Talk:Garvagh Madonna

Class setting

I changed the class from stub conservatively to "C" class. Does the article warrant a higher class? Thanks!!! --CaroleHenson (talk) 15:54, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reversion of the article (Closed)

Not sure why the article was completely reverted to it's stub stage. Left a message for the user at User talk:Names are hard to think of. Could this be some kind of spam account???--CaroleHenson (talk) 07:24, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Update, I heard back, this was just an accident.--CaroleHenson (talk) 07:26, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 25 June 2022

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Aldobrandini Madonna moved to Garvagh Madonna, and The Aldobrandini Madonna moved to Aldobrandini Madonna (Titian). Also, Aldobrandini Madonna has been converted to a disambiguation page. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 07:26, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

– Both these paintings, the first by Raphael and the second by Titian, are in the same museum (the National Gallery), which on its website refers to them as The Garvagh Madonna and The Aldobrandini Madonna respectively. (We would drop the definite article per MOS:ART: "Works whose usual title includes the name of a former owner or a location do not include "the" in the article title".) There are more results for "Garvagh Madonna" than for "Aldobrandini Madonna" in Google Scholar (67:62), JSTOR (25:10) and Google itself (~14,200:~13,500), regardless of whether the latter title refers to the the Raphael or the Titian, so there's a WP:COMMONNAME case for calling the Raphael the Garvagh Madonna.

The article on the Titian could have a hatnote along the lines of This article is about the painting by Titian. For the painting by Raphael also known by this title, see Garvagh Madonna. Ham II (talk) 08:29, 25 June 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 01:20, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Aren't Aldobrandini Madonna (Titian) and Aldobrandini Madonna (Raphael) simpler, more helpful, and more compatible with MOS:ART? The NG pages give no clue why the Titian is associated with A's at all! Johnbod (talk) 14:20, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the part of MOS:ART that says "Where there are several variant titles, preference is usually given to the predominant one used by art historians writing in English, and if this is not clear, the English title used by the owning museum" seems to be an argument for calling the Raphael the Garvagh Madonna, if it's called that more often than it's called the Aldobrandini Madonna. If the situation isn't clear-cut enough, going by the owning museum's title would also give us Garvagh Madonna.

Admittedly the proposed title for the Titian is ambiguous, which is why I've suggested the hatnote. (If a hatnote is insufficient, I'd be fine with Garvagh Madonna and Aldobrandini Madonna (Titian). It doesn't have the pleasing correspondence of Aldobrandini Madonna (Raphael) with Aldobrandini Madonna (Titian), but it would be more important to have both works under their most commonly used titles.) Ham II (talk) 15:53, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Garvagh Madonna and Aldobrandini Madonna (Titian) would be better. I'm a bit suspicious about "Garvagh Madonna" being the "most commonly used", which I think the NG has been pushing to avoid confusion with its other Aldobrandini Madonna. The Garvagh family only owned it for 50-odd years to 1865 or whatever, & the general trend is away from such names - as with the Rokeby Venus. Johnbod (talk) 21:24, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This ngram suggests that the popularity of Garvagh Madonna started to revive after around 1983, though not to anything like 19th-century levels. That's the date of Jones and Penny's monograph on your userpage; you wouldn't have it on you, by any chance? I don't think Nicholas Penny's association with the NG had started then. Ham II (talk) 05:48, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've got hold of a copy of Jones and Penny's book now, and it doesn't cover the painting, so no proof yet that Garvagh Madonna has become more popular independently of the NG's influence. But what would if it matter if the NG were behind a revival of Garvagh Madonna, and had succeeded in changing the WP:COMMONNAME? The name Aldobrandini-Garvagh Madonna is also in use, and perhaps that might account for some of the instances of "Garvagh Madonna", but probably only a negligible number of those. For the sake of resolving this I could live with Aldobrandini Madonna (Raphael) and Aldobrandini Madonna (Titian), but the more recent evidence does seem to point towards Garvagh Madonna for the Raphael.

On the shortness of the period it was owned by the Garvagh family: the NG helpfully has a webpage on the provenance, so from that I can see it was in the Garvagh collection from 1818 to 1865 – actually a little less than "50-odd years". I suspect that the 19th century was a crucial period for the coining of names for paintings which have since stuck, though. The Madonna Litta was only in the Litta collection for almost exactly the same period, 1813 to 1865. The Rokeby Venus is rather different as the subject matter is, I think, unique in Velázquez's oeuvre, whereas with Raphael there's a need to disambiguate between multiple paintings of the Virgin and Child, so I expect the construction Foo Madonna to live on. Ham II (talk) 08:25, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnbod: sorry, I should have pinged you earlier. Ham II (talk) 08:45, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, been away anyway. I can go with plain Garvagh Madonna, but I think that Aldobrandini Madonna (Titian) is needed, and Aldobrandini Madonna needs a little disam page. Johnbod (talk) 16:27, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, I can get behind that. Ham II (talk) 21:25, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.