|
| ▲ | zeroonetwothree 13 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| 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). |
|
| ▲ | furyofantares 13 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| 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. |
|
| ▲ | inejge 13 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| > 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 > 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 12 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | 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. | | | |
| ▲ | SoftTalker 10 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | 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. |
|
|
| ▲ | 13 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| [deleted] |
|
| ▲ | dfxm12 13 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| 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. |
