Talk:Virgin of the Rocks
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
== i find this painting to be extraordinary ==
Well, great. It is! Paul B 11:31 28 July 2005 (UTC)
I'm changing "The only significant compositional difference between the two versions is the fact that Uriel no longer points" into "The main compositional...": in the Paris version, John doesn't have a scepter, the circle on the characters' heads (sorry, I don't remember the English word) are absent, and Uriel's gaze is directed to the viewer instead of John. The article could really use having both versions and a section on the differences between them. Jules LT 22:06, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
- The operative word is "significant". It is already explained that John's stick (which is not a "sceptre") was not added by Leonardo, neither were the halos (circles on the heads). The direction of Uriel's gaze is not really a compositional difference, since composition concerns the arrangement of motifs across the pictorial space. Eye direction barely registers in comositional terms. The issue in this section concerns Leonardo's own supposed changes, so the post-Leo additions don't count as differences, significant or otherwise, in this aspect of the issue.
- The specific "differences between" the versions are already discussed, but more detail is always a good thing. Paul B 23:44, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] Why Not Use the Louvre Version?
If the Louvre version is considered the original version and the one with more of da Vinci's own work, why isn't it the one displayed?Flannel 00:08, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
- If you have a non-copyrighted photo, add it. Paul B 07:48, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
That wasn't an answer. An answer would have been "Because there are no available non-copyrighted photos of it available." Can I assume that's what you meant to say?Flannel 01:28, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
- You can assume what you like, but it was an answer. Paul B 07:25, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Fake??
I added this:
- "The authenticity of the London painting has been called in question by geologist Ann C. Pizzorusso, who argues its geological inaccuracies, unlike the Louvre version, means it is a fake."
I believe this is sourced from Boorstin's The Discoverers. Hopefully somebody can confirm... Trekphiler 18:58, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
-
- There really is no suggestion that it is a "fake". That is is a different claim from the argument that it wa not wholly - or even at all - painted by Leonardo himself. Paul B 19:26, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Madonna or Virgin?
This article never fully explains which picture is which name, or which name is used more, or should be used. Could someone please tell me or note it so that other people will understand why the picture has 2 names? → J@red 22:25, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
- The picture does not have two names, it has no name at all. Artists did not give names to paintings in those days. The titles are just conventional descriptions. "Madonna" (Italian for "my Lady") and "Virgin" are just two different terms for Mary. Both are often used in English. In French the term "Vierge" is normally used, which translates literally as "Virgin", however in English it has been more common to adopt the Italian word, mainly because English-speaking countries are mostly Protestant and so treat "marioloatry" as an alien phenomenon. In The Da Vinci Code, Dan Brown states, oddly, that the Louvre painting was called The Madonna of the Rocks and that the NG painting was called The Virgin of the Rocks. In fact the painting in France is generally known as La Vierge aux rochers, which can legitimately be translated as Virgin or as Madonna, but which, as I said, literally means "Virgin". In the NG itself the title Virgin of the Rocks is preferred [1]. So we use "Virgin of the Rocks" as the title in both cases. Paul B 00:54, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Unsupported and Non-Neutral Claim
- There is no historical evidence to support any of these contentions.
There's no source cited that seems to claim this. It seems to be the author's opinion. There is no attempt made to support it's verifiability (Wikipedia:Verifiability), nor does it seem to be written from a neutral point of view (Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view). I'll also note that any kind of statement that there, "is no evidence," is awfully difficult to support.
- It is impossible to "cite" the non-existence of sources, because there is nothing to cite. It does not alter the fact than no evidence exists. Art historical literature does not discuss this non-issue precisely because it is never even a question. All the historical sources regarding the paintings are discussed exhausively in the catalogues of the London National Gallery and the Louvre. There are also numerous books by Leonardo scholars in which the documents relating to these works are examined. These paintings have been as thoroughly researched as is humanly possible over the last century and more. NPOV policy clearly states that facts should be presented. ("We sometimes give an alternative formulation of the non-bias policy: assert facts, including facts about opinions — but don't assert opinions themselves. There is a difference between facts and opinions. By "fact" we mean "a piece of information about which there is no serious dispute."). We do not dispute that the Battle of Waterloo was in 1815 just because someone writes a science fiction novel in which it occurs in the year 2345 due to a temporal distortion. Likwise here. We state the facts, about which there is no serious dispute amongst scholars. Paul B 09:56, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
