Talk:Hieronymus Bosch
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page. | ||
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ] (If you rated the article, please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.) |
||
 |
An Artist infobox needs to be added to this article, or the current one needs to be updated. |
Contents |
[edit] Spelling
Is it The Garden of Earthly Delight or The Garden of Earthly Delights? Both citations are used.
As far as I can tell both are after the fact titles not used in Bosch's own time. I assume as long as it's clear from context what work you are talking about, either title would be acceptable. -- Infrogmation
- From what I read, the title is later. When received in El Escorial, it was noted as el de los madroños, "the one of the strawberry trees (Arbutus unedo)"
[edit] Portrait of Bosch
I lifted the portrait from the nl version of the article which describes it as "Een zelfportret", so I assumed it was a self-portrait. If someone has info that this is not the case, please share it. -- Infrogmation 16:05, 20 Nov 2003 (UTC) david
- The impressing drawing is certainly not "een zelfportret" but at best a portrait drawn decades after Bosch's death. It stems from a compendium titled Recueil d'Arras (around 1560, Arras, Bibliothèke Municipale) which includes 275 drawings compiled by Jacques Le Boucq. The portrait of Bosch is captioned Jeronimus Bos painctre. Jacques Le Boucq, Herald at Arms and King of Arms to Emperor Charles V, who drew several portraits of his collection himself, could impossibly have known Bosch because he was much too young. Whether he worked on an original drawing by Bosch, seems to be more than doubtful. We should keep in mind that Bosch had become extremely popular already during his lifetime. In the middle of the 16th century an astonishing number of imitators - among them Pieter Bruegel in his earlier years - were active in playing their role in the Bosch-myth and, accordingly, the still growing Bosch-business. As someone wrote: "The myth created a market, the rush for his paintings generated the supply". In my opinion, exactly this was the case with the Arras-portrait, which was published in print in 1572 (although looking to the other side) by the widow of Bruegel's engraver Hieronymus Cock. --Peter Witte 20:10, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)
I forgot to note that the caption of the drawing in the article shouls better read: Alleged portrait of Bosch (around 1560). --Peter Witte 20:16, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Ship of Fools
Article needs information about Ship of Fools (painting). Kevyn 11:54, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Signature
I didn't bring my references, but his signature in several paintings reads Jheronymus Bosch. However everybody calls him by the regular Hieronymus.
[edit] Parody
His vision of Hell redux: AbuGhraib.
Wasn't the painting 'Garden of Earthly Delight/s' destroyed in a warehouse fire at Heathrow a year ago or so (as recently revealed?). Or am I confusing that with something else?
Oh, a couple of useful links maybe: http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/ww2/A871391 (public domain?) http://www.artchive.com/artchive/B/bosch.html
[edit] Unexplained knowledge in Bosch paintings
Bosch is a favourite subject of many SF authors and not without reason. There are some problem with extra information in his paintings.
There is a fairly accurate giraffe shown in the Garden of Earthly Delights, The Earthly Paradise Garden of Eden. This animal was entirely unseen in Europe until the 18th century. It goes without saying that such a large, but delicate and fragile animal as a giraffe could not be imported to Europe in the age of hansa sailing ships, it couldn't survive the trip. Also, before the invention of photography, it was not possible to transfer accurate visual information, as drawings quickly degraded via repetitive copying.
Besides the giraffe, there is an elephant, more precisely a massive african elephant (loxodonta africanus) depicted in the background. That one is not fairly accurate, that one is dead accurate, as perfect as a photo. The only problem is, african elephants are very wild animals which cannot be semi-domesticated to obey like the asian working elephants. Even if you capture it as a baby it will become a beast when it grows. It would be impossible to ship a grown african elephant to Europe in the medieval ages, it would gut the crew. The first ever rideable african elephants were achieved in the Garamba national park in the late 1960's by way of behavioural biology and other modern science. Also an african elephant could not have survived in Europe during the medieval ages, when the "little ice age" made the climate much colder, so importing it as a baby dumbo is also out of question.
Based on the above, we must assume Bosch travelled to the heartland of Africa and saw these majestic animals with his own eyes and then returned to Europe. However, all bios of him state that he never left what is today's benelux area. Explain that!
- Your allegation that animals couldn't survive long sailing ships is entirely unsupported. Remember such famous gifts as the giraffe that was shipped in good health all the way to delight the emperor of China, and the elephant of Charlemange's court. You might wish to choose a user name and log in if you plan to stay around Wikipedia. Cheers, -- Infrogmation
- Furthermore, he could have seen pictures. -Branddobbe 18:11, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Jerome Bosch?!
