Jump to content

Talk:Leonardo da Vinci/Archive 10

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11

Correction to Anatomy and Physiology section

The last line of the Anatomy and Physiology section, "Vesalius published his work on anatomy and physiology in De humani corporis fabrica in 1543.[139]" is unsupported, and as far as I know, incorrect. The assertion that Vesalius published Da Vinci's work does not appear in any source on either Da Vinci or Vesalius that I have read. The source cited at the end of the paragraph mentions Vesalius's Fabrica, but I believe the problem is a confusing referent -- the source says, "When da Vinci returned to Rome he was accused of ‘unseemly conduct’ (and perhaps witchcraft) and ceased his anatomical studies. The world had to wait a generation before Vesalius published his definitive account of human anatomy in De humani corporis fabrica in 1543." To a reader with knowledge of Vesalius, the word "his" in that sentence clearly refers to Vesalius himself -- Vesalius's definitive account -- not to Da Vinci's work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.69.211.88 (talk) 12:29, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Adding selected quotes

Can I add quotes of Leonardo da Vinci and other people about him. Here in his own page. Vinceroldz (talk) 16:07, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

No, see WP:NOTCATALOG. Aza24 (talk) 20:57, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Landscape of the Arno Valley as the "first true landscape painting"

The passage referenced below, focuses on a claim that this work was the "first":

According to art historian Ludwig Heydenreich, this is "The first true landscape in art."[117] Massimo Polidoro says that it was the first landscape "not to be the background of some religious scene or a portrait. It is the first [documented] time where a landscape was drawn just for the sake of it."[44]

I think that the two historians quoted here are expressing opinion rather than fact. I cannot find any official definition of the "first true landscape" and at worst, wording it in this way omits centuries of previous works including Chinese landscape painting. It should be re-worded as something more subjective, for example

"Art historian Ludwig Heydenreich felt that it was the 'first true landscape in art'. Massimo Polidoro believed it was important because previous Western works had always been the background of some religious scene or portrait."

Also there is a wikipedia page on the development of landscape painting (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landscape_painting) that would probably add context to this passage.

Sorry in advance if this is not posted correctly; it's my first comment on a talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elmstreetschool (talk • contribs) 19:10, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Should be in the context of Western art, have clarified. Aza24 (talk) 20:57, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
Well, "post-Roman Western art". I don't know who the "official" body to rule on such matters would be. Johnbod (talk) 02:40, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
I think the idea (from the "true") is that it's the first Western work to have solely a landscape, without people. In my meager knowledge of Roman landscape art, I recall those works all including people, though I'm happy to be corrected. This being said, I remain skeptical; I just checked Zöllner's account on Leonardo's landscape sketches and find the claim no where to be founded. Aza24 (talk) 02:52, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
I'm not sure - among the few survivals we have there's the famous garden fresco from Livia's villa, plus I think others. Then there are landscape frescos in Minoan art. This is a quick drawing that may well have been done with a view to using it for the background of a painting. No doubt many other artists had done such sketches, but very few earlier drawings survive at all. Johnbod (talk) 13:18, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Drawing of a bear

I have added Head of a Bear (Q107460193) to Commons as File:Da Vinci - Head of a Bear.jpg. Sold recently (7 June 2021) at Christie's. Avindratalk 03:05, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Interesting, thanks for the add, I never knew about Christie's auction house, plus always nice to have more commons art pictures. Eruditess (talk) 15:49, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

New Contribution - Translation

Dear All,

Following Wikipedia spirit, I would like to announce the publishing of my contribution "Accidental Perspective and Anamorphosis" since Leonardo without any doubt can be called “Anamorphosis Father”. There are a number of influential primary sources supporting this topic such as Jurgis Baltrušaitis and John White. As you can see there are a number of sources from Leonardo himself (Codex Atlanticus, Codex Arundel 263, Paris Manuscript A)

The contribution is a translation from a section of the Italian Page

BeRenaissance (talk) 21:14, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

I don't mean to be discouraging but this is far too much information on a rather specific topic for a broad overview. I've moved it all to Science and inventions of Leonardo da Vinci. Keep in mind that primary sources are strongly discouraged and you should be avoiding WP:OR, but at the moment it seems like the new addition is exclusively WP:OR. Aza24 (talk) 16:44, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

My contribution erased

Dear @William M. Connolley:,

I am surprised that you found our contribution unconvincing. May I ask you why you removed it without even opening a talk on that? It would be extremely nice from you to explain since Baltrusaitis and White are very well known and they can be considered reliable sources having published several studies and books. Not to mention Leonardo himself. In addition, all the references I used are verifiable. I would be glad to read your opinion on this topic.

Thank you! --BeRenaissance (talk) 14:35, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Because this is just a re-tread of Talk:Portrait of a Man in Red Chalk, no? But if your contribution has value, doubtless some other watcher of this well-watched page will speak up for it William M. Connolley (talk) 15:00, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Neutral Point Of View

This article seems to celebrate Leonardo da Vinci. Shouldn't it be a bit more neutral point of view? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Krystal Kalb (talk • contribs) 22:54, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Misspelling

In the Biography section the word “supposably” is used instead of “supposedly” 2601:8C:8200:61C0:D4A6:8FF7:CCF:73C2 (talk) 20:10, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

I wrote that section a few months ago. For some reason the word has been gradually edited warred over since then (supposedly vs supposably). I honestly have no idea which one is correct at this point so I've changed it to "purportedly", which probably works better in the context anyways. Aza24 (talk) 06:20, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Portrait of Isabella D'Este

This article has Leonoardo's sketch of Isabella D'Este as a precursor to a portrait that is believed to have been lost.

