a sling.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 1 (click to see context) from:
* BestKnownForTheFanservice: If someone mentions ''David'', the first thing that comes to mind for many people is ''not'' the fact that it portrays him before the battle with Goliath. Michelangelo broke from the norm by depicting David ''about to fight'' Goliath, instead of after his victory. Thus, David is missing the artifacts that would normally give it away to the uninformed viewer, such as the head of Goliath or an empty sling. This is probably what happens when you show generations of people a statue of a nude man with the only explanation "This is David; he's a beautiful work of art." The statue itself is supposed to be meaningful both in its grasp of human determination to fight oppression and in its portrayal of human anatomy, but all anybody remembers is "naked". His relative lack of... um... endowment is also often brought up, as well as the fact that he is not circumcised, as would have been the Jewish practice. The most likely reason that he's a TeenyWeenie is because of Renaissance ideals. In Ancient Rome and Greece, which is where the Renaissance gets its ideals from, larger sized junks were considered 'unseemly' and barbaric by the educated and only barbarians, ugly men, and animal-men had them. In fact, the ideal was small, thin and uncircumcised. A forgotten example of male PetitePride!
to:
* BestKnownForTheFanservice: If someone mentions ''David'', the first thing that comes to mind for many people is ''not'' the fact that it portrays him before the battle with Goliath. Michelangelo broke from the norm by depicting David ''about to fight'' Goliath, instead of after his victory. Thus, David is missing the artifacts that would normally give it away to the uninformed viewer, such as the head of Goliath or an empty sling. This is probably what happens when you show generations of people a statue of a nude man with the only explanation "This is David; he's a beautiful work of art." The statue itself is supposed to be meaningful both in its grasp of human determination to fight oppression and in its portrayal of human anatomy, but all anybody remembers is "naked". His relative lack of... um... endowment is also often brought up, as well as the fact that he is not circumcised, as would have been the Jewish practice. The most likely reason that he's a TeenyWeenie is because of Renaissance ideals. In Ancient Rome and Greece, which is where the Renaissance gets its ideals from, larger sized junks were considered 'unseemly' and barbaric by the educated and only barbarians, ugly men, and animal-men had them. In fact, the ideal was small, thin and uncircumcised. A forgotten example of male PetitePride!PetitePride!
* JustHereForGodzilla: While the Galleria dell'Academia hosts other art, its patrons come mainly to see ''David''.
* JustHereForGodzilla: While the Galleria dell'Academia hosts other art, its patrons come mainly to see ''David''.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
* BestKnownForTheFanservice: If someone mentions ''David'', the first thing that comes to mind for many people is ''not'' the fact that it portrays him before the battle with Goliath. Michelangelo broke from the norm by depicting David ''about to fight'' Goliath, instead of after his victory. Thus, David is missing the artifacts that would normally give it away to the uninformed viewer, such as the head of Goliath or an empty sling. This is probably what happens when you show generations of people a statue of a nude man with the only explanation "This is David; he's a beautiful work of art." The statue itself is supposed to be meaningful both in its grasp of human determination to fight oppression and in its portrayal of human anatomy, but all anybody remembers is "naked". His relative lack of... um... endowment is also often brought up, as well as the fact that he is not circumcised, as would have been the Jewish practice. The most likely reason that he's a TeenyWeenie is because of Renaissance ideals. In Ancient Rome and Greece, which is where the Renaissance gets its ideals from, larger sized junks were considered 'unseemly' and barbaric by the educated and only barbarians, ugly men, and animal-men had them. In fact, the ideal was small, thin and uncircumcised. A forgotten example of male PetitePride!
