Talk:The Allegory of Faith

I like it

I like the changes. However, some of the wording I think is a little difficult to understand. "This and Vermeer's only other, earlier, allegory, Art of Painting are his only works that fall under history painting in the contemporary hierarchy of genres, though they still have his typical composition of one or two figures in a domestic interior." Mainly that part. Its the first sentence thats confusing. It is gramatically correct it just sounds weird. Is it just me? --Kurtcool2 (talk) 15:58, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Very nice job

This article is much improved...Modernist (talk) 01:19, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Plagiarism?

This entire article of info on the "Allegory of the Catholic Faith" was taken from http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/verm/ho_32.100.18.htm[1]. I'm pretty sure this counts as plagerism. It is word for word. Recommend that someone reword this or something. Kurtcool2 (talk) 19:35, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Would you please give details on how you think the article text is plagiarized? I'm the editor who wrote it. I did use some similar phrasing, but it's a rewrite, not copied text, not "word for word" except for the small part in quotes. I took a look at Wikipedia:Plagiarism and I can't find where it describes anything that could be identified as plagiarism in this article. If you can show me some plagiarism here, I'd be happy to change it myself. -- CountryDoctor (talk) 00:16, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Frankly it looks like you took the Met text and rearranged the paragraphs. Try rephrasing a little more. The picture shows an idealized woman representing the Catholic faith, adoring heaven, represented as a glass sphere dominating the globe (the mundane nature of which is indicated by its realistic rendering). -> That's word for word, the mundane nature? ...Modernist (talk) 00:21, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Please take another look. I'm putting my text and the website's text here for comparison. First, the museum's text:

The idealized figure is the Catholic Faith, who adores heaven in the form of a glass sphere and dominates the globe (its mundane nature seems suggested by realistic description). In the foreground, the cornerstone of the church (Christ) crushes a serpent (the Devil) near the apple of original sin, which required the Savior's sacrifice. On the table, a crucifix, a chalice, a long silk cloth (perhaps a priest's stole), a large book (presumably the Missale Romanum), and a crown of thorns refer to the sacrament of the Eucharist, which was especially denigrated by Protestant critics of the time. The setting resembles a small chapel set up in a private house, as Catholic "hidden churches" were in the Dutch Republic.

My text:

The picture shows an idealized woman representing the Catholic faith, adoring heaven, represented as a glass sphere dominating the globe (the mundane nature of which is indicated by its realistic rendering). In the foreground, a block representing the cornerstone of the Church (Christ) crushes a snake (the Devil), and on the floor closer to the woman is an apple, representing the apple of original sin in the Garden of Eden, which required the sacrifice of the Saviour. On the table are a long cloth of silk (possibly a priest's stole), a large book (perhaps the Missale Romanum), a crucifix, a chalice, and a crown of thorns. The last three items refer to the sacrifice of Jesus and the sacrament of the Eucharist, which was denigrated by Protestant critics in Vermeer's time. The setting may be a small chapel of a private house — a typical Catholic "hidden church" in the Dutch Republic of the time.[1]

Please show me what is "word for word". I think to be "word for word" it actually has to be, you know, word for word. I rewrote. I did it closely, but it's a pretty simple description (although it also points out the allegory elements) and I don't yet see how it's wrong or violates a rule. CountryDoctor (talk) 00:40, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Something else. I notice you mention the words "mundane nature". That isn't an uncommon phrase, and it doesn't deserve to be in quotes. I'm also not sure that there's a better way of writing that idea (I'm open to suggestions). A Google search of it got 97,000 results. [2] If you look at the "What is not plagiarism" section of Wikipedia:Plagiarism you see two items in that list that may apply here. First, this seems to apply: "Use of common expressions and idioms, including those that are common in various sub-cultures such as academic ones. In order to qualify as a "common expression or idiom": the phrase must have been used without attribution at least 2 years ago by someone other than the originator and in a reliable source, in other words one that is likely to have watchful editors and lawyers." Another item talks about lists, and this paragraph seems to be a list, but that item is about attribution, not wording.

One reason this is important to me is that I'm planning on creating more articles about Vermeer paintings and creating them initially the same way -- relying on museum web pages for the initial, simple information. I hope to expand the articles, and in that way the words that concern you will probably eventually change somewhat, but rewording certain language that doesn't appear to be too creative in the original source is something I expect to do in the same way I did it here. If I'm violating some policy or even good practice, I'd rather know early. Thanks. CountryDoctor (talk) 01:12, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

• Comment They are way too close, rewrite before you do any more articles, if you can't see that for yourself then do not make any more articles...Modernist (talk) 01:43, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