But there appears to have been a portrait of Isabella D'Este seized by Italian authorities in 2015 that may be the portrait. Worth mentioning in this entry, I thought. https://art-crime.blogspot.com/2015/02/portrait-of-isabella-deste-attributed.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by DoorDasheillHammett (talk • contribs) 06:10, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Vitruvian Man

There is a discussion at talk:Vitruvian Man#Relevance of material on the Tuscan Order that would welcome fresh eyes, please? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 13:55, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 31 December 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: speedy closed as uncontroversial, per WP:SNOW. Every single voter voted "Oppose", AND every single reliable source spells it with a lowercase "da", AND no in-depth reasoning was given for why this is preferable other than "it's a name". Paintspot Infez (talk) 19:17, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Leonardo da Vinci → Leonardo Da Vinci – Leonardo Da Vinci is a proper name and therefore should be capitalized. Mast303 (talk) 06:06, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

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.

Semi-protected edit request on 16 February 2023

hi can someone add that leonardo da vinci created blue prints for the first robot 137.164.120.211 (talk) 17:59, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:05, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 February 2023

Change: Relatively few of his designs were constructed or even feasible during his lifetime,

To: Relatively few of his designs were constructed or were even feasible during his lifetime,


Ungrammatical elision. The dropped second 'were' has a different sense to the first, and is not a repetition. The first is used to form a past perfect tense; the second is used only to attach an adjective in the past. Rpxpx (talk) 17:57, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

 Done M.Bitton (talk) 18:50, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

POV last sentence of the lede

Really bold claim in the last sentence of the lede “his collective works comprise a contribution to later generations of artists matched only by that of his younger contemporary, Michelangelo”. I don’t think this is verifiable and doesn’t sound super encyclopedic in phrasing or content. Should be cut 97.113.32.212 (talk) 03:46, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

There are two citations here but neither is a direct quote.
That the statement is true, is beyond doubt.
Leonardo, unlike Michelangelo, had a school of followers who learnt directly from him, and disseminated his ideas. None, however, achieved great persona fame.
The truly great artists who did learn from exposure to his work include Raphael, Titian, Tintoretto, Andrea del Sarto, Pontormo, Caravaggio, Vermeer, Rembrandt, Rubens, van Dyck, Lely, Ribera, Velazquez, Goya, Reynolds, Gainsborough, Manet, Degas, Whistler, John Singer Sargent, Dali, Francis Bacon, Lucien Freud etc.....
What you are dealing with here is a statement that is a truism. Leonardo da Vinci was not just another painter of his age. He has to be described, along with Michelangelo, as an artist who changed the course of painting and left an indelible imprint that is still appearing in the works of artists to this day. None of the twenty-three painters that I listed as having stood in his debt, influenced the course of art in the way Leonardo did, despite the fact that if you are familiar with Western painting, you will know every one of these names.
Together with Michelangelo they represent what Renaissance critics would have recognised as the two great and complementary elements of painting- colore and designe
Amandajm (talk) 17:38, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Houssaye and 1.73 m/5.7ft inconsistency

I noticed the size of Leonardo quoted in the wikipedia article is inconsistent with the size of Leonardo in the reference: "Arsène Houssaye note en effet plusieurs détails troublants. Ce squelette fait cinq pieds et cinq pouces, soit environ 177 centimètres." See https://www.ouest-france.fr/leditiondusoir/2019-04-30/leonard-de-vinci-est-il-vraiment-enterre-au-chateau-damboise-2cbf9ba7-3ba2-4767-a12f-4affdd67d715 2A02:A466:8D5D:1:289F:E4A5:615B:66C8 (talk) 09:26, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Good challenge, thank you. ..."cinq pieds et cinq pouces ... translates to "five feet and five inches", but not modern feet and inches. According to Traditional French units of measurement#Length, that equates to 5 * 32.48 (=162.40) + 5*2.71 (=13.55) = 175.95 cm, call it 1.75 to remove false precision. (Using imperial measures, 5 feet 5 inches (1.65 metres), btw.) But whatever the truth is, the source cited does not say 1.73m so that at least needs to be corrected, which I will do now. I take it that we may assume that Montard faithfully reports Houssaye. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 14:25, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
But if I change it to 1.77 m (5 ft 10 in), the whole discussion collapses because it is predicated on the skeleton being too short (rather than quite tall for a medieval male). So I have tagged it as {{failed verification}} pending further discussion. Someone needs to reread the 19C sources. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 14:37, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Amandajm (talk) 23:35, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 March 2023

Leonardo De Vinci was a polymath who went big in drinking prime hydration! 2603:7081:7106:BEB6:15EF:F828:87BD:F18D (talk) 22:38, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Lightoil (talk) 23:09, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Mother Caterina di Meo Lippi

