Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-09-01 Caravaggio's sexuality
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| Wikipedia Mediation Cabal | ||||||||||||
|
Contents |
[edit] Mediation Case: 2006-09-01 Caravaggio's sexuality
Please observe Wikipedia:Etiquette and Talk Page Etiquette in disputes. If you submit complaints or insults your edits are likely to be removed by the mediator, any other refactoring of the mediation case by anybody but the mediator is likely to be reverted. If you are not satisfied with the mediation procedure please submit your complaints to Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal.
[edit] Request Information
- Request made by: user:Zefrog
- Where is the issue taking place?
- in the Caravaggio entry and section 4 of the discussion page of the article
- Who's involved?
- mostly User:PiCo, User:Galassi and myself, although a few others have taken part in the discussion (see section 4 of the discussion page of the article).
- What's going on?
- references to Caravaggio's possible homosexuality are continually being vandalised with biased copy or simply deleted from the article
- What would you like to change about that?
- keep references to Caravaggio's possible homosexuality in the article
- Would you prefer we work discreetly? If so, how can we reach you?
- discussion section of my profile
[edit] Mediator response
After reading the article, and the surrounding discussions, I am suggesting a compromise. While some support the claim of Caravaggio's homosexuality, others doubt it. I see nothing wrong with including information that his sexuality is questioned, because it obviously is! One of the pillars of the wikipedia is neutral point of view. Including the fact that it is questioned, and possibly evidence supporting both sides would achieve NPOV. Lauren 13:17, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
I second Lauren's suggestion. HeBhagawan 13:37, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
No activity. Closing. --Ideogram 09:34, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Compromise offers
This section is for listing and discussing compromise offers.
[edit] Discussion
While using the talk page of the article in question to solve a dispute is encouraged to involve a larger audience, feel free to discuss the case below if that is not possible. Other mediators are also encouraged to join in on the discussion as Wikipedia is based on consensus.
- The problem is multifold:
1. It is unprovable.
2. It is a mistake to view C. output through the prism of our modern notion of self-expression, because self-expression was invented in the 19th century. Soberly: the early work looks like a destitute master's pandering to clients, for financial gain.
3. It is equally possible (and equally futile) to claim that C's social problems stemmed from his refusal to submit completely to the homoerotic tastes of his employers, the tastes that were abhorrent to a man of such profound religiosity as C's. Galassi 15:12, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. I am simply againsts 1. aggressive claims by partisan interests. 2. mistaking art for iconography.Galassi 16:45, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- I agree with including in the article a statement that C's sexuality is controversial - provided this is couched in terms of his art. By this I mean, the statement should not be about C's own sexuality, but about the supposed homoerotic content of his early art. In my opinion this is already done in the existing article. The second paragraph of the section headed "Rome" ends with this sentence: :The allegedly homoerotic ambience of these paintings has been the centre of considerable dispute amongst scholars and biographers since it was first raised in the later half of the 20th century." It links to a footnote (footnote 9), which currently erads as follows: "Donald Posner's "Caravaggio's Early Homo-erotic Works" (Art Quarterly 24 (1971), pp.301-26) was the first to broach the subject of Caravaggio's sexuality and its relationship to his art. The gay biographers and commentators generally take a homoerotic content for granted, but the subject is complex. For a perceptive and well-sourced discussion, see Brian Tovar's "Sins against nature: Homoeroticism and the epistemology of Caravaggio" vs. Maurizio Calvesi's "Carqavaggio" (ArtDossier 1986, in Italian). Calvesi aggues that the early work reflects the Del Monte's taste rather than Caravaggio's, in the era before the advent of the modern concept of self-expression. In addition to that: the minutes of the legal proceedings against Caravaggio only mention female paramours. The words and sentences in bold were later edits (by Galassi?) to to the original text, which is largely mine. My thinking when drafting this was to keep the bulk of the treatment of C's sexuality in the footnote, and not to enter into details - there'd be no end of it if we started down that road. Hence the link to the Tovar site, which seems to me to be balanced and comprehensive. I get the impression that Tovar is writing from a pro-gay (which means pro "C-was-gay") position, but his piece nevertheless seems to me both comprehensive and balanced. The edits to the footnote, - the parts in bold - on the other hand, are not comprehensive (Calvesi is only one of many scholars with views and opinions on this subject) and not impartial - the sentence which now reads "The gay biographers and commentators..." originally read "The most recent biographers and commentators". That particular sentence is also misleading as it now stands - Helen Langdon is not gay, so far as I know, and her biography of C is highly regarded among art scholars, but she is just as inclined as Robb to accept a homoerotic context to these early paintings. So my positoin is, lets leave the sentence in the "Rome" section, and restore the footnote to a more impartial status. PiCo 02:19, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
- (Incidentally, I agree with Galassi on a few points, notably that C's sexuality is impossible to prove given the paucity of evidence, and anachronistic given the changes in attitudes over the centuries).
