User talk:Amandajm/Archives/2010/December

I feel your pain...

Hi Amanda, Well, I did take a look at article on the Sagrada Familia church, and I feel your pain. Some probably well-meaning but officious editors and admins really do not understand what an immense difference knowing the subject matter makes. It's not as though you don't back up your claims with sources; it's that someone who is steeped in a subject knows better than others how to use those sources. A much better and more balanced view of the subject comes from having thoroughly absorbed the primary and secondary sources, and the subject matter overall. I too have been accused of claiming to "own" an article after I greatly modified another editor's recent edit. Yet I saw what he had added against the background of a much broader picture. He probably just casually read a bit of the article that I had largely written, and then, well-intentioned, thought he could make an additional point; while I had been deeply immersing myself in the subject matter for the last several years, and I knew that some things he was unconsciously assuming were not the case, and that the way he wrote his addition threw off the overall meaning and thrust of that part of the article. You seem to be going through something similar. The way I look at it, the Wikipedia community should be grateful that you are lending what is clearly real expertise to these architecture articles (I've looked at some of your other work and am impressed); instead, you are slapped on the wrist by those who don't know any better. As the old expression goes, no good deed goes unpunished....

Glad you like my last edits to To Autumn. As I have the chance to find and read more of the sources, I'll try to do more. Regards, Alan W (talk) 02:15, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Very, very interesting. I was not even aware of the existence of the Lucan portrait; glad to know about it now (and see it pictured here). Whatever you did in editing that article on it (though I see that the basis was by somebody else), my impression is that the balance is just about right, given that you want to avoid OR (well, maybe you don't want to avoid it, but... :^) It reports that a team of experts think it is by Leonardo; but it also gives enough other information to plant ideas in readers' minds that might suggest, well, we don't really know for sure, because no stylistic comparison has been made with Leonardo's other works, and so on. You might feel frustrated by not being able to present the results of your own observations and reflections (based on your background as an artist, and so on); but given what you have to work with, I think you've done very well to present all sides of the matter, including enough so thoughtful readers don't automatically go away thinking, This is it! Art experts have proclaimed this to be a genuine Leonardo self-portrait!

The article in its current state is actually, in my opinion, very nicely NPOV in a way that should satisfy Wikipurists yet (at least by implication) does not go entirely against the grain of what you believe to be true. (In an aside, I just thought that I had coined a word, Wikipurist. But a search reveals that it was actually coined by Thedoctor345 on February 15, 2007, in a very few sentences that to this date are his or her only contribution to all of Wikipedia. This Wikiworld—and I won't bother to look that one up—can be very strange. Maddening, too, but at times amusing.) Regards, Alan W (talk) 22:11, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Taare Zameen Par

Hello. Taare Zameen Par has been renominated for FAC here. Can you please continue the review from last time? Thanks. :) Ωphois 23:16, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

