Talk:Sacred and Profane Love

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Visual arts, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to visual arts on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
???	Class: This article has not been assigned a class according to the assessment scale.

I have deleted this passage:

The title is the result of a late 18th century interpretation of the painting, which gives a moralistic reading of the nude figure, whereas the artist intended this to be an exaltation of both earthly and heavenly love. In the Neoplatonic philosophy that Titian and his circle believed that contemplating the beauty of creation led to an awareness of the divine perfection of the cosmic order.

because the catalogue to the London Titian exhibition in 2003 (cited in the References section) gives me this:

That the painting reflects Neo-Platonic theories of 'sacred' and 'profane' love is untenable; Titian was not versed in such matters, and there is no precedent for the representation of such ideas in Venetian painting.

Possibly neoplatonism was more of a Florentine thing than Venetian? [talk to the] HAM 21:09, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me that the catalogue is wrong. Titian's The Three Ages of Man [1], probably painted in the same year, is a typically neo-platonic depiction of the universal ideas (universalia ante rem) of "childhood", "adulthood" and "old age", so why could he not also have painted "earthly love" and "heavenly love"? Also: "It has been absurdly suggested that Titian did not come from Florence and so could not be aware of Florentine Neo-Platonism; yet he knew Cardinal Bembo well and painted his portrait -- Bembo, who kept a candle burning before a bust of Plato." [2]. Skarioffszky 14:27, 26 November 2006 (UTC)