Leonardo was son of a Circassian princess kidnapped by the Tartars and resold to the Venetians, then freed by his father. (See [2]) 151.34.236.94 (talk) 15:07, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Looks like. The same finding is reported/accepted by NYT Who Was Leonardo’s Mother? France 24 New research claims Leonardo da Vinci was son of a slave, Toronto Sun Document shows Leonardo's da Vinci's mother was a slave etc. 178.222.169.118 (talk) 09:03, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
Sorry, but if you bother to read all the article, you read that the "sensational" discovery was announced during the presentation of a novel about Leonardo's mother written by the discoverer. Such news, to be reliable, should first appear in a research paper and then be commented on by other Leonardo scholars. Presented in this way, it is little more than gossip. Alex2006 (talk) 09:20, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
The existence of this document and it's contenent should be reported, if the person making the announcement can be considered a reliable souce. Dunedii (talk) 00:52, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
"Historian Carlo Vecce has announced the discovery of new documents from the State Archives of Florence". Did anyone yet question this announcement?--178.222.169.118 (talk) 14:39, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
There are already several scholars who dispute this 'discovery'. The document discovered by Vecce is the release of a Circassian slave girl by Leonardo's father, nothing more. The story that she was the daughter of a Circassian prince kidnapped by the Tartars as reported by the adnkronos agency is completely made up, as Vecce himself says ("...un romanzo a integrare le lacune”). It is basically the plot of his novel. Unfortunately, the "scoop" was picked up by several websites and newspapers that did not bother to investigate and so the story of the Circassian princess came out. Personally I do not think that someone who mixes in this way his research with his literary activities can be trusted. Please read here and here about it. Especially the second article summarizes the state of the research now. Alex2006 (talk) 15:38, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
Your second here says: "According to Paolo Galluzzi, an expert on Leonardo and former director of the Galileo Museum in Florence, Vecce's is an interesting hypothesis, solid and also based on convincing documentation, but only "bound to stimulate debate."" 178.222.169.118 (talk) 05:36, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
Correct. We are talking about a hypothesis, and not - as proclaimed during the press conference (which was nothing more than a marketing operation for the launch of a novel) and then taken up by much of the press - the truth. Meanwhile, there are already the first objections from other scholars. Alex2006 (talk) 09:13, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
It should be introduced as an hypothesis but it dserve to be reported nonetheless, given the weight of the scholars involved and the media resonance this news had. Dunedii (talk) 16:04, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
When the clickbait coverage moves on, will anybody give this speculation a moment's thought in even a month from now, let alone ten years? WP:NOTNEWS, WP:RECENT. Does it cast any light on Leonardo's practice? Does it have any long-run significance? The answer to all these is no, so WP:TRIVIA applies. I oppose including this background noise. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 16:45, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
There is a page Personal life of Leonardo da Vinci. Speculation such as this belongs there. Amandajm (talk) 23:35, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
Whether the mother of our Leonardo in Circassia was a princess or a peasant is not clear. But the fact that she was a Circassian who ended up in Italy as a slave is already a documented fact. Evidence found recently in the archives. The wiki article needs editing. 71.192.164.2 (talk) 14:23, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
No. As already explained above, there is no such "documented fact", only a speculative conjecture to promote sales of a book. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 19:05, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
I think these two articles ([3], [4]) in Italian art magazines help put this news into context. What emerges is that this is certainly not the scoop the author wants us to believe. Alex2006 (talk) 19:27, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Leonardo da Vinci's mother was a Circassian who get up to Italy as a slave.

The origin of Caterina (Leonardo's mother) is confirmed by archival documents.

links: https://www.finestresullarte.info/en/art-and-artists/leonardo-da-vinci-s-mother-a-slave-girl-originally-from-the-caucasus-there-is-confirmation

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/leonardo-da-vinci-mother-slave-caucasus-italy-new-research-book-rcna74670 71.192.164.2 (talk) 14:17, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

It is the launch of a novel, and the documents shown so far do not prove that it is Leonardo's mother. --Chiorbone da Frittole (talk) 01:35, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
Before contributing here please read the thread and related papers in Archive 10. Alex2006 (talk) 08:55, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

scientist and engineer?

This is all based on one editor's personal opinions, which while doubtless interesting don't belong here

There seems to be a problem on here with editors using the term "Renaissance" to describe periods of European history that are more accurately and professionally labelled "Late Middle Ages" or "Early Modern Period." If you don't know why "the Renaissance" construct is problematic as a periodization and disputed by historians, it's likely the case you aren't familiar with any contemporary scholarship outside of art history.

"The Renaissance" plays a central role in the 'creation myth' of Whig history (a grand narrative of Western history that attempts to explain the rise of modern secular states), which embellishes the achievements of artists like Leonardo da Vinci, who is often described as a "scientist" and "engineer" despite having contributed nothing of any value to either of these fields. Leonardo's sketches of the human body were not serious works of anatomical science -attending autopsies and sketching dead bodies were standard requirements in the apprenticeship of 'Renaissance' artists and were not unique to Leonardo. His sketches of "flying machines" were also common and were not actual engineering blueprints -they were fantasy drawings and had no technical significance whatsoever. Leonardo invented nothing and was not regarded as either a scientist or engineer by his contemporaries.

A first step in correcting some of the fawning and misleading language used in various sections of this article is to describe him in the lead as an "artist", which is what he was and all he was. He was not a scientist, engineer, anatomist, inventor etc. Jonathan f1 (talk) 15:24, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