It is over...for now, at least

Hi Amanda, well, looks like Dana boomer closed the To Autumn FAR with a "keep". Don't know if you like that outcome or not. My own thinking is that you, with the help of myself and a few others (like Wetman last month), have removed enough of the rough spots so that it does justify being kept as an FA. However that may be, using the sources I got from the library I was finally able to get to, and rereading and rethinking much of the article, I have just made some more edits. Some of the points made in the article as it was were valid but obscured by ungainly and vague language. I have tried to bring out the underlying meaning. In my latest edits, I had been disturbed by the seeming self-contradiction: is it about the finality of death—or the cycle of life and death in the renewal of the seasons? It's sort of about both, but I think the opposite ideas needed to be reconciled in the "Themes" section. I did the best I could. Regards, Alan W (talk) 03:31, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Re: finality vs. cycling.... Good point you make. But, in editing what I did, what I tried for on this go-round was just to reconcile the different parts of what was already there (by Ottava and whatever collaborators/editors). In one place, the article spoke of the cycles of life sketched or symbolized in the poem. And then in another, the discussion pointed only to the finality of death, as if there was nothing at all in the poem about life cycles. (Possibly it was just a case of the source material not being assimilated that well.) The sources I've seen focus quite a bit on the latter, though quite sensibly there is also mention of the cycling. Probably a looming background fact was Keats's own impending death. I will certainly go back over the material, try to find more sources, reconsider what I've said, and so on. I don't know if you plan to do more editing—I know you have plenty of other irons in the fire these days—but if you do, I'll be interested to see what you come up with. Regards, Alan W (talk) 03:39, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your kind comments! And you know that I appreciate your work as well, not only on To Autumn but in your other Wikipedia contributions. Quite an impressive body of work on church architecture and other art! I'm glad our paths crossed, even if it had to take a "dreadful row" to do it. This kind of supportiveness that shows itself from time to time in the Wikipedia community really helps sustain me over here. You know how much effort it takes to do Wikipedia articles well, and, well, we are certainly not getting any money for it. Sorry to hear that you've been ill, and can understand your need to lay back a bit and recuperate. I'll see what I can do meanwhile. (Though in my case, there is my "day job", which can be draining at times. Well, one must make a living somehow.) Feel better! Regards, Alan W (talk) 04:16, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Just looked back at the intro. In fairness, I'd say you are more responsible for its current improved state than I am! Inspired by the editorial tightening you did there a while back, I just pruned some excesses in the Background section. Regards, Alan W (talk) 04:41, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Fra Angelico

Remember? we knew each other when you started modifying his article... now I've added articles on some of his paintings, Coronation of the Virgin (Angelico, Uffizi) and Coronation of the Virgin (Angelico, Louvre), as well as Adoration of the Magi (Lorenzo Monaco) and Coronation of the Virgin (Lorenzo Monaco) by his master. If you've time and will, maybe you can give a helpful check to my poor English. Ciao, thanks in advance and good work!! --'''Attilios''' (talk) 15:18, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Lucan portrait

Thanks for bring my attention to that interesting article. I'd been vaguely aware of the Lucan portrait but hadn't given it much attention. I don't think I have anything to add on the page - you and some others seem to be voices of caution, and caution certainly seems warranted. My own opinion is that the artist shows considerable weaknesses - the shadowed side of the face is skewed (look at the position of the eye and the curve of the mouth), and the entire painting seems oddly flat. But those are personal opinions only. I think what's behind this is some personal career-building by certain Italians, although what Hohenstatt is up to baffles me - surely he can see that this is by a third-rate artist? PiCo (talk) 23:45, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Cutn'paste Lucan portrait, POV material

Is the Lucan Portrait a self portrait?

Stylistically, almost certainly not.

• It's not in oils, which is what Leonardo painted in, from the time he painted the angel into Verrocchio's Baptism of Christ.

WRONG (Juniper's reverse, at least)

• It is totally lacking in Leonardo's trademark sfumato. One would expect the corners of the eyes and mouth to be subtley shaded. They are not.

WRONG The left eye and the mouth were sfumato before they were overpainted. Look at the photos, await restoration

• Light: Leonardo's painting have sparks of light which are non-existent in the Lucan portrait.

WRONG - (You are thinking of Zorzon's method?)

• Leonardo paints hair in a highly linear way, strand by strand. The individual strands reflect bright light. This method of painting hair, which is consistent from the Angel in the Baptism through to the John the Baptist, is non-existent in the Lucan portrait.

WRONG - look at the high res pictures of his beard

• Forensic evidence on the soft tissues indicates an accuracy of the facial muscles. This is to be expected from any post-Leonardo portrait painter worthy of the name, and many of his contemporaries- particularly Domenico Ghirlandaio, Gentile Bellini, Fillipino Lippi and Raphael. It proves nothing. Particularly since there is no sign of a skull below the flesh (see below.)
• Comparison with Lady with an Ermine doesn't hold up, for a number of reasons.

1. Lady with the Ermine is one of the least well authenticated of Leonardo's paintings.

No one of note disputes this painting.

1. It is certain that someone else had a hand in Lady with an Ermine. The black background is repainted by someone else, for a start.

This is 'overpainting' and is taken into account.

