3 ms·

How can they possibly know that for sure? It seems massively unlikely. We don't have any really reliable records from that time.

zeroonetwothree 9mo ago
It seems like we do know the year it was painted fairly reliably, but we don't know that it was Michelangelo specifically that painted it (the article exudes more confidence that I would give based on the inherent uncertainty of these identifications).
dfxm12 9mo ago
The article/video only points to this being proven by research done by Giorgio Bonsanti. If you're curious, you'll have to investigate that angle. It is frustrating that the article is so coy about the evidence around the premise of the article! But, this website and the youtube video this article is based around both lean more towards pop than investigative.
furyofantares 9mo ago
What makes it massively unlikely? I could believe even quite a bit younger, there are some wildly talented children and it's easy to believe Michaelangelo to have been one.
deleted 9mo ago
[deleted]
inejge 9mo ago
> It seems massively unlikely. Why? There were other talented people who produced masterful works at an early age. From the same time as this there's a Dürer self-portrait, also aged 12-13: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-Portrait_at_the_Age_of_13 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-Portrait_at_the_Age_of_13 > We don't have any really reliable records from that time. Uh, no. There's no documented attribution of that painting to Michelangelo; that doesn't mean that other things weren't reliably recorded.
- smokel 9mo ago
  That is slightly unconvincing. Durer is indeed a similar genius, but the complexity of that drawing is an order of magnitude lower than the painting. Source: know how to draw really well.
  - deleted 9mo ago
    [deleted]
  - zzzeek 9mo ago
    I came here to agree with you but then I had the good sense to read the original page which is at the Met (https://www.metmuseum.org/exhibitions/listings/2009/michelangelo https://www.metmuseum.org/exhibitions/listings/2009/michelan...), and has a lot of background on this painting, including that it WAS actually painted from an existing image (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Temptation_of_St_Anthony_(Schongauer) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Temptation_of_St_Anthony_(... - worth a look to compare), so my primary skepticism "how could a kid even come up with that" makes a lot more sense that he had an existing image he was copying. https://www.metmuseum.org/exhibitions/listings/2009/michelangelo https://www.metmuseum.org/exhibitions/listings/2009/michelan...
- SoftTalker 9mo ago
  I'm no expert judge but I think there were kids in my middle school who could draw something like that. Certainly in high school.

zeroonetwothree 9mo ago

It seems like we do know the year it was painted fairly reliably, but we don't know that it was Michelangelo specifically that painted it (the article exudes more confidence that I would give based on the inherent uncertainty of these identifications).

dfxm12 9mo ago

The article/video only points to this being proven by research done by Giorgio Bonsanti. If you're curious, you'll have to investigate that angle. It is frustrating that the article is so coy about the evidence around the premise of the article! But, this website and the youtube video this article is based around both lean more towards pop than investigative.

furyofantares 9mo ago

What makes it massively unlikely? I could believe even quite a bit younger, there are some wildly talented children and it's easy to believe Michaelangelo to have been one.

deleted 9mo ago

[deleted]

inejge 9mo ago

> It seems massively unlikely. Why? There were other talented people who produced masterful works at an early age. From the same time as this there's a Dürer self-portrait, also aged 12-13: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-Portrait_at_the_Age_of_13 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-Portrait_at_the_Age_of_13 > We don't have any really reliable records from that time. Uh, no. There's no documented attribution of that painting to Michelangelo; that doesn't mean that other things weren't reliably recorded.

smokel 9mo ago
That is slightly unconvincing. Durer is indeed a similar genius, but the complexity of that drawing is an order of magnitude lower than the painting. Source: know how to draw really well.
- deleted 9mo ago
  [deleted]
- zzzeek 9mo ago
  I came here to agree with you but then I had the good sense to read the original page which is at the Met (https://www.metmuseum.org/exhibitions/listings/2009/michelangelo https://www.metmuseum.org/exhibitions/listings/2009/michelan...), and has a lot of background on this painting, including that it WAS actually painted from an existing image (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Temptation_of_St_Anthony_(Schongauer) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Temptation_of_St_Anthony_(... - worth a look to compare), so my primary skepticism "how could a kid even come up with that" makes a lot more sense that he had an existing image he was copying. https://www.metmuseum.org/exhibitions/listings/2009/michelangelo https://www.metmuseum.org/exhibitions/listings/2009/michelan...
SoftTalker 9mo ago
I'm no expert judge but I think there were kids in my middle school who could draw something like that. Certainly in high school.