MICHELANGELO AND BERNINI:
THE ART OF BATTLING GIANTS
GIGI WATSON

This paper compares and contrasts the progressive ingenuity of Michelangelo’s
and Bernini’s renderings in marble sculpture of the recurrent mythos of David.
Michelangelo’s David honours classical antiquity yet departs to imbue a
Renaissance idiom of ‘man as the measure of all things.’ Michelangelo’s sculpture
released from stone a thinking man with the fortitude to metamorphose from famed
religious hero to Florentine civic political symbol of strength. However, in Baroque
Rome, nearly a century later, the Catholic artist Bernini created his David in the
climate of religious conflict with the Reformation’s iconoclasm and subsequent
backlash of the Counter-Reformation. Reinventing David’s religious idolatry with
artistic alchemy, Bernini shifted marble to embody a dramatic theatrical event and
in doing so, ingeniously propagandized a religious symbol to mass appeal.

Killer of tyrants, saviour of nations and protector of liberty, the Old Testament’s
hero, David, is the underdog that embodies fortitude and prefigures Christ. As such,
David had been a prolific muse for artists in religious painting and sculpture.
Particularly as the Renaissance gave rise to widespread imitation and emulation as
artists cultivated compositions in the recognizable narrative. 1 Combined with a
Renaissance resurgence of interest in the past was another emergent trend: the
belief of the artist’s autonomy in their work. 2 An elevation of the artist to scholar
and genius in the Renaissance carried through into the Baroque era driving
innovation as “it was the art that led the way.” 3 Despite developments, Renaissance
and Baroque society still had little freedom of action and even less of speech
however, “only in art and science was [there] a more guarded freedom.” 4 Therefore,
Paul Strathern, The Medici: Power, Money, and Ambition in the Italian Renaissance (New York:
First Pegasus Books, 2016), 250.
2
Strathern, The Medici, 238-239.
3
Strathern, 238-239.
4
Strathern, 238-239.
1

HiPo Vol. 3

42

March 2020

varied interpretations of common narratives were conducive to each artist as well
as to the whims of patronage, location, and era of production. 5 Michelangelo and
Bernini exemplify the recurrent religious mythos of David in their marble
sculptures, however, they ingeniously and radically diverge expressions in how
they portray human form, in how their portrayals address respective political
climates, and in how they increase meaning as they push the boundaries of classical
sculpture.
Prior to Renaissance and Baroque art, medieval sculptural focus was largely limited
to reliquaries, the receptacles for holy relics, with nudity in human form a rare
medium. 6 Early in the mid-thirteenth century, a rediscovery of Greco-Roman
culture to embrace figures based on antique models began appearing in Italy. Fully
reincarnated symbols emerged by the mid-fifteenth century restoring the human
physique to the heart of creative endeavour. For Florentine artists of the early
Renaissance, representing the idealized body became “the preeminent site for the
exercise and display of artistic knowledge and virtuosity.” 7 During this time, in an
unorthodox display of nudity, Donatello idealized the proportions of a Greek
athletic youth to produce a life-sized bronze David. Depicting post-victory over
Goliath, Donatello’s young, proud “biblical hero [is] dressed in classical guise.” 8
Michelangelo produced the next century’s David; this early sixteenth century
version was again conceived as a nude, but of colossal scope. 9 The artist
concentrated his expressive purpose on the human figure. To him, the body was
beautiful, not only in its natural form, but also in its spiritual and philosophical
significance as a manifestation of the soul.10 The nude, reminiscent of antiquity in
Michelangelo’s David, emerged from out of the stone as the very essence of
fortitude elevating the naked body to religious hero by reflecting the perfection of
the ancient deities cast in human form; like a god, David had nothing to hide. 11
Although a fascination with the classical nude predated Michelangelo’s sculpture,
his interpretation was bold given the political climate at the time of the creation of
David, c. 1501-1504. A theocratic government had gained popular leadership under
Ibid, 238-239.
Edward J. Olszewski, “Michelangelo’s David: Full Frontal Nudity in the Age of Savonarola.”
Notes in the History of Art 35, no. 1-2 (2015):120.
https://www.jstor.org.exproxy.langara.ca/stable/sournotehistart.35.1-2.118.
7
Estelle Lingo, “Draping Michelangelo: Francesco Mochi, Gianlorenzo Bernini and the Birth of
the Baroque Sculpture,” National Gallery of Art, YouTube video, 55:54, posted July 26, 2018.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1G1VF5b2in0.
8
Jean Sorabella, “The Nude in the Middle Ages and the Renaissance,” In Heilbrunn Timeline of
Art History. New York: The Metropolitan Museum of Art, 2008.
http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/numr/hd_numr.htm.
9
Sorabella.
10
Fred S. Kleiner and Helen Gardner, Gardner’s Art Through the Ages: The Western Perspective
Volume II (Australia: Cengage Learning, 2017), 503.
11
Olszewski, 120.
5
6