What a load of nonsense. It is flat untrue that "attending autopsies and sketching dead bodies were standard requirements in the apprenticeship of 'Renaissance' artists and were not unique to Leonardo". Where do you get this nonsense? A few may have done so, for example Vasari mentions as exceptional that the Pollaiulo brothers did this (in fact dissecting for themselves, as Leonardo did) but art historians are doubtful about this claim. Leonardo's anatomical drawings were way superior to anything else before Vesalius, and those in the Royal Collection were carefully studied by William Hunter (anatomist) in the later 18th century. Renaissance, or rather "Italian Renaissance", works very well to define a period in art history, whereas "Early Modern Period" is totally useless as a period descriptor in art history, and "Late Middle Ages" not much better - the Italian terms Trecento, Quatrocento work better, and are what professionals are actually more likely to use. Even in general and economic history "Early Modern Period", though undoubtedly the fashionable term, seems far too broad to be very useful, even if people can agree what period it covers where, which they currently can't. At the very least Leonardo was employed (like many artists) as a military engineer. Much of his scientific enquiries remained private, in his notebooks, until long after his death, which considerably reduced his subsequent influence. Despite this, Vasari's Life, published 30 years after his death, gives fulsome, if rather vague, coverage of his non-artistic activities, and indeed founded the "Renaissance man" polymathic legend. Johnbod (talk) 16:52, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
You are, unfortunately, repeating the high school cliché version of western history. The one where Leonardo -or rather his pop history name, "Da Vinci" -bursts fully free from a sea of Medieval idiots, a jack-of-all trades who tries his hand in a wide array of subjects and is brilliant in all of them. Mathematics, engineering, anatomy -was there anything this man couldn't do?
Like most Renaissance myths, the point of origin for Leonardo "the exceptional man" was Jakob Burckhardt (The Civilization of the Renaissance in Italy), who got this idea of a 15th Century "Renaissance" from Jules Michelet, who published the seventh volume of the Histoire (La Renaissance) in 1855, 350 -400 years after this supposed Renaissance took place. The reason why it took until the 19th Century to rediscover Leonardo's sketchbook was because there was nothing, literally nothing, exceptional about any of these drawings. Leonardo was a fairly typical artisan-artist who was employed in the service of Medieval princes and was expected to act as a technical jack-of-all-trades: there were hundreds, if not thousands of Medieval artists just like him. He had zero impact on technology and virtually none of his fanciful doodles were even practical (there is no evidence any of them were even built).
"Where do you get this nonsense?"
The study of anatomy and the visit as observers to dissections was a standard part of the apprenticeship of a Renaissance artist. There was nothing unusual about this either, and here, too, Leonardo had no impact on anatomical science. His knowledge of anatomy was typical for an artist in his age, not exceptional. See[5]. Jonathan f1 (talk) 05:19, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
As I pointed out to you, the Leonardo myth begins with Vasari, and the "rediscovery" of Leonardo's notebooks goes back to Hunter in the 18th century at least. Kenneth Clark apparently thought that Hunter was personally responsible for the revival of interest in them, though the book he planned on them never happened. By that time they were mostly in major collections, having been bought expensively. Your claims just get sillier and sillier - if you could advance to the "high school cliché version" of art history it would be a vast improvement. I can only read the first page of the 1950 JSTOR paper at the moment, but it seems at least as compatible with my view as yours. As I told you above, art historians are dubious about Vasari's statement re the Pollaiuolo bros. For the most part, the Italian centres of medical education (Salerno, Bologna etc) were different and distant from the centres of painting, so how many autopsies and dissections actually took place at all in eg Florence and Venice (neither with medical schools) is a good question. Johnbod (talk) 12:39, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
The cited source calls him an "Italian painter, sculptor, architect, designer, theorist, engineer and scientist". This will certainly not be changed on the whim of an editor who has cited no reliable sources to support anything they are saying (and will not be able to do so, since what you are saying makes zero sense) – Aza24 (talk) 07:22, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
It would've made perfect sense if you actually understood the period and weren't totally clueless. Jonathan f1 (talk) 17:42, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
Ok, I've now read all of the 1950 JSTOR paper. It in no way supports your claims, quite the reverse. It lists 20 artists, many from the generations after LdV, and several of whom, including Titian, it concludes had no practical experience of dissections etc. It makes my point above about the lack of public dissections in artistic centres. And these are the top examples the author can find for a period of 150 years, bringing in some from north of th Alps - "attending autopsies and sketching dead bodies were standard requirements in the apprenticeship of 'Renaissance' artists" - absolutely not! Johnbod (talk) 13:16, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
The source states that interest in anatomy was typical of Italian artists in the 15th Century, and that this was a core characteristic of "humanism". There are too many works covering anatomical illustration during the Renaissance to cite in a Wiki talk. But this MET Museum page gives a succinct lesson.[6].
They describe Leonardo as a 'later innovator' -meaning artists were dabbling in anatomy well before his time (Leonardo himself was taught anatomical art by his mentor).
"[Bandelli], who was trying to impress a duke to hire him, and who also appears to have run an academy for the teaching of young artists, “I will show you that I know how to dissect the brain, and also living men, as I have dissected dead ones to learn my art."
"Italian Renaissance artists became anatomists by necessity."
Leonardo's interest in anatomy was typical, not exceptional. When Bandelli commissioned Enea Vico to make an engraving of his school, "to celebrate his achievements and pretensions as a teacher and man of learning", this is what Vico came up with.[7]. You see skulls, skeletons and anatomical illustrations on the walls and floor because this was a typical part of the apprenticeship of artists.
Here's a del Barbiere piece depicting muscle/skeletal anatomy[8]. The reason why Domenico del Barbieri is described as a "Florentine artist" and not a "scientist" or an "anatomist" is because that's exactly what he was -anatomy was learned for the purpose of art and selling art. Even today we do not conflate scientific illustrators with actual scientists.
Describing Leonardo as an "engineer" is even more far-fetched. Leonardo was one of a long line of Medieval artisan-artists who were expected to be versatile problem-solvers so that they could paint a portrait, design siege works or plot or fix a drainage system on their lord's estate (want to add "plumber" to his list of titles?). Men like Leonardo had been doing this for centuries before his time and all of them tinkered with ideas and kept notebooks of sketches. And unlike Leonardo's, some of these designs actually worked.
So while your comic book may mention Leonardo da Vinci's "flying machine" sketch (which was never built and wouldn't have flown if it were), it probably says nothing about Eilmer of Malmesbury's 11th Century glider, which was actually built and actually flew. Yet Eilmer of Malmesbury is introduced as a "Benedictine monk" and Leonardo da Vinci an "engineer".
