# Leonardo da Vinci vs Michelangelo Buonarroti



## MobiusX (Nov 14, 2008)

Who is the better artist and why?


----------



## Spindrift (Mar 3, 2011)

Michelangelo, easily. I find his paintings to be far more aesthetically pleasing. Da Vinci tended to be drab. Brilliant at lighting and tone, but nothing he produced was as interesting or stimulating as anything from Michelangelo.

M also kicked L's *** at sculpting. Come on, man. Pietà? No competition at all.


----------



## millenniumman75 (Feb 4, 2005)

Each had his area of expertise, now! :lol


----------



## bezoomny (Feb 10, 2007)

Michelangelo could sculpt and paint the male body with great accuracy. However, his depictions of females make it obvious that he had never seen a nude woman in his life, nor really ever looked at them much. They're buff men with two oranges on their chest. This has always annoyed me.

Leonardo doesn't just win by default - his paintings are more atmospheric. He understood the female form and nature, where Michelangelo didn't. In particular, he had a superior understanding of the motion of fabric, waves, and hair. The figures in his paintings are more perfectly arranged for proportional perfection and the greatest effect when seen at varying angles.


----------



## MobiusX (Nov 14, 2008)

bezoomny said:


> Michelangelo could sculpt and paint the male body with great accuracy. However, his depictions of females make it obvious that he had never seen a nude woman in his life, nor really ever looked at them much. They're buff men with two oranges on their chest. This has always annoyed me.
> 
> Leonardo doesn't just win by default - his paintings are more atmospheric. He understood the female form and nature, where Michelangelo didn't. In particular, he had a superior understanding of the motion of fabric, waves, and hair. The figures in his paintings are more perfectly arranged for proportional perfection and the greatest effect when seen at varying angles.


or maybe this is just how women used to look like in those days


----------



## leonardess (Jun 30, 2009)

for strictly artistic ability in the "traditional" arts - painting, 3d objects and the like, I'd say Michelangelo. 

for all around intelligence, versatility, and technical mastery in many things, Leonardo, hands down.


----------



## Neptunus (Oct 29, 2007)

bezoomny said:


> Michelangelo could sculpt and paint the male body with great accuracy. However, his depictions of females make it obvious that he had never seen a nude woman in his life, nor really ever looked at them much. They're buff men with two oranges on their chest. This has always annoyed me.
> 
> Leonardo doesn't just win by default - his paintings are more atmospheric. He understood the female form and nature, where Michelangelo didn't. In particular, he had a superior understanding of the motion of fabric, waves, and hair. The figures in his paintings are more perfectly arranged for proportional perfection and the greatest effect when seen at varying angles.


Nice analysis! :yes

I like them both equally.


----------



## leonardess (Jun 30, 2009)

^ wow - as far as artistic ability, I think I just changed my mind! very well put, bezoomny!


----------



## Scorpius (Feb 26, 2010)

ShinAkuma said:


> or maybe this is just how women used to look like in those days


Lmao..

Well i don't think you can compare them..they were both too good in their own way..you're talking about 2 of the greatest artists in history

And let's not forget that De Vinci was also a scientist and an inventor not just a visual artist


----------



## bezoomny (Feb 10, 2007)

Scorpius said:


> Lmao..
> 
> Well i don't think you can compare them..they were both too good in their own way..you're talking about 2 of the greatest artists in history
> 
> And let's not forget that De Vinci was also a scientist and an inventor not just a visual artist


And let's not forget that both Da Vinci and Michelangelo were architects, and Michelangelo was a noted Italian poet.


----------



## leonardess (Jun 30, 2009)

bezoomny said:


> And let's not forget that both Da Vinci and Michelangelo were architects, and Michelangelo was a noted Italian poet.


I did not know that! (obviously).


----------



## Scorpius (Feb 26, 2010)

bezoomny said:


> And let's not forget that both Da Vinci and Michelangelo were architects, and Michelangelo was a noted Italian poet.


I didn't know that..lol

Also in my opinion there were honestly many other artists who were just as good but weren't as popular..


----------



## MojoCrunch (Mar 25, 2011)

Nice description bezoomny. 

In terms of artists I'd say both. I can appreciate each of their strengths.

But in terms of whose the better renaissance man - Da Vinci wins hands down.


----------



## Spindrift (Mar 3, 2011)

This isn't right! This isn't right at all!


----------



## MobiusX (Nov 14, 2008)

I don't know what's the big deal about The Last Supper, it's not a great painting, it doesn't look good, it's weak, Taking of Christ is way better and someone here mentioned Pieta, that is way better


----------



## Dane (Jul 27, 2009)

I voted for Michelangelo, but I don't know the works of either as well as I should. I can't remember if there are any surviving sculptures by Leonardo.

I was never very impressed with the Mona Lisa, but maybe it's over my head...


----------



## bezoomny (Feb 10, 2007)

Dane said:


> I voted for Michelangelo, but I don't know the works of either as well as I should. I can't remember if there are any surviving sculptures by Leonardo.
> 
> I was never very impressed with the Mona Lisa, but maybe it's over my head...


IMO, Leonardo's greatest works were _The Virgin of the Rocks_, _The Last Supper_, _The Annunciation_, _The Virgin and Child with Saint Anne_, and his various studies for _Leda_. Though _Mona Lisa_ is perhaps one of the most perfect examples of portraiture in his time. He neither idealized nor was brutal about the lady. There is a reason why Leonardo is revered, and it's not because he invented some crazy **** that was so far ahead of time, it's because he was such a great painter that only Michelangelo could possibly contend to be his rival.