HiPo Vol. 3

43

March 2020

a Dominican fundamentalist, Savonarola, who heralded a puritanical and
apocalyptic style of preaching and governing. 12 Savonarola alienated the Florentine
oligarchy, 13 casting a shadow of religious conservatism that heightened concern for
modesty by challenging artistic tradition and sculpture in particular. 14 With the
expulsion of the Medici, the wealthiest art-centric patrons of Florence, the climate
for art became increasingly precarious; 15 Donatello’s nude bronze of David was
removed from public display and many other works were destroyed. 16 Thus,
Michelangelo moved to Rome. When Savonarola was subsequently executed,
Michelangelo returned to Florence in the year 1500. The former glory of the
republic was lost and now the city was in a pitiful state; once proud, a disgruntled
populace was impoverished with lawlessness in the streets. 17 To bolster the
weakened society, Michelangelo was commissioned to sculpt a massive David to
adorn the city’s cathedral. 18 Despite the brutality of recent conservatism, 19 he
boldly unveiled a distinctive presentation of the classical nude. 20 Although blatant
nudity may have been less obtrusive positioned high on the cathedral, as intended,
the reaction to his colossal figure was such that David was positioned to a new
prominence in the Palazzo Vecchio, the town hall, albeit “kilted with a girdle of
twenty-eight gilded leaves.” 21 The compellingly idealized, powerful figure
rendered renewed hope and meaning to the floundering republic of Florence.
Beneath the facade and tower of the Palazzo, the giant prophet, a Christ-type
saviour, seemingly transformed from to become almost human. 22 David flaunted
itself as an embodiment of the defender of civic strength and justice; 23 a
representation of Florentine victory over tyranny. 24
While transforming the religious icon to a political saviour, Michelangelo pushed
beyond classical sculpture revealing a new expression of form in his David. From
a previously used block of marble in “distressingly mutilated condition,”25
Michelangelo uncovered a groundbreaking figure; his David (see figure 1) hails to
Greek artist Polykleito’s classic Doryphoros, yet deviates to unique expression.26
Partridge, 113.
Ibid, 113.
14
Lingo.
15
Olszewski, 118-121.
16
Ibid.
17
Strathern, 234.
18
Partridge, 116.
19
Olszewski, 118.
20
Lingo.
21
Olszewski, 120.
22
Strathern, 237-8.
23
Partridge, 117.
24
Sylvan Barnet, A Short Guide to Writing About Art (New Jersey: Pearson Prentice Hall, 2008),
48.
25
Partridge, 116.
26
Ibid, 116.
12
13

HiPo Vol. 3

44

March 2020

At two times larger than life, Michelangelo’s version is a lankier figure combining
attributes of David’s ‘classical athlete' of the past and ‘the adolescent’ of
Renaissance Florentine tradition. 27 With an unusually wide stance, David stands
like Hercules on the city’s civic seal. The “non-weight bearing left foot over the
edge of the pedestal ahead of the weight-bearing foot” results in a diminished
expression of the movement that is characteristic of classical contrapposto. 28 This
lesser dynamic stance presents a new narrative; Michelangelo’s David is alert and
pensive, his slingshot poised behind his back as he “sizes up the Philistine giant
before the battle.” 29 Positioned in front of the town hall with his gaze poised on the
southward threat of Rome, Michelangelo’s David is thus embodied as the
protectorate of Florence. Also, more prominent than in classical prototypes is an
enlarging of David’s hands emphasizing tendons and veins as if to underscore the
meaning of “strong of hand.” 30 An exaggerated head size, perhaps to correct visual
foreshortening for the original placement site high on the cathedral tribune, would
serve to suggest David’s intellect and reason as he calculates his plan of action for
a momentous looming conflict. 31 The combination of classical Greek athlete and
Roman imperial bust also revive a “classical leonine personality” with a curly
mane, “fierce penetrating eyes, and knit brow” a further association with “the
prototypical lion man” symbolic to Florence. 32 The mythic Hercules, much admired
for strength and virtue, was projected onto David as if he were to “metamorphose
into ferocious action.” 33 Adolescence seemingly melding into manhood with a
virility beyond classic example, the flamelike hair on his head also suggests a
Christ-like humanity and spirituality. 34 Classical nudity combined with restraint is
filled with living force to produce a profoundly humanistic result. Michelangelo’s
David represents a magnificent celebration of humanity whilst offering something
transcendent in the expression of the figure; thus, the statue achieves an almost
Platonic ideal. 35
As Michelangelo’ David celebrated a Renaissance classical expression of the
human figure, Bernini’s Baroque sculpture, too, held a central focus on the human
form with a unique approach. 36 In contrast to the Renaissance, Baroque art is higher
pitched in its realism with theatrical, dramatic gestures designed to appeal to

