Then, about a week later, a painting depicting the same apple-eating event that basically ruined life for the rest of us showed up on my Google homepage, only this one was painted by Hugo Van Der Goes, a Netherlandish artist who was only about 35 years older than Mr. Buonarotti (and whose name I remember by thinking of a North Dakotan shouting, "Der goes a van!"). I couldn't help but notice the disparity between their depictions of the same scene. For one thing, there's the obvious nudity issue. Michelangelo has Adam and Eve both hanging it all out there (so to speak) while Van der Goes has painted a strategically-placed orchid and hand (which I could understand if the apple in VdG's painting had already been eaten, but it doesn't appear to be so). There's also the difference in the two painters' serpents: Mike's is a female snake-like creature with arms only, while VdG has created a creepy Gollum-like (almost child-like) beast with legs (that it won't have for much longer, payback being what it is).
So, what gives? I'm sure all of this is covered in any Art History 101 class, but having (gasp) never taken a single Art History class, I am left to wonder about these things with my simple, unschooled brain. Is this a cultural thing? Italian vs. Netherlander? Is it an age thing? Certainly, people who are 35 years older than me are - if not dead - under a significantly different impression of what is acceptable modesty-wise. Maybe not so much, though; I have a strong prudish element in my personality.
Regardless, this difference in artistic perspectives - of two men from nearly the same era painting essentially the same thing - fascinates me, and I'm not done thinking about it. I'd love some feedback on this if you're similarly interested, so tell me what you think. And forgive me for referring to the great painter as Mike; my parents had a Basset hound named Michelangelo Buonarroti before having kids, but as a little girl I only knew the old dog as...you guessed it. Old habits die hard.Follow @nicole_mcinnes