Both are genuises, as far as I'm concerned.

While Michelangelo was a sculptor primarily, Leonardo is remembered as a painter for good reason - his major sculptural work was the statue of a massive horse (he was commissioned to build the largest equestrian statue known to man). This work was never finalized in marble (imagine the cost!), and only exists in one clay copy (that the French destroyed) and various drafts and sketches.


----------



## veron (Apr 29, 2009)

bezoomny said:


> Michelangelo could sculpt and paint the male body with great accuracy. However, his depictions of females make it obvious that he had never seen a nude woman in his life, nor really ever looked at them much. They're buff men with two oranges on their chest. This has always annoyed me.


Lol, that's hilarious... are there any particular sculptures you had in mind? I'd be interested in seeing these.


----------



## Amocholes (Nov 5, 2003)

bezoomny said:


> Michelangelo could sculpt and paint the male body with great accuracy. However, his depictions of females make it obvious that he had never seen a nude woman in his life, nor really ever looked at them much. They're buff men with two oranges on their chest. This has always annoyed me.
> 
> Leonardo doesn't just win by default - his paintings are more atmospheric. He understood the female form and nature, where Michelangelo didn't. In particular, he had a superior understanding of the motion of fabric, waves, and hair. The figures in his paintings are more perfectly arranged for proportional perfection and the greatest effect when seen at varying angles.


Michelangelo always used male models



veron said:


> Lol, that's hilarious... are there any particular sculptures you had in mind? I'd be interested in seeing these.


Google images for "Michelangelo Dusk and Dawn". The images can't be displayed here because they are nude even though they are stone and art. Also look at "la Pieta". A seated Mary holding the body of Christ. Her positioning is very masculine. If you were to assume a height of 6' for the figure of Christ, then Mary would be well over 7' if she were to stand up.


----------



## refined_rascal (Dec 20, 2005)

In what sense are you asking who was the better artist? Are you judging them on technical ability, or the message they wished to convey or both? In my opinion, some of the greatest art has been by those who you wouldn't necessarily call technically proficient.


----------



## SilentWitness (Dec 27, 2009)

Both are equally brilliant. Leonardo Da Vinci was certainly inventive/intelligent as well as a great artist and way ahead of his time. But I choose Michelangelo, his paintings and sculptures move me to tears.


----------



## wolfsaber (May 1, 2011)

ShinAkuma said:


> or maybe this is just how women used to look like in those days


My art history teacher claimed that artists didn't used nude female models so as a result many depictions featured women resemble men with breasts attached.


----------



## veron (Apr 29, 2009)

Amocholes said:


> Google images for "Michelangelo Dusk and Dawn". The images can't be displayed here because they are nude even though they are stone and art. Also look at "la Pieta". A seated Mary holding the body of Christ. Her positioning is very masculine. If you were to assume a height of 6' for the figure of Christ, then Mary would be well over 7' if she were to stand up.


Thanks. That woman in Dusk and Dawn has a very questionable upper body indeed.


----------



## Amocholes (Nov 5, 2003)

What can I say? Michelangelo like muscular guys!


----------



## veron (Apr 29, 2009)

Didn't they all, haha


----------



## bezoomny (Feb 10, 2007)

Amocholes said:


> What can I say? Michelangelo like muscular guys!


He was just a good Catholic boy! :wife


----------



## losingconsistently (Nov 18, 2012)

Hi everyone, I had to register after seeing this poll, for I am currently reading "The Agony and The Ecstasy" by Irving Stone on Michelangelo and have been researching both Michelangelo and Da Vinci.

I vote Michelangelo because:

1. He had a harder life than Da Vinci-the guy was forced to waste years upon years at various whims of the ruling class when he could have been sculpting. 

2. Sculpting with a chisel and hammer is universally accepted as being infinitely harder than painting, meaning such sculptures take much more artistic disposition and ability to conceive, undertake, and finalize.

2. His main avenue of expression was sculpting but created such painted/drawn masterpieces as found on the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel and The Libyan Sybil. This alone makes me think Michelangelo was eons ahead of Da Vinci in the artistic sense because even though Michelangelo frowned upon painting as an art, he was one of the best-if not THE best-in it. 

3. Since I prefer Pieta over David, I will compare Pieta against Mona Lisa-since the question is, in part, "who is the better artist?" Pieta is better art than Mona Lisa simply because Pieta is harder to create, meaning it takes a better artist to create it.


----------



## Nekomata (Feb 3, 2012)

Da Vinci.

Why you ask? I don't know, not really into art that much, truth be told xDDD. I'm more aware of his paintings though, so that's probably my reason.


----------



## RenegadeReloaded (Mar 12, 2011)

I'm more into painting, and Michelangelo won over Da Vinci in this field.


----------



## musiclover55 (Feb 7, 2011)

I pick Leonardo. 
Though I am biased since I loved the 'Da Vinci code' and he's depicted in my favorite video game (assassins creed 2).


----------



## typemismatch (May 30, 2012)

Da Vinci was a genius, MA was just handy with a brush.


----------



## 84929 (May 10, 2012)

Da Vinci for me. 

Da Vinci I feel was the better artist then Michelangelo. But I do believe both are great in their own ways. I wouldn't mind looking at either of their works.


----------