I get that you're hopelessly enthralled by the Burckhardtian myth of "The Renaissance" and renaissance man "Da Vinci". But the fact remains that most critical scholars (not art historians) reject this construct and view the period as an extension of the Middle Ages. Start your reading here[9][10][11]. Jonathan f1 (talk) 17:42, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
Er, right! From the Met: "Opportunities for direct anatomical dissection were very restricted during the Renaissance" and "Leonardo da Vinci, who is without doubt the most significant artist-anatomist of all time ...." I'm not going to bother reading the other links, given how wilfully you have wrongly reported those you have produced so far. You know nothing of the Renaissance, nor of my views on it. This is just wasting people's time. Please go away, and bear in mind WP:NPA, or you will get blocked again. Johnbod (talk) 21:18, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
I didn't "wrongfully report" anything -you're historically illiterate and so you latch onto words and phrases and ignore the context of what's being reported. The claim was not that every artist performed dissections -but that this sort of anatomical study was common for artists and not unique to Leonardo. The opening sentence of that source reads "Italian Renaissance artists became anatomists by necessity." And while it says that "opportunities [for dissection] were restricted" ("restricted" does not mean 'rare'), it also says "Circumstantial evidence suggests that a number of other artists also attempted direct dissections. Some later great masters produced écorchés, studies of the peeled away or ripped apart forms of muscles, to explore their potential for purely artistic expression (49.95.181; 1996.75). The majority of artists, however, limited their investigations to the surface of the body—the appearance of its musculature, tendons, and bones as observed through the skin—and recorded such findings in exquisitely detailed studies.."
So whether by direct dissection or some other means, this was extremely common and the sort of thing most artists were engaged in at this time. And describing Leonardo as an "artist-anatomist" does not mean "anatomical scientist" -he was an artist who was doing exactly what other artists were doing at this time. Jonathan f1 (talk) 21:39, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
I am astonished at the attempt to impose a political vision on such a voice. I don't agree with anything you write Jonathan f1. the first two you posted are two very old articles, the third is a Forbes article without any authority. There seems to be a problem on here indeed, and the problem is the political fanaticism of those who uncritically adhere to critical studies. --Chiorbone da Frittole (talk) 19:22, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
Forbes article? That was written by an academic Medievalist (not a journalist) for an audience of laypeople and was cited to compliment the other references. "The Renaissance" was invented in the 19th Century (by anti-Medieval polemicists for political reasons) and did not survive a century of critical scrutiny by historians. I've explained to you why "critical studies" have dispensed with this concept -it was not a period of great intellectual achievement (and so had to be extended longer to include people who had actually achieved something), was not a "rebirth" of classical learning (Western Europeans were retrieving and studying classical works since the Early Middle Ages), and the art of the period was rigidly fixed to classical realism and was in many ways a regressive high culture, quite the opposite of what Renaissance eulogists had claimed.
In fact, every single development that's been attributed to "The Renaissance", including the foundations of modern science, had origins earlier in the Middle Ages. And there's plenty of scholarship I could recommend[12][13][14][15][16].
And I find it comical that you think some of my sources are 'dated' as you cling to a concept that was invented in the 1800s. In modern scholarship in the year 2023, "the Renaissance" is a little more than a shorthand for "Late Middle Ages" and "Early Modern Europe". Jonathan f1 (talk) 21:08, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
WP:NOTAFORUM. What concrete changes are being suggested to be made to the article, What are the supporting sources for those edits? (Hohum @) 21:46, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
Leonardo da Vinci was not a "scientist and engineer" and I am proposing limiting his description in the lead to "artist" which was his primary profession and is what he's known for. And what type of source do you want me to find that states he never invented anything or built anything? That he never wrote down a single equation, has not one scientific law or principle to his name and is not mentioned in any textbook on anatomy, engineering or mathematics, but is mentioned in art history books? Jonathan f1 (talk) 22:02, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
As I've stated, these designations are well cited to an entry in a well-respected encyclopedia, by a leading scholar, Martin Kemp. The latter calls him an "Italian painter, sculptor, architect, designer, theorist, engineer and scientist". All you have done is provided cherrypicked references to different anecdotal evaluation of Leonardo's contributions, creating a swath of original research. Where is this imaginary requirement of needing to write an equation, scientific law etc. to be called a scientist? And are you seriously trying to deny the existence of the Renaissance?—How can you expect to be taken seriously?
And with all that, you have already been blocked from the mainspace and are repeatedly insulting editors here, who are actually responding to your aggressive criticisms. How can you expect anyone to genuinely consider your requests if you are attempting to bully them into submission? Aza24 (talk) 00:16, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
Yes I am "seriously denying" the existence of "the Renaissance" (the Renaissance, as if there was only one) and stand by my comments that it's a "myth". I'm using the word myth as professional historians use it (quoting British historian Peter Burke): "When professional historians refer to 'myths', they usually mean statements about the past which they can show to be false, or at any rate misleading. In the case of Burckhardt's account of the Renaissance, they object to the dramatic contrasts which he makes between Renaissance and Middle Ages and between Italy and the rest of Europe."[17].
This is why "Renaissance", as a period of European history and not merely a shorthand for a certain type of art, is critically flawed and why relying on art historians as authorities on periodization is a mistake. It is only when you start with the premise that what most people refer to as "the Renaissance" was merely an extension of what most people refer to as "the Middle Ages" can you begin to understand why the "Leonardo da Vinci" of pop culture fame is mostly myth. It is misleading to refer to him as a "scientist" and "engineer" when he was no more of an anatomist than Domenico del Barbieri (a Florentine artist who, like Leonardo, studied human anatomy and published anatomical illustrations) and no more of an innovator than Eilmer of Malmesbury (who, unlike Leonardo, built a glider that actually flew, all the way back in the 11th Century). The real Leonardo was very much a man of his times, and those times were very Medieval and predated The Scientific Revolution.
But speaking of art historians, Barrie Bullen wrote a book on the mythological aspects of Renaissance historiography in the 19th Century[18]. Most people editing in this space would do well to read it. Jonathan f1 (talk) 10:44, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
"And what type of source do you want me to find" That would be your problem to solve, not mine. (Hohum @) 00:20, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 August 2023