Lets just stick to the dutch name, he was never called jerome bosch.
In fact, though he is commonly known as Hieronymus Bosch, I believe he signed most of his paintings and drawings as Jerome Bosch (or simply "Jer. Bosch"). Mike Hannon 22.05.06
- I'm looking for references, I have one that says Jheronimus Bosch [1], and I think I have seen Jer. and Jeroen, but never Jerome (which is French, not Dutch). Fram 12:12, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Plagiarism
this website either plagiarisied u or u plagiarised them http://www.all-about-renaissance-faires.com/Artists/Bosch/bosch.htm
- Without question, they are plagiarising from Wikipedia. Or rather, since it is generally fine to copy from Wikipedia, they are failing to observe GFDL compliance by falsely claiming copyright and by failing to credit the original authors. You can see how this article grew from old edits like this one - that 'Born to a family of a Flemish painters' phrase appears just the same on the other website. If you check the article page history, you will be able to find many other examples.
- You can find information how to report non-GFDL web sites that copy from Wikipedia without credit at Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks. -- Solipsist 21:04, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Pish, Posh said Hieronymus Bosch
the article says "girlfriend", when in the book the woman is clearly refered to as his "housekeeper". Freelancepolice 01:20, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] External Links
Why is the article located at link www.anthonychristian.co.uk/ezine16.html not relevant enough to be included in the External Links?
It is written by a very well known artist and art historian and provides comprehensive information about Bosch and how he was influenced, and thus the origins of Surrealism.
Mike Hannon 22.05.06
The Conjurer The Conjurer is now found in the Israel Museum, Jerusalem (maybe on a long-term loan?), and according to the caption given there the painting is attributed to some other painter, probably Bosch's student. Can any art historian confirm this attribution? ED
[edit] list of works
the information to the left of the list of works should probably be removed and placed into the pages for the individual paintings. maybe just the title and date for his works would help clean the section up. also i think this section should be arranged into trypichs, paintings and drawings in order to prevent mix-up of translated names and general confusion. --AlexOvShaolin 21:27, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
pages added for what i believe is everything bosch has ever done, many of these need expansion into comprehensive articles, all of the drawings are grouped together. AlexOvShaolin 20:20, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
The entries for Christ Crowned With Thorns and Christ Carrying The Cross are all very confusing. For example, Christ Crowned with Thorns (El Escorial version) starts off by talking about Christ Carrying the Cross, which is bolded and italicized, making me wonder what the real title of the work I'm looking at is. They need to be wikified, and have links to the other works with the same name. -- Norvy (talk) 06:05, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
- theres two things you must consider when dealing with art this old, first off, the paintings are dutch so there is no "official" english title. also there is so much undocumented material involved. perhaps there was never an "official" title for any of his paintings, people merely a painting of Jesus carrying a cross and titled it "Christ Carrying A Cross" and that titled became a sort of generic titled for all Bosch images with Christ Carrying A Cross. As far as the "Christ Crowned with Thorns (El Escorial Version)" goes, i accidentally left the wrong titled bolded when i copied the template from another painting. fixed now. hopefully this will help clear things up and thank you for bringing it to my attention. please add any other information to the articles you believe is helpful. AlexOvShaolin 17:55, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Great, thanks! I added see also references to the Christ Crowned With Thorns articles to help with navigation. -- Norvy (talk) 01:54, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Popular culture section
Seems to be a bit of a revert war brewing. The popular culture section should be trimmed dramatically, perhaps removed entirely. Bosch is a very popular artist, and listing every time his work is mentioned is neither practical nor useful. Works that are substantially about Bosch (The book Pish Posh..., for example, might meet that criterion) should stay, but mere mentions do not merit inclusion. The edit warring needs to stop. Those who would prefer that the section stayed, please list your reasons. --Eyrian 22:21, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
- It's a shame that when the article is relatively slight, effort is being put into, sigh, mentions in popular culture. At the very least - if anybody needs this section - it should be spun out into a seperate article. Ceoil 22:54, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
- If any of the items are truly notable, and verifiably sourced, then integrate them in the text in a better way. The rest of the section should just go. Please see the guideline Wikipedia:Avoid trivia sections in articles for more info. Fram 13:28, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
![[1]](http://www.artarchiv.net/doku/sig/7.jpg){kind=link}