In the future, would you please follow the example of Johnbod and JNW's comments below? I asked for information and explanations and indicated I was receptive to that in a civil discussion. Giving me orders (or what seems like an order) in capital letters wasn't the best response. Their responses couldn't have been more effective. Just think about it. I appreciate your concern though, and I think you'll be satisfied with the changes. CountryDoctor (talk) 03:24, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree; much too close. There are some basic things "the picture was donated to the museum in 1912 .... measures x by x" etc that there are only so many ways of phrasing, but repeating so many phrases exactly with words like "mundane" & "denigrate" repeated isn't acceptable. I'd suggest you find another source or 2 online - not hard with Vermeer - & write up from the 2 or 3 or them, in your own words. It's not a WP definition that applies here, but the normal legal one. "Use of common expressions and idioms" covers something like "Dutch Golden Age painting" - that "mundane nature" has been used in entirely different contexts is neither here nor there - has anyone else used it in discussing this painting? From the policy:"It can also be useful to perform a direct comparison between cited sources and text within the article, to see if text has been plagiarized, including too-close paraphrasing of the original. Here it should be borne in mind that an occasional sentence in an article that bears a recognizable similarity to a sentence in a cited source is not generally a cause for concern. Some facts and opinions can only be expressed in so many ways, and still be the same fact, or opinion. A plagiarism concern arises when there is evidence of systematic copying of the diction of one or more sources across multiple sentences or paragraphs." Johnbod (talk) 01:55, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

It is close, and doesn't have to rise to word-for-word plagiarism to be problematic; WP:PARAPHRASE would seem to apply. Even if the intent is good, and creating articles on Vermeer paintings is a very good thing, the written articulation of ideas must be clearly differentiated from that of the sources. JNW (talk) 02:18, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, Johnbod and JNW, those quotes and links were very helpful. I thought close paraphrasing was OK, but it isn't, so I'll rewrite. Part of the problem here is that plagiarism in universities and plagiarism in Wikipedia is defined a bit differently, at least if this page [3] is representative of the academy. It seems clear (to me, anyway) that what Indiana University finds acceptable in paraphrasing is something Wikipedia wouldn't (or maybe I just don't understand it well enough yet). I think it has to do with copyright concerns, as the WP:PARAPHRASE essay explains. It seems to me if more rephrasing is done, it won't matter whether or not particular words are in the article, but I'll work on it and, if you don't mind, ask you what you think of it later. Thanks again. CountryDoctor (talk) 03:24, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Sure - it is very hard to rewrite one source at roughly the same length. With 2-3 available, some with luck more detailed, I'm sure you won't find it too much of a problem, and the final result will be better too. Johnbod (talk) 03:36, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

• Response Hey. I'm just reading the continued talk now. I was delayed because of school and did not log on for a week or so. Thanks to all who agreed with me that the wording in this article was too similar to the wording on the original web posting. Also thanks to CountryDoctor for taking the time to rewrite the article. If you want to talk to me, please write on my talk page. --Kurtcool2 (talk) 14:57, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

This is the original source text:

The idealized figure is the Catholic Faith, who adores heaven in the form of a glass sphere and dominates the globe (its mundane nature seems suggested by realistic description). In the foreground, the cornerstone of the church (Christ) crushes a serpent (the Devil) near the apple of original sin, which required the Savior's sacrifice. On the table, a crucifix, a chalice, a long silk cloth (perhaps a priest's stole), a large book (presumably the Missale Romanum), and a crown of thorns refer to the sacrament of the Eucharist, which was especially denigrated by Protestant critics of the time. The setting resembles a small chapel set up in a private house, as Catholic "hidden churches" were in the Dutch Republic.

I did a quick rewrite to avoid the original phrasing as much as possible:

In the Dutch Republic at the time, secret churches were created inside private houses for Catholic worshippers. The painting shows an interior of this kind and the main figure of the woman symbolises the Catholic Faith. The glass globe over her head is a symbol of heaven and the object of her veneration; the globe on which her right foot rests shows the domination of the mundane world. Other symbolic items, which rest on the table, are a book—likely to be the Missale Romanum—a silk cloth, allusive of a priest's stole, a crown woven from thorns, a chalice and and a crucifix: these items denote the ceremony of the sacrament of the Eucharist, which Protestant opponents during this period particularly condemned. On the floor at the front of the picture, there is blood from a serpent, symbolising the devil, killed by the weight of a church cornerstone, symbolising Christ, whose ultimate sacrifice is necessitated by original sin, symbolised by an apple lying nearby.