• Leonardo's paint surfaces are often so smooth that he undoubtedly smoothed paint with his fingers. If this was his practice, then his students and assistants would have followed the same practice. The fingerprints on both works could belong to anyone who worked on them. To have students working on ones paintings was normal practice. Verrocchio, after all, allowed a student a free hand with one of his works.

Students and assistants were employed to do the boring background stuff, NOT the fine finishing touchs such as smoothing down intricate brush strokes.

Comparison

• The painting does not hold up well when compared with this portrait (exhibit A) [1], which is not considered to be by Leonardo, but by someone imitating his style. The Lucan portrait appears to be a copy of this, not the other way around..

There are lots of copies of the Lucan painting, and this is one of them. it is very well known to the Leonardo community because of the issues you raise. I've never studied it because it was out of the picture before I got involved, but believe it's carbon date is several hundred years out? It doesn't recognise or copy Leonardo's 'magical' construction with a 'ghost' in the beard and a puzzle on the reverse to make the viewer see the painting at a narrow raked angle to make it lifelike.

• Exhibit A is dynamic in its expression. It is dynamic in its forms. And it is dynamic in its use of light and shade. The Lucan portrait is very bland by comparison. It is typical of a copy. Everything is in more-or-less the same place, more-or-less the same proportion, and more-or-less the same tonality, but none of it is done as well.

Wait until the Lucan is restored, then compare them.

1. In the Lucan portrait the facial proportions are less accurate, and the whole lot is just slightly elongated and skewed. This is explained away by saying that the face is seen as if viewed in a mirror by two eyes. No- it's just badly proportioned. While a scientific analysis of the "soft-tissue" might confirm accuracy, the structure of the skull over which that tissue lies is decidely warped and in places non-existent. Exhibit A has a solid and properly formed bone structure under the flesh and hair, and in part defined by the hat that encloses it. The hat in the Lucan Portrait does nothing to define a 3-D skull- it merely imitates the shape of the hat in Exhibit A. The artist who painted exhibit A understood exactly the positional relationship of an eyebrow to the bony brow and eye-socket over and around which it curves. The painter of the Lucan portrait plainly did not.

Please give who/when details of Exhibit A

1. The shadows in the Lucan portrait are very "normal" side lit shadows. They add no drama.

Again I point out that shadow/sfumato elements which occur up the left of the face have been overpainted and need to be restored. The bottom half of the picture, consisting mainly of hair, is absolutely classic sfumato - the word is peculiar to Leonardo and means a smoky looking out of focus effect. Look at the high-res pictures I posted.

They do not "disguise" or give mystery or intensity. They are the sort of shadows that 1,000 artists could have achieved. Exhibit A looks as if it was done by someone who had learned Leonardo's lessons, either first hand (like Melzi or Boltraffio) or had the techniques passed down, or had studied Leonardo's works. The picture has drama.

So what? lots of pictures have drama, and remember; you won't address the issue of the Ghost I see as the foundation of the artwork, so can hardly say the Lucan does not "disguise" or give mystery or intensity!

1. Leonardo advised his students to rotate the head to a different axis to the body.

The body isn't part of the portrait, so contraposto is not a possibility.

In neither of these paintings is this done, which is a case for neither of them being by Leonardo himself.

Leonardo used the contraposto (twisted body) technique to give 'life' to his paintings, but in this painting he uses a different technique - there is a ghostly image of a face looking in the opposite direction painted into the beard, so that there is a 'twisted face' effect which the brain sees as movement (life) as it resolves the confusing image to a single view.

1. However, in Exhibit A, we do see a very solidly three-dimensional body, despite the depth of shadow. It has shoulders and a jutting chest. The fur border to the garment defines the form of the chest over which it lies. The fur also has its own three-dimensionality and substance- it really does look like fur springing from stiff leather and applied to a garment. Likewise, the edge of the hat defines a three-dimensional shape that curves around the head and casts a shadow over the forehead. In the Lucan portrait there is no form to the body whatsoever. The fur band is present, but it has no defining role. This is typical of a copy in which a shape and colour is simply reproduced without any sense of the form that they signify.

