by Jennifer Stryjewski

I remember my first art history teacher's favorite artist, Leonardo da Vinci. He always had this affinity for da Vinci, which I secretly think may have spawned from sharing a first name with the Renaissance master. Now, while one must certainly have a healthy amount of respect for the da Vinci himself, I could never understand the obsession with his art. Is it the mystery of the Mona Lisa? Or the mathematical precision and mirror-like quality of The Last Supper? Maybe for these reasons or others, I find his art less than desirable. What could it be, this quality I find lacking in Da Vinci’s paintings? The only things redeeming da Vinci for me are his notebooks, which possess a rough quality to them that shows it was done by human hand and not some machine. 

While I have an appreciation for Leonardo da Vinci and the way used science, math and art in concert (the first two of which I personally have no fondness for), I must admit that I am not as drawn to his work as I am towards his contemporary, Michelangelo. First, allow me to say that I am not a sculptor, but a [painter]. Having said that, I do love his sculptures, but I find his paintings to be very exquisite in comparison to some of the other Renaissance painters, like da Vinci. The reason as to why I like Michelangelo’s art so much is because he was a sculptor, which I feel gave him a unique edge. Michelangelo’s paintings come out as much bulkier then other artisans. His human figures feel more solid, much like sculptures have to be to stand their ground and they have a presence, unlike the dainty citizens created by Rafael's design. Michelangelo's brushstrokes are also softer with a lack of sfmato and not as exact as da Vinci's, which, in my personal opinion, makes his paintings feel more real. His personal life also adds another dimension to his art. Michelangelo lived a rather tortured, melancholy existence; in his youth, he was repressed by the pope from doing the work he truly aspired to create and then in his later years as he slowly began to lose the ability to carve. These rough times may have helped him to create outstanding art, as I myself can identify, having created my best work during the lowest points of my life (which also felt therapeutic). He is also the first artist with the guts to make a self-portrait as melting skin in a church building.

Leonardo da Vinci and Michelangelo share much in common: they are both considered to be the masters of the Greco-Roman classics, have worked for the church as commercial artists, and faced their own hardships. Both artists have certainly created masterpieces that have withstood the centuries, but, in my eyes, the feelings that their art can elicit is what that distinguishes them. To me, Leonardo's standard is unattainable, and because of this I feel a certain coldness projected when looking at his art. In many ways da Vinci’s art can be considered perfect, but I find him lacking in emotional appeal. Thus, Michelangelo will forever be timeless, as the artist whose work can tug on my heartstrings and can intrigue my mind.