It seems to me that Steve Hays only cares about his art. -Theo
Steve Hays has chimed in again:
http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2...llen-
angel.html
Here is my reply (his words in italics):
-------------
I have more than one source of information.
Good for you, but that is unimpressive and irrelevant to me unless you produce them. All you have shown us is one.
But to simplify matters, I ran the question by a friend of mine in the Yale art dept., who has a doctorate in art history from that same institution.
One person . . . Since it is a dispute, this proves nothing. One must weigh the evidence of both sides of the matter. You expect anyone to decide on the issue based on the opinion of one expert? Surely you are not that intellectually naive, or expect your readers to be that uncritical and gullible?
After sifting through various lines of evidence which he either regards as irrelevant or highly ambiguous, he builds to his own assessment by saying:
“Pronouns indicating the masculine object of some of this supposedly Platonic love were changed to feminine by M's heirs when they collated and published some of his writings. This certainly appears to be an attempt either to cover up evidence (if he was gay) or to make his detractors' task more difficult (if he was not)”;
This sort of thing was alluded to in the Christian History article that I cited. It is not conclusive evidence.
Adding that, “Michelangelo was never strongly associated with persistent heterosexual relationships, and left no trail of courtly love poems aimed at women. It would hardly be shocking to discover a homosexual in Florence, much less in its effete courtly class”;
The sources I cited said that he either had very few sexual encounters at all, or none.
And concluding that “whatever evidence is left after one weeds out the folly still suggests--not definitively, but on balance-- that Michelangelo was most likely homosexual in tendency and in intermittent practice.”
He doesn't know for sure, because there is apparently no positive evidence proving that he was a homosexual: practicing or otherwise. All the more reason to consult different expert opinions.
So, to answer his question with a question: “Can Armstrong produce solid research for the contrary assertion (that Michaelangelo wasn’t homosexual)? Or is his statement gleaned from Google scholarship?
I freely admitted that I didn't know enough to have an informed opinion on the matter. I was simply searching for more information. Why that should be mocked as "Google scholarship" is a mystery to me. What's wrong with seeking information on the Internet, any more than seeking it in an old-fashioned library?
The scholars I cited (regardless of whether I found them on Google or not) have written books on the subject, and are as qualified as your friend to have an opinion.
Robert S. Liebert was a psychiatrist, and his book weas published by Yale University Press:
(cont.)
http://www.amazon.com/Michelange...ie=UTF8&
s=books
It seems to me that someone schooled in psychology (even if it was Freudian) has as much expertise in questions of historical figures and their sexual orientation as an art historian, because he deals with people and their conditions, whereas the art historian is mainly concerned with art masterpieces.
James H. Beck is an art historian like your friend (from Columbia University):
http://www.amazon.com/Three-Worl...ie=UTF8&
s=books
Also, Michelangelo scholar John W. Dixon (Jr.) -- University of North Carolina -- was mentioned in the cited article in Christian History (which also denies that he was homosexual).
He was in the Department of Religious Studies, appears to be some sort of Christian (possibly Presbyterian) and emphasizes art history in his research. His Curriculum Vitae can be found here:
http://www.unc.edu/~jwdixon/vita.html
And his bibliography here:
http://www.unc.edu/~jwdixon/
bibl...ibliolinks.html
The opinions of these three scholars, therefore, carry just as much weight, individually, as your friend's, all things considered, and they all disagree with your anonymous friend. Has your friend written a book about Michelangelo, too? Is he even willing to be named publicly, taking the position that he does? Can he back up what he claims with something demonstrable and historically verifiable?
I come up with three credentialed scholars, with works published about Michelangelo. You come up one unnamed source (hard to check up on his credentials or whether he specializes in Michelangelo). I'm sure he is a fine man and scholar, but his sole opinion is in no way conclusive. I've produced a lot more for the "con" case" than you have for your "pro" case.
Perhaps because all the so-called "Anticatholic" activists, Dave defends Michaelangelo without doing any research himself (as a way to exculpate the Catholic Church at any cost).
LOL Do you try to be so ridiculous and funny or does it just come naturally? I have no stake in this one way or the other. If Michelangelo was a homosexual, then he was. So was Tchaikovsky. Do you refuse to listen to the 1812 Overture and mock it as "homoerotic" too? It has no bearing on Catholic doctrine or hypocrisy (real or alleged). We freely admit that there were several whoring popes, etc. People are sinners. This comes as a big surprise to you?
As I openly stated, I was simply curious if there were scholars who denied that he was homosexual. And I found some. It matters not a whit how I came across them, or what my own opinion is. I stated in the very last sentence of my post: "I don't know enough to render a definite, strongly-held opinion . . ."
So I haven't "defended" Michelangelo, properly-understood. All I've done is to suggest that it is not a certainty (as is often made out and assumed) that
(cont.)
. . . Michelangelo was a homosexual. That was in response to your casual (characteristically dogmatic) claim: "Michelangelo was a notorious homosexual whose art reflects his homoerotic fixation." Prior to that, you ran down Catholic art, with no rational basis.
You can claim whatever you like, but you'll have to back it up if I'm around. I produced three reputable scholarly sources against you, as well as an article from Christian History & Biography. But thus far, all you've produced is your bald, assumed position and an anonymous art historian friend.
Fair-minded people can make up their own minds as to who has presented more evidence, and how reputable it is. And all intelligent people everywhere can have a good laugh at the logical reduction of your position: that Michelangelo's David ought to have a big pair of underwear put on it.
Commenting by HaloScan
