Torso Belvedere 在西方藝術史研究上受到的重視遠勝於考古學。自米開朗基羅晚年以迄現代的藝術史學研究，只要談到Torso Belvedere 一定也會談到米開朗基羅人體造像（figure）的創作。這個獨特的現象說明了，正是透過米開朗基羅對Torso Belvedere 的創作轉化，後世學會如何欣賞這尊上古殘破雕像的精到之處：而米開朗基羅個人的創作觀點也主導了後世對這尊上古殘軀的理解與詮釋。雖然Torso Belvedere 與米開朗基羅的關係不斷被強調，卻沒有任何確切的文字史料可以證實米開朗基羅親眼見過Torso Belvedere。既然我們無法從傳統的研究方法追索確鑿的證據來說明米開朗基羅對Torso Belvedere 探討學習的過程，我們便必須藉助當時圖像史料的輔助，從其他角度切入，重新解決這個問題。本文的目的便是從文藝復興藝術史兩個關鍵的現象著手，重新思考上述的問題：第一，從文藝復興藝術對上古藝術「復古／仿古」（all'antica)的問題看Torso Belvedere 對米開朗基羅創作程序的影響。本文不逐一比對Torso Belvedere 與米開朗基羅作品形式模仿上的對等性，而從米開朗基羅的素描、繪畫、雕刻來探討，他如何從對Torso Belvedere的探索中，體悟出軀體是一種富含無限表現潛力的抽象形式與獨立表現題材，經得起不斷地再創造與再詮釋。瞭解這一點，便可明白，為何西方藝術史研究公認，Torso Belvedere 藝術史意義的確立，是從米開朗基羅讓他同時代的人瞭解到這是一尊可以讓藝術創作者不斷擷取靈感的源頭活水開始。而米開朗基羅的慧眼獨具，不但說明了他自己強調「塑形人體」（far[e]le figrue）是他藝術創作的終極關懷﹔更讓他同時代的人以迄現代的我們看到 Torso Belvedere 時，便不由自主地想到他。第二，從文藝復興雕刻裡「未完成」 (non-finito）風格的形成， 看Torso Belvedere 與米開 朗基羅「未完成」 雕刻可能的關係 。Chrales de Tolnay認為， 直至十六世紀中葉，「完成」( fintio）仍是重要的鑑賞標準；但是， 從事實際創作的藝術家卻自一五二0年代起， 便逐漸理解到， 「未完成」是富有時代新意的美學價值。筆者認為， Tolnay 的說法是需要修正的。如果我們更廣泛地檢視其他史料，不難發現，自一五二0年代初期開始，重要的藝術贊助者已經開始積極地收藏米開朗基 羅未完成的雕刻。雖然在十六世紀上半葉「完成」仍被視為重要的鑑賞準則；但是，米開朗基羅未完成的雕刻或有所殘破的雕刻因具有強烈的古典風味，所以被重要的收藏家一齊置於個人所收藏的上古雕刻之列。對米開朗基羅這種類型的雕刻的珍視，從十六世紀上半葉起，逐漸形成一股不斷往前推進的潛流，也為「未完成」美學觀之成立開啟了先河。

Of the most celebrated rediscovered antiquities during Michelangelo's lifetime, the Torso Belvedere holds a unique position in Michelangelo's development as an artistic master of "figura". However, when and how Michelangelo met with the Torso Belvedere remains unclear. This paper aims to examine the significance of the Torso Belvedere to Michelangelo's art from two crucial aspects of Renaissance art: first, the Torso's impact on Michelangelo's orientation in creating the all 'antica style; and second, the Torso's impact on Michelangelo's unique innovation of non-finito sculpture. In this paper therefore I will not trace the literal correspondence in form, but ways in which Michelangelo incorporated and transformed the prototype of the Torso in his own creative work, thereby reconstructing the artist's profound reflection on the ancient fragment Torso Belvedere. Michelangelo's studies of the Torso Belvedere gave him an insight into the transience of being, the inevitability of becoming fragmentary over the future course of time. He came to understand that what lasts and always inspires, is not an artwork's technical perfection or the elaborate exposition of a certain set of symbolic meanings, but its visual expressiveness, which illuminatingly reveals the inner state of human existence. In light of this, it is easier to understand why Michelangelo was not interested in restoring Laocoon and Apollo Belvedere, but remarkably initiated Renaissance admiration for the fragment Torso Belvedere. Devoid of recognizable attributes and identity, the visual expressiveness of this massive body segment inspired the artist to go further than before in conceiving human forms in variation. Thus, the Torso became a starting point for artistic innovation and an independent form for visual imagination. The artist derived inspiration from it, but did not completely rely on the prototype to construct new works. During Michelangelo's lifetime, he was the only artist who had the privilege to see his non-finito sculptures wholeheartedly accepted as such. If his all 'antica approach indicates his keen awareness of the effect of time in changing the physical appearance of an artwork and, accordingly, determining the way future generations receive it, then Michelangelo must also have been conscious of that by which art truly impresses and moves people, regardless of its disfigurement and decomposition over time. If everything eventually turns into fragments, why not take fragmentariness seriously as something fundamental for artistic creation right now? If the Torso Belvedere inspired Michelangelo to shape the human torso as an independent form for visual imagination, it must also have inspired him to invent his own personal expressions of time in sculpture. To leave the chisel marks on the sculpture does not only mean to eternalize the moments of the artist at work, it also reminds the viewer of the omnipresent and everlasting effect of time, which continues marking various traces on an artwork after it leaves the hands of the artist.