CHANGE THIS: Contemporary correspondence records that Leonardo and his assistants were commissioned by the Duke of Milan to paint the Sala delle Asse in the Sforza Castle. The decoration was completed in 1498.

CHANGE TO:

Contemporary correspondence records that Leonardo and his assistants were commissioned by the Duke of Milan to paint the Sala delle Asse in the Sforza Castle. The decoration was under way by April,1498 but never completed. [1] ItalianArtStudies (talk) 16:26, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Done, more or less. Johnbod (talk) 16:47, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
With regret, I have undone it. Both WorldCat and Google Books say that it is self published and consequently it fails the relevant Wikipedia reliable sources policy.[2] Sorry. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 18:32, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
Please note that "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications" The author has published in academic journals. Furthermore, the 2006 work has been cited in most academic scholarship on the Sala delle Asse since that date. The 2021 was was peer reviewed. ItalianArtStudies (talk) 00:52, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
The Italian WP article on the room also says the ceiling was incomplete, citing "Edoardo Villata (a cura di), Leonardo da Vinci. I documenti e le testimonianze contemporanee, Milano, Ente Raccolta Vinciana, 1999, pp. 126-127.". Johnbod (talk) 01:45, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
Thank you Johnbod for the additional citation. Indeed, the decoration was not completed. I hope that with that JMF will allow the original suggested change to stand. Readers will be reassured with due diligence. ItalianArtStudies (talk) 01:57, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
I don't doubt that it is true, only that the citation that you gave in support is not a valid one. The Villata source seems to fit the bill, just needs isbn etc. I can't do it easily on mobile but see https://www.worldcat.org/formats-editions/45384466 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 17:26, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Costa, Patrizia (2021), "[1], The Duke's Trees: Leonardo's Unfinished Masterpiece in the Sala delle Asse.ISBN 9781736707401, 173670740X
  2. ^ Costa, Patrizia (2021). The Duke's Trees: Leonardo's Unfinished Masterpiece in the Sala delle Asse. Patrizia Costa. ISBN 9781736707401. OCLC 1315580487.

Semi-protected edit request on 13 August 2023 (2)

CHANGE FROM THIS: Contemporary correspondence records that Leonardo and his assistants were commissioned by the Duke of Milan to paint the Sala delle Asse in the Sforza Castle. The decoration was completed in 1498. The project became a trompe-l'œil decoration that made the great hall appear to be a pergola created by the interwoven limbs of sixteen mulberry trees,[57] whose canopy included an intricate labyrinth of leaves and knots on the ceiling.[58]

CHANGE TO THIS: Contemporary correspondence records that Leonardo and his assistants were commissioned by the Duke of Milan to paint the Sala delle Asse in the Sforza Castle. The decoration was underway in 1498, but may have begun as early as 1496.[cite Costa 2021] The project became a trompe-l'œil decoration that made the great hall appear to be a pergola created by the interwoven limbs of sixteen mulberry trees,[57] whose canopy included an intricate labyrinth of leaves and knots on the ceiling.[58]

NOTE: this is a different change from the one submitted earlier today. It refers to an earlier section on the page. Insert citation 57 where I have "cite Costa 2021" and 57 and 58 others will go up in numbers accordingly. ItalianArtStudies (talk) 21:31, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