However, for the article I would use at least one other source and mix that in, also perhaps splitting the initial information over more than one paragraph, so the resemblance to the original source is reduced even more. Some things could be omitted, e.g. not all the items on the table need to be mentioned. A small amount of accurate interpretation or addition (e.g. the blood) creates more distance from the original. I have often found it is necessary to use more words than the original to avoid duplication, e.g. changing "crown of thorns" to "a crown woven from thorns". Changing the order in which features are described also breaks up the resemblance to the original: I started with the private church which the source finished with. Use synonyms wherever possible, e.g. secret for hidden. Ty 16:34, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Hum - the source is careful not to say the scene represents a hidden church. Crown of thorns is certainly a "common expression and idiom" & efforts to avoid duplicating it are wasted - if a phrase works as a relevant link it is highly likely to pass the "common expression" test. Otherwise yes of course. There are plenty of other things to talk about here - the most untypical Baroque pose of the figure, the curtain & so on. Lots of stuff here. Johnbod (talk) 18:06, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm working on a major expansion based on the "Essential Vermeer" website, a book about Vermeer paintings by Sylvia Cant, a catalogue of the previous Metropoliatn Museum of Art exhibition on Vermeer and, as soon as I get the chance, a book by Arthur Wheelock who curated the exhibit of all or just about all the Vermeers at the National Gallery of Art in Washington. Last night I started some notes on my own talk page for an initial rewrite. I get the impression from the Essential Vermeer website, comparing it to what I've seen in Cant and the MMA website, that the interpretation of the various symbols varies a bit, depending on the source. In a day or two I should have the thing much expanded and entirely rewritten. (And I'm very open to changes in it because I'm not used to writing about art.) Sometimes WikiProjects have suggested models for types of articles. Is there one at any Wikiproject for works of art? Thanks for your comments, everybody. CountryDoctor (talk) 19:25, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Featured articles that we worked on, such as The Swimming Hole or The Third of May 1808 might be helpful. Cheers, JNW (talk) 21:29, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Here they all are, Category:FA-Class visual arts articles, but there is no set style. The still-not-ratified-by-the-Senate Wikipedia:WikiProject Visual arts/Art Manual of Style may help on detail. Johnbod (talk) 00:03, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

• I finally added to the article a rewrite I'd been working on. CountryDoctor (talk) 12:08, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

edits

One reason I had a separate (admittedly, really small) section on the "Similarity with the Art of Painting" was because I wanted to leave space for other illustrations in the iconography section. Wheelock's book has pictures from the two emblem books I mention in the text which show very strongly how Vermeer took elements from them and put them in the painting. If I can find those images online, I'll copy them that way, otherwise I'll try to use my scanner to get the images right off my copy of Wheelock's book. Also, there's more information to put in that iconography section from other works (I just haven't had the time until this weekend).

One fun thing I've noticed is that Walter Liedtke of the Metropolitan Museum of Art is pretty blunt in criticizing Wheelock's judgments about this painting and The Milkmaid, so I may include some of that in a "Critical reception" section. Both experts are supposed to appear at a panel discussion at the museum in early November, and I think I might show up to see the fireworks. CountryDoctor (talk) 13:33, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I've moved this here from my talk. You should be able to find the Ripa emblems online, & of course the art of painting image can be moved. I thought it might be confusing putting it next to the description. I'm sure the experts will be very polite, but the discussion would be interesting. I think the comparison works well in the lead, as it brings out what makes this unusual, and then unique, in Vermeer's oeuvre, which is something the lead should cover. Johnbod (talk) 13:43, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Looks good, actually. I thought you were moving the text along with the pic into the "Iconography" section, but it seems to work in the lead. I expect to continue adding to the article later. CountryDoctor (talk) 14:03, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

The MET published a pamphlet titled "The Milkmaid" because of the sepcial exhibiton of the painting. There is some interesting information in there about alot of the better known paintings by Vermeer including the Allegory. If your interested in furthering your revision of the article to its pinicle, I suggest you get a copy. --Kurtcool2 (talk) 17:22, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

File:Johannes Vermeer, Allegory of the Catholic Faith, The Metropolitan Museum of Art.jpg to appear as POTD soon

Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Johannes Vermeer, Allegory of the Catholic Faith, The Metropolitan Museum of Art.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on March 19, 2020. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2020-03-19. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :) Thanks! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:25, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Picture of the day

The Allegory of Faith is an oil-on-canvas painting by Dutch Golden Age artist Johannes Vermeer. Painted in the early 1670s, it is now in the collection of the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York City, where it has been since 1931.

The painting depicts a finely dressed woman, representing the Catholic faith, sitting on a platform, with her right foot on a terrestrial globe and her right hand on her heart. She looks up, adoringly, at a glass sphere hung from the ceiling by a blue ribbon. Her left arm rests on the edge of a table which holds a golden chalice, a large book, and a crucifix. Resting on the book is a crown of thorns. At the bottom of the picture is an apple, and near that a snake squashed by a cornerstone. In the dim background hangs a large painting of the crucifixion of Jesus. Much of the symbolism, including the colour of the woman's clothing, her hand gestures, and the presence of the crushed snake and the apple, may have come from Cesare Ripa's emblem book Iconologia.Painting credit: Johannes Vermeer