{Michelangelo's Sistine Chapel}[5th July 1987]

[Redbook4:4-6][19870705:1745d]{Michelangelo's Sistine Chapel}[5^th July 1987]

19870705.1745

[continued]

I have also* obtained and studied 'The Sistine Chapel: Michelangelo rediscovered' [1986] – and written many notes in pencil on that beautiful and expensive book. Not surprisingly, I have found (or believe I have found) the same basic pattern in the Sistine Chapel ceiling and, by extension, in the nature and outline of the Last Judgement [mural at the Altar end] as seen in relation to the ceiling – together with many exact or near correlations between the details of the ceiling and the other patterns superimposed upon the basic [Circles] pattern (e.g. Tarot Cards, Zodiacal signs, Revelation horses, etc..)**.

What staggers me is how ready are modern critics (presumably dazzled by the study of form and techniques and their importance in the abstractions of modern visual Art) to assume that Michelangelo had no reason for painting many of the details he chose to paint.*** My starting point is rather different: that everything is there for a reason or purpose (although it may be impossible to discover) in terms of the purpose of the work as a whole. Of course, this is only one book – others may have seen this pattern previously.

I also discovered that in previous notes I had spelt Michelangelo wrong, and Sybil differently from others. More significantly, I discovered that (contrary to former notes**** which were from memory of the image), xS in [2] does not look like the Delphica of the [Sistine Chapel] Ceiling, except in that they are both young girls. I was taken aback until I started to analyse the Ceiling in terms of the Circles, at which stage I was relieved, as the Delphica is in the wrong place for xS – but the right place for xP (who doesn't look much like her either).#

*[See last previous entry.]

**(and now, Vices? See the left hand of Heremias' Ignudi – Pride?) [See last previous entry but one.]

[Presumably there must come a point, in the development of a largely culturally-based model such as the Circles framework, where so many associations have already been made within the model that the introduction of any relatively complex new framework (such as an artwork) based on the same or similar or overlapping cultural references is likely to throw up new apparent correlations on what might or might not be a random basis. The question then is whether any such model, at the point of any such introduction, has in fact reached that stage; and, if it has, whether any perceived correlation is random, or is in fact significant (i.e., in this context, meaningful]. <20160612>]

*** – Also, how their own assumptions interfere with their seeing: referring to the Seven Angels who shall sound the Last Trump, in the 'Last Judgement', when there are depicted eight with trumpets. (I have a problem as to whether, with +C/I~ plus seven Angels/Archangels, I need one more than usual) {(– as to which, see e.g. pp.[[Redbook4:7][19870705:1545g]{Archangels(1)}[5^th July 1987]]7, [[Redbook4:12][19870706:0030b]{Archangels(2)}[6^th July 1987]]12)}.

****{III.104 [[Redbook3:103-104][19870404:1005l](INNOCENCE{:[xS]})[4th April 1987]]}

#But this confusion may have something to do with the fact that [2] is as much 'about' xS as 'about' xP. ([1] was {originally} xS's book [until renumbering made it +Mk's book & [2] xS's book] but she was too young to be in it much.)

[continues]

[PostedBlogger12062016]