@ItalianArtStudies: In principle yes, but first you need to find a more reliable source that says so. Because the Costa book is self=published, it does not meet Wikipedia's standards for sourcing. It does not have to be in English, though that is preferable. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 23:18, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
Dear JMF, then please change the citation to Costa 2006, the date of my dissertation (published by the U. of Pittsburgh). The 2021 book is based on the work in 2006. ItalianArtStudies (talk) 00:25, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
Dissertations are generally not considered acceptable per WP:RS. Individual exemptions are made, if a dissertation has proven to stand the test of time. Drmies (talk) 00:32, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
In this case, it has. The work appears in all scholarship on the Sala delle Asse since 2006 (in print and online) and was already cited in the Wikipedia page before the above small edit/contribution. ItalianArtStudies (talk) 00:38, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
You can make that case in some detail on WP:RSN, but obviously one wonders why such a work hasn't been published by an academic press. Drmies (talk) 00:48, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
It was accepted by three academic presses after rigorous peer review. We chose to publish it independently in order to include more illustrations. A former (and emeritus) editor at Yale Univ. Press curated the printing of this book and she is thanked in the credits along with all other scholars who contributed to making sure the book adhered to high academic standards and advances the scholarship that it is meant to. The book has been adopted into the collections of academic/university libraries (in the USA and Italy). Thank you for the UP:RSN suggestion. ItalianArtStudies (talk) 01:43, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
This appears as a blatant attempt at self promotion. If you familiar with scholarship on the topic, you should easily be able to point out relevant citations to a published academic source(s) to use. Instead, you are still pushing your own writings. Aza24 (talk) 01:05, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
The correction that you characterize as "self-promoting" references a book with an extensive bibliography of primary and secondary sources and hundreds of endnotes. Good scholarship always advances in partnership with the work of others and corrections are treated as an ethical practice. A scholar who has done their homework, is never simply "pushing" his/her writing ... but the collective work of all who have come before. ItalianArtStudies (talk) 00:18, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
It is universally accepted in the scholarship for Leonardo and the Sala delle Asse that decoration was not completed in 1498. It is one of Leonardo's unfinished works and it would be misleading to the reader to leave the leave the text as "The decoration was completed in 1498." A quick visit to the Castello's website will further reassure the reader that the work was never completed. The bias in this thread toward all self-published scholarship is unfortunate. The WP:RSN page allows for the integration of this scholarship and dissertations under several conditions (which, respectfully, apply in this case). ItalianArtStudies (talk) 10:44, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
If it is "universally accepted in the scholarship for Leonardo and the Sala delle Asse that decoration was not completed in 1498", then produce published scholarship of this universal assertion and avoid the sourcing concern all together. You hesitancy to do so is alarming. Aza24 (talk) 01:27, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
I did. But if you know or have confidence in an academic source (that satisfies the requirements of WikiPedia) willing put their reputation on the line and vouch that the decor of the Sala "was completed by 1498" with primary source evidence, be my guest and amend the record yourself. As it stands, the assertion has not source. A reminder that good scholarship and scholarly debate advances on evidence and civility ... If you are curious about something, ask! Comments like "your hesitancy to do so is so alarming" go against civility among scholars. Pinning a scholar with negative or unethical intentions for not doing what you think they should have is like throwing spaghetti at the wall and waiting to see what sticks. It is not very productive and certainly does nothing for the question at hand: providing a history of reliable dates for Leonardo's the Sala delle Asse. ItalianArtStudies (talk) 20:11, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
You said earlier The bias in this thread toward all self-published scholarship is unfortunate. It is not just this thread. It is a fundamental principle of en.wikipedia that we do not accept self-published books or websites as credible sources. Period. We have learned from experience that this is the best way to maintain credibility and keep the lunatic fringe at bay. A very few (otherwise convincing) sources suffer collateral damage as a result and that is unfortunate. It is a condition of contributing to Wikipedia that you accept this rule. Yes, we know it fosters the monopoly of the few academic journals publishers but it is a price we must pay.
And if you consider this an undue burden, take a look at the conditions for medicine-related articles: WP:MEDRS.
Finally, since you have already provided sufficient evidence that the claim (of completion) in the article as it stands is false, I will delete it. I do hope you can come back with a reliable source for non-completion. The Castillo's website sounds like it may fit the bill: please supply the URL. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 20:54, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
I completely agree that self-published books are a special category. They require slightly different discernment and consideration and that is ok.
My original submission was a suggestion (a courtesy) not a demand. Deleting the original sentence is also ok. Or someone else, if they are so moved, (I'm not suggesting you) can take it upon themselves to cite other scholars who have studied the primary source documents for dating the Sala as thoroughly as I have.
I certainly sympathize with the challenges of keeping the lunatic fringe at bay. But it is not true that non-acceptance of self-published sources is a fundamental principle for all of WikiPedia. See here for example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_and_using_self-published_works. There is clear distinction between "self-published sources" (as in a blog) and "self-published expert sources": "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications." Completed dissertations are also acceptable because of the peer-reviewing process they go through. There is a willingness, in other words, on the part of WikiPedia to want to work with self-published material and dissertations in ethical and thoughtful ways.
My dismay is not with your judgement call; as editor and moderator, you have discretion. Perhaps, a disclosure of "no self-published citations allowed on this page" will help. My dismay is with the character attacks by others on this thread. Those are unfortunate and a form of collateral damage that should not be tolerated, especially when the spill extends beyond the words on this page. ItalianArtStudies (talk) 18:18, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
I am not a moderator or an editor (in the journal sense). All contributors to Wikipedia are "contributing editors": that now includes you. I just happen to have been doing for a longer time.
Wikipedia also has a policy, WP:no personal attacks: some of the responses you have received (to your continued reluctance give an uncontentious source) have been "robust" but short, I think, if being personal.
As I already explained, the policy on self-published sources applies to all of Wikipedia. I suspect that it is a rule more actively policed here, because of a history of "difficult" contributions over the years. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 18:51, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
@ItalianArtStudies: If your dissertation led Pittsburgh to award a PhD, then (for such an incidental fact), I think we could and should accept it using {{cite thesis}}. The key point is that it is the university that has published it and so affirms its validity. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 08:36, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
Dissertations in art history from solid institutions are generally reliable. The vetting of these sometimes exceeds the peer review process offered by academic publishers. Doctoral students don't just wing it in other words. So it is fitting that WikiPedia accepts the citation of dissertations as reliable source. Books based on dissertations and the expansion of that work are also generally reliable ... and it would be best to cite the later instead of the former because of additions to the bibliography, wisdom, better writing, etc. The stigma against independent publishing is unfortunate. But I don't think it is WikiPedia's policy to ban it. There are lots of reasons why reputable scholars may choose to go that route; duping people or making unfounded assertions are NOT at the top of their list. When a work of scholarship is published, it enters into dialogue with the world. That world can accept, applaud, reject and criticize that work. This goes for works published by academic presses too. If a correction on WikiPedia fails to hold its own over time, there is a simple and effective remedy: a new correction. Leonardo left the court of Ludovico Sforza in disappointment. A note in one of his notebooks states "nessun opera si fini per lui" (no work was ever finished for him). How disappointed he would be in us if we suggest otherwise (i.e. "the decoration was completed in 1498"). The Sforza Castle in Milan is working very hard to restore the room so that visitors can see the magnificence of his unfinished work. I hope that many of the readers of your page, will get to see it once that work is complete (in person or digitally). ItalianArtStudies (talk) 20:53, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
The policy has not arisen because eminent scholars cannot be trusted but rather that there are a great deal many more charlatans around. It is not our function or within our competence to assess the quality of a source. So we leave it to journal editors and publishers to make that assessment (with the exception of known vanity and predatory publishers.) It is certainly not foolproof but it is a good start. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 19:07, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Comment: there's no reason not to use another source that we can verify. This article available on Jstor by John F. Moffitt verifies almost all of the request except the mulberry trees. Given that this is the parent article and should be in summary style, we don't really need to add the type of trees. Generally I think these are reasonable requests, but it's helpful to be able to verify them. Also the Moffitt source does mention a completion date of 1498, so if there is debate amongst scholars what Wikipedia does is explain that there is debate and in this case provide both dates cited to whomever says what. Another way is to follow the preponderance of the sources, but it appears that Costa isn't the only person to say the work was left unfinished in 1498. ItalianArtStudies, are there other scholarly sources that can verify that? Ideally not a website, but a book or paper. Also I'm fine with using the dissertation, which is cited in books, but don't have access to ProQuest (or whichever database hosts it). Victoria (tk) 19:26, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