Partridge, 116.
Partridge, 116.
29
Ibid. (emphasis added).
30
Ibid.
31
Ibid.
32
Ibid.
33
Ibid.
34
Ibid.
35
Strathern, 237.
36
Sorabella.
27
28

HiPo Vol. 3

45

March 2020

emotions. Verging on caricature, facial expressions of rage, pain, pity, or ecstasy
are explicitly rendered. 37
Despite seemingly exaggerated, such commonplace gestures were abundant in the
populous of seventeenth century Italy and still utilized by Italians “with effect and
wit to this day.” 38 Bernini’s evolved style of intensity incorporated a psychological
and a physical realism that insisted on “the credibility of the actions and emotions
depicted.” 39 Following fellow Baroque artist Caravaggio’s new vision on “how to
move the flock,” 40 Bernini, an extremist in his art, cast no remote saints. In the
shock of theatre, he produced earthly passions to transform torment to ecstasy. 41
Even partially clothed, Bernini’s David pressed the “drama of the flesh not even
Michelangelo made so gripping.” 42 A radical break from the Renaissance, Bernini
shattered the language of the body; 43 he rendered the statue capable of acts of
violence. 44
Bernini’s radical expression of human form was born, as was Michelangelo’s
thinking David, under conditions of religious conservatism and radical scrutiny.
The Roman Catholic Church, in response to the Protestant Reformation’s attack on
religious art, energized the Counter-Reformation’s quest for new ideas on sacred
art. The idol was being “knocked down” and, as a “figure in the round” that could
be elicited as idolatrous, sculpture bore the burden of this shift. 45 Wielding
enormous temporal power within the Papal States, but sharply curtailing beyond its
borders, 46 the papacy’s zeal to communicate the Catholic message to the populace
drove Baroque art, especially in Rome. The holy metropolis was buzzing with
worldly ambition and in the church aristocracy it was not just the money that
counted, but also the art. 47 Artists angled for patrons as patrons did artists, questing
for “the next prized genius” to put forth the theatre of Catholicism brimming with
drama of human emotion. 48 Rome, where the artist had lived and worked all of his
life as a pillar of the Catholic establishment and friend of popes, 49 was Bernini’s
city. 50 In the climate of religious reform and social change born of the Council of
Trent, Bernini led sculpture into an era of a new naturalism. 51 A pious Catholic,
Robert Wallace, The World of Bernini: 1598-1680 (New York: Time Life Books, 1977). 11,12.
Ibid, 11, 12.
39
Ibid.
40
Lingo.
41
Ibid.
42
Ibid.
43
Ibid.
44
Simon Schama, “Bernini” 4, Power of Art (UK: BBC, 2006).
45
Lingo.
46
Wallace, 33.
47
Schama.
48
Ibid.
49
Schama.
50
Wallace, 9.
51
Ibid, 11-12.
37
38

HiPo Vol. 3

46

March 2020

Bernini’s world was of religious fervor; his mission was religious persuasion and
beautification. 52 Above all else, he wanted to convince viewers of the teachings of
the Church. 53 To achieve maximum potency, he used aspects understood by
ordinary men where it was necessary to touch emotions, not dry reason, for greatest
effect. 54 Familiar human gestures and images of expression were not cliché, but
original in Bernini’s time. 55 In a profound new way, Bernini recreated the human
body under the prevailing religious imperative and in capturing an instant masked
its connection to the past: “everything had to change so that everything could
remain the same.” 56 His sacred sculpture seemingly subdued its identity to become
closer to a painting by optical effect. 57 It is Baroque, therefore, constantly and
theatrically convulsed by a “rebellion of the parts of the elements which make it
up.” 58
Bernini transitioned the religious idol by imparting a “marvellous softness, making
the marble, so to say, flexible” to transform the classical sculpture to capture a
spectacle of theatre and emotion (see figure 2). 59 Represented on a strong triangular
base is a violent, pivoting diagonal motion of a figure in combat; an electrically
charged space of wound dynamic tension in maximum action. 60 The youthful
warrior, with the look of a back-country shepherd, grimaces with determination as
his every muscle is tensed at the precise moment the fatal stone is to be released.
His muscular legs are firmly planted, straddling rejected body armour as David has
placed his faith in the Lord. 61 As an extra touch of realism, his muscular foot is
tensely gripping the base, ready to “kill his enemy right now, this minute.”62
Varying textures in the leather sling, the coarse goatskin pouch, the smooth drapery,
the flesh, and the tousled hair reinforce an impression of reality. The most
remarkable feature is Bernini’s use of space; David, about to sling his stone past
the spectator, provides a clear sense of direction, angle, and height by extending his
ferocious gaze to where the unseen Goliath would be situated. Therefore, “like the
biblical hero, we turn our heads to sight Goliath and like David, we, too, become