We are talking about the Lucan painting, not Exhibit A. Exhibit A has none of the Lucan's magic life-giving construction. It is the poor copy

1. The Hair of the head and beard in Exhibit A spings with life. It has (again) three dimensional form, both of itself and in defining the underlying form of the shoulder and chest over which the hair is lying. The bright touches of light that define the eyebrow ridge, the edge of the nose and the cheekbone also shine on the beard. The hair of the Lucan portrait is soft and limp. It is nicely painted, but it does nothing to convey form.

It is intended to convey a feeling of LIFE (with the blowing of a kiss, I think), not to convey form

1. The expressiveness of the wary, warning gaze and compressed lips in Exhibit A speak to us of an intensely private person for whom the exercise of being painted is an intrusion. We can believe that this is Leonardo, the genius, who wrote thousands of words and yet told us absolutely nothing of what was below the surface. In the Lucan portrait, the face is made softer because it has lost its drama and a lot of its form. The mouth is somewhat pursed and utterly unlike any that Leonardo ever painted. Mouths painted by Leonardo have a three-dimensionality not present here. The area of the upper lip,between the mouth and nose is ill-defined in form.

The unusual shape of the mouth is critical in the determination of the painting's function. It has been overpainted later by someone else, probably in a brighter red to enhance the 'kiss' effect, and restoration is awaited.

My personal opinion is that to continue to push the Lucan portrait as the work of Leonardo does not do justice to the artist.

This is from a person who is happy to show Turin's so-called self-portrait at Wiki's Masthead. "Not doing justice to the artist"? Can you imagine Leonardo's cringe if he knew how he was being misrepresented by people who should know better?

There are many finer works than this which art historians treat with caution when it comes to ascribing them to the master. These include The Musician, La Belle Ferronniere, Madonna of the Spindle, Madonna Litta and the Bacchus. A glance at the Musician shows that (although incomplete) it has many of the characteristic that I have described here, and that are lacking in the Lucan portrait. The Musician is very much closer in style and quality to the Lady with the Ermine than the Lucan portrait is.

Except for Lady with an Ermine, and a cartoon for Madonna with a spindle, None of the paintings you list above are by Leonardo. You are missing the point about Leonardo's paintings. They are not assigned to Leonardo on account of their prettiness, but on account of their magical quality of being able to look lifelife, and this element of magic is provided by various constructional inventions such as contraposto and the Lucanesque way of having a portrait 'kiss' the beholder. Nobody has copied this construction, which indicates the Lucan as having priority over all the others.

I expect Friday's Press Conference will state the opinion of the gathered experts. Will Wiki accept this?

202.180.123.144 (talk) 02:06, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Amandajm (talk) 14:55, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Response

• Firstly, I believe that the picture that I have referred to as "Exhibit A" belongs to the Uffizi, but I am unable to confirm this. It appears to be the original of all the numerous egraved portraits that have been created for printed books, particularly in the 19th century. In the 19th century it was thought of as a Leonardo, but (undoubtedly because of increasing familiarity of art historians with other works) this attribution did not last.

You should not use words like "undoubtedly" unless you are sure. In this case I believe the date didn't survive tests, so there are doubts.

Are you seriously arguing with this statement? I believe that the "Exhibit A" portrait was dropped from consideration as a genuine Leonardo prior to the use of sophisticated dating techniques.

• When I say that it is the original of the engraved portraits, that is not necessarily to say that it is the first portrait of this form of Leonardo. This and the Lucan portrait may both derive from another (lost) picture. One thing is for sure however- this painting does not derive from the Lucan portrait, because it's handling is much more assured.

Bullshit

It is not bullshit. Its lighting is more sophisticated and its anatomy is infinitely better.

Further response to this: yes, the painting belongs to the Uffizi. It already queried by the end of the 19th century, and an x-ray confirmed another painting underneath, suggestive of a C17th date.

However, the fact remains that it is far more 3D and solidly constructed, which suggests that both the Uffizi painting and the Lucan painting are based on a lost original.

• The face (of exhibit A) is of entirely more solid construction than the Lucan portrait (ie it appears to have a skull). So is the body, so is the hat, so is the beard. Everything about Exhibit A has a greater three-dimensionality of form.

