When it comes to the concept of artistic genius, do you think that the ability to express emotion through a work of art is something all artistic geniuses share?
>>2389169
expressing emotion is a meme, if your work is quality people make the emotion for themselves.
>>2389169
I dunno about 'artistic genius', but a great artist will be able to convey an emotional state with their work.
>>2389217
I completely agree but I have an Art History essay due next week and I am basically pulling stuff out my ass at this point trying to sound intellectual.
>Michelangelo has been referred to as a High Renaissance genius by many art historian's. Clarify your opinion toward this comment and discuss how you relate the concept of artistic genius to his work.
Advice? Besides fuck off I mean
>>2389224
Argue he wasn't a genius. What kind of retard can't get the titties right?
>>2389169
I forgot who said it (some Russian old master or classic) but "great art born when one who better than most people of planet express what he think and feel". Something like that.
>>2389234
kek'd
In all seriousness though, I'm saying that there are many different types of genius, and that while he wasn't a genius in the sense like Einstein was, Michelangelo certainly was an artistic genius because of his superb ability to convey human emotion through his detailed works of arts as well as his (innovative?) artistic techniques.
I have the introduction pretty much down, it's just a matter of bullshitting my way to the end. I would argue that he isn't a genius but this seem s easier honestly.
>>2389224
he invented a fucking system of scaffolding to get to the sistine chapel ceiling. he used a new plaster mixture to prevent mold. that's just painting, sculpture is really where his genius was.
fucking read a book on the guy. your school doesn't have a library?
>>2389224
respond with
>As time has progressed and humanity evolved and steered further away from the church. The opinion of mass appeal cannot hold up to reality. Although Michelangelo may be regarded as a genius by critiques, who often times never have work to show for themselves, his status of "genius" is subjective and confined only to religious art. What makes a man a genius? Is it the regurgitation from critiques of following generations? Is it the say of a few that are regarded as critiques by many? Rather, I cannot relate to Michelangelo's brand of genius because I am not a Catholic, nor do I like ugly women or muscle men with images of baby angels and other reliefs. His status is illusory. If he went on /ic/ (4 Chan) today, he would also get critiqued, as examples I have cited some critiques by anonymous:
>What kind of retard can't get the titties right?
>GTFO Faggot
>This is shit!
>Would be the general response. The time of his genius has come and is rapidly going in favor of money. The genius today is the rich and successful artist.
lol
>>2389234
>>2389248
I have the intro textbook for the course but honestly the info in it is really limited. There is not a whole lot of info about Michelangelo in it, especially nothing about his artistic methods. Thanks for the tip though, it will be the foundation for which I bullshit the rest of this essay on.
>>2389256
top lel
>>2389256
>Would be the general response. The time of his genius has come and is rapidly going in favor of money. The genius today is the rich and successful artist. If you want to discuss genius, we can talk about Loomis, or Illastrat or Victoria Ranowiecki. These artists today, outshine and eclipse Michelangelo and his contemporaries and will do so for centuries to come. As a side not professor, you should An Hero.
>>2389257
>geniuses
You mean genii?
>>2389298
No. Spirits aren't real, anon.