 Comment: Due to objections and discussion I've procedurally marked the request answered per template instructions. —Sirdog (talk) 07:52, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
Great find. But Moffit doesn't say he finished it in 1498. He just quotes a contemporaneous letter to Duke Ludovico il Moro (who commissioned
the work) which says Magistro Leonardo [da Vinci] promete finirla per tuto septembre [1498] [Master Leonardo promises to finish it fully[?] by September]. So it leaves open the question: did Leonardo fulfil his promise? 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 20:30, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
Page 78 says "most likely completed". But it was the first source I looked at in a quick search, so I'm thinking there's plenty about this with a more dedicated search. Furthermore, and the Costa dissertation is cited, so I'm thinking there's no reason not to use it. What's important is what the preponderence of the sources say. That's what we need to tease out. Victoria (tk) 20:53, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
To be honest, I'm not why this single line is suddenly so important, when this entire article is extremely dated and hugely lacking in almost every aspect. The Sala delle Asse has a few tree trunks by Leonardo which have survived. The two contemporary catalogue raisonné on Leonardo date it to 1497–1498 (Marani) and 1498–1499 (Zöllner). On the Universal Leonardo website maintained by Martin Kemp, it says "Surviving documents thought to relate to the decoration of the rooms imply a completion date of 1498 for the work."
"Completion" is a nuanced topic in Leonardo scholarship. The Mona Lisa is not technically completed. More specific analysis of "completion" past "is completed/is-not completed/not-sure" does not really belong in a general overview like this article. Aza24 (talk) 22:45, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
Yeah, I pretty much agree. I thought the discussion re self-published was kinda off topic b/c presumably by now a date has been established that should be easily found elsewhere, so I decided to look. There's no reason not to add c. 1496 to c. 1498 and be done with the discussion. I think that's what I was trying to say. The page does need work. This coming from someone who's had it on watch for at least a decade and never done anything about it. Victoria (tk) 23:06, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
I've been wanting to rewrite it for a while, and indeed I did so with the Birth and background section around a year ago. Unfortunately, after the chaos that ensued when I rewrote the Vitruvian Man article (see here), I've opted to stay away from the general topic for a bit. Aza24 (talk) 05:12, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
The single line is not important: the fuss is over WP:RS policy. Victoria's proposal seems eminently sensible, with Moffit as the citation. I will do that later today. (Almost certainly, Kemp is referring to the same letter.)
BTW, we could cite the source that cites Costa but we still couldn't cite it directly. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 08:04, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
 Done. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 14:04, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
No, Leonardo did not fulfill his promise. By August 1498, the Duke was under attack and shifted his attention to building a defense budget. Leonardo stated in Codice L: "Il duca perse lo stato e la roba e la libertà e nessuna opera si finì per lui." (the duke lost his state and property and freedom and no work was finished for him). Leonardo's contemporary biographers confirm that Leonardo never finished any of his large commissions. On the bottom half of the Sala, we can see the original drawings that were part of the preparatory phase of the decoration of the room, but these were never completed with polychromy. They were whitewashed (we are not sure when) along with the top half of the Sala and preserved that way until Beltrami's team began to remove the layers or whitewash in the 1890's. 2600:4041:2DC:5300:7501:424B:918E:C9FD (talk) 15:33, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
The revised text is circumspect, it just says that Contemporary correspondence records that Leonardo and his assistants were commissioned by the Duke of Milan to paint the Sala delle Asse in the Sforza Castle, c. 1498. We don't say that it was finished, and tbh it would be undue and off topic for this article to go into that level of detail. So if you have a citation for that information, the place to put it is Sala delle Asse. Thank you. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 18:04, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
Sorry, just noticed your edit - it looks like the person whose user name I tried to usurp a long time ago got pinged. Yes, agree that a subarticle is a good place to go into more detail. Victoria (tk) 02:19, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Cause of death

Can anyone add a reference to confirm cause of death. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beaujobs (talk • contribs) 20:12, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 February 2024

ADD in LEGACY section:

On February 12, 2024, PBS announced that LEONARDO da VINCI, a film from Ken Burns, airing November 18 & 19, 2024.

SOURCE: https://www.pbs.org/about/about-pbs/blogs/news/leonardo-da-vinci-a-new-film-from-ken-burns-to-air-on-pbs-november-18-and-19-2024/ Commaoxford (talk) 01:34, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

 Not done This is really something for Cultural references to Leonardo da Vinci#Film. Listing a minor film is WP:Trivia. – Aza24 (talk) 01:50, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 March 2024

Da vinci was a mathematician 89.197.212.158 (talk) 08:29, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate.
Note that the article is already placed in Category:15th-century Italian mathematicians. jlwoodwa (talk) 19:20, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
he was an artist first and foremost Rumplestilskin49 (talk) 02:35, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Leonardo_da_Vinci/Archive_10&oldid=1227903405"