Ibid.
Ibid.
54
Ibid.
55
Ibid, 12.
56
Lingo.
57
Lingo.
58
Ibid.
59
Charles Scribner III, “The Real Bernini: Lecture by Charles Scribner III” Met Museum, 56:57,
May 26, 2014, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wH4D_9GJ68gFINISH.
60
Scribner III, ”The Real Bernini.”
61
Kleiner, 586.
62
Wallace, 19, 27.
52
53

HiPo Vol. 3

47

March 2020

potential champions against the Philistine;” 63 Bernini has drawn the spectator into
the drama and in doing so, the segregation of spectator and statue is abolished. 64
The mythos of David was reinvented by both Michelangelo and Bernini whose
styles in human form, whilst adhering to classical roots, provided new meaning and
boldly addressed respective contemporary political climates. Both artists elevated
the human form to new dimensions. Quintessential Renaissance artist Michelangelo
emulated classical antiquity and idealistic beauty, adding the quality of psychology
to advance the movement of sculpture. However, Baroque Rome’s consummate
sculptor, Bernini, created compelling realism pushing classical sculpture to impart
emotion, relatability, and theatricality to ensnare the spectator into a profound sense
of the now. In combatting the challenges of the socio-political climates of their
times, both artists innovated the human form superseding respective barriers.
Michelangelo’s David exemplified and appealed to his society’s yearning to
experience the divine nobility of man with all his beauty, strength, rationality, and
righteousness; a figure poised as a platonic ideal. 65 Equally important, Bernini’s
David ingeniously presented religious iconography to transcend its material form
and, in doing so, intensely engage the soul. 66 Both David’s being victorious in their
battles.

Joy Kenseth, “Bernini’s Borghese Sculptures: Another View,” Art Bulleton 63, no.2 (1981): 194.
http://doi.org/10.1080/00043079.1981.10787872.
64
Wallace, 19.
65
Barnet, 48.
66
Wallace, 18, 19.
63

HiPo Vol. 3

48

March 2020

Figure 1: Michelangelo, David, 1501-1504, Galleria dell’Accademia, Florence,
Italy.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/24/%27David%27_by_Miche
langelo_JBU0001.JPG

HiPo Vol. 3

49

March 2020

Figure 2: Gian Lorenzo Bernini, David, 1623-24, Galleria Borghese, Rome.
https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Gianlorenzo_bernini,_david,_162324,_02.jpg

HiPo Vol. 3

50

March 2020

BIBLIOGRAPHY
BARNET, SYLVAN. A Short Guide to Writing About Art, New Jersey: Pearson
Prentice Hall, 2008.
KENSETH, JOY. “Bernini’s Borghese Sculptures: Another View.” Art Bulleton 63,
no.2 (1981): 191-211. http://doi.org/10.1080/00043079.1981.10787872.
KLEINER, FRED S. AND HELEN GARDNER, Gardner’s Art Through the Ages: The
Western Perspective Volume II, Australia: Cengage Learning, 2017.
LINGO, ESTELLE. “Draping Michelangelo: Francesco Mochi, Gianlorenzo Bernini
and the Birth of the Baroque Sculpture,” National Gallery of Art, You tube
video, 55:54, posted July 26, 2018,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1G1VF5b2in0.
OLSZEWSKI, EDWARD J. “Michelangelo’s David: Full Frontal Nudity in the Age of
Savonarola.” Notes in the
History of Art 35, no. 1-2 (2015): 118-125.
https://www.jstor.org.exproxy.langara.ca/stable/sournotehistart.35.12.118.
PARTRIDGE, LOREN. Art of Renaissance Florence 1400-1600, Berkeley:
University of California Press Berkeley, 2009.
SCHAMA, SIMON. “Bernini” 4. Power of Art. Directed by David Belton. Written
by Simon Schama. UK: BBC, November 24, 2006.
SCRIBNER, CHARLES III. “The Real Bernini: Lecture by Charles Scribner III.” Met
Museum. 56:57. May 26, 2014.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wH4D_9GJ68g.
SORABELLA, JEAN. “The Nude in the Middle Ages and the Renaissance,” In
Heilbrunn Timeline of Art History. New York: The Metropolitan Museum
of Art, 2008. http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/numr/hd_numr.htm.
STRATHERN, PAUL. The Medici: Power, Money, and Ambition in the Italian
Renaissance, New York: First Pegasus Books, 2016.
WALLACE, ROBERT. The World of Bernini: 1598-1680, New York: Time Life
Books, 1977.

HiPo Vol. 3

51

March 2020