To say that a flat, warped image (Lucan portrait) was later copied to give a solidly 3-D image (Exhibit A) is a foolish denial of the process by which copying occurs.

When an image is copied, the shapes are nearly always reproduced in a much flatter way. The skewed, flattened form of the Lucan face and the formless body and hair that no longer defines or is defined in form are all patent marks of a copied work, rather than an original. It is absolutely clear that the Lucan portrait is derivative.

Explaining away the flattened form of the face as "magical quality" is wishful thinking, (at the best), and a misuse of the evidence (at the worst). The skewing of the face is simply poor draughtsmanship!

You should not use words like "absolutely clear" when you have no idea what you are talking about

You are right. It certainly isn't "absolutely clear". It is clear to me.

• The sfumato is not in evidence. This is not because it has been painted out. If the technique had been employed, then we would see it in the shadows of the corner of the eye and mouth that are towards us, not just the side that is away.

With this comment you demonstrate just how ill-informed on Leonardo you actually are, because the bottom half containing the Ghostly image is pure sfumato

This is so much nonsense! The term sfumato pertains to what Leonardo does with the shadows on flesh, specifically! His painting of hair is usually crisp.

• I find the notion of the kiss, and the artist wanting the viewer to rotate the board in order to see a very badly-lettered inscription to be fanciful.

That is your right.'

• As for the ghost on the beard: In any nebulous shape, such as hair, clouds, waves, cracks in the pavement, glazed tiles or toasted bread one can see shapes. The human eye is drawn to make faces out of anything that has two blobs at the top and a gash at the bottom. Faces of Jesus have miraculously appeared on every conceivable type of object from communion wafers to milkshake slops on a laminex counter.

I suppose that is why you removed the ghost's photo I posted for everyone to see?

Exactly!

These matters, the "ghost", the "kiss" and the supposedly puposeful distortion in order to get the viewer to rotate the picture, are all distractions from the simple fact that the painting is not nearly high enough quality to be the work of Leonardo da Vinci.

Oh? how would you know, and when did you view it?

Believe me, if I thought that this work looked like a Leonardo, I would be very happy to say so. I cannot agree with you.

PINXIT MEA

• I don't believe that this was written by a left-handed person who habitually wrote from left to right. I believe that this was written by a right-handed person who had written it out first, then copied the letters, making the letters backwards, but actually writing them in reverse, ie in the order AEM - TIXNIP. This accounts for:

1. why the letters have the same slope as a right-handed writer would give them, not the rather upright or left-slanting slope usual to Leonardo's writing. (The upper loops, when present, slope left)
2. why the last two letters (I and P) are crowded ie. the writer has made the I, then the downstroke of the P without leaving leaving quite enough room for the body of the P.
3. why the writing looks awkward and not like the hand of a man who normally wrote comfortably backwards.

What if the painting was hanging on a wall when Leonardo had a notion to put a puzzle on the back to amuse people. He would have pulled the painting away from the wall and turned it over. Then he would have painted the script on the back. Working with his left hand he would have reached up to work in the vertical plane, which is awkward enough to cause the script to be curved in an armlength unruled radius, as it is. Does that answer your questions?

Please! Leonardo didn't paint for "galleries". Painting a "puzzle" to amuse people is very unlikely. On the other hand, if he painted his portrait as a gift for someone, it is possible he might have done that, so the recipient knew it was his work (not the work of a pupil). You have to remember that leonardo was not painting for a "public audience" ie a public gallery (where his works have generally been hung). He nearly always painted for a client. When you suggest that he did it to "amuse people" (ie a viewing public) then you are not thinking within the times.

Amandajm (talk) 11:34, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Another matter- the feather?

What I want to know is, was the feather removed from the painting or simplt digitally removed for the upload? >>The version Wiki uses was altered digitally by myself. I expect it will be removed from the portrait in the restoration process<<

It looked to me like a rather nicely painted feather.

Yes, shame to have to remove it

Yes, particularly as the great painter of white feathers was...... that fellow who always painted white feathers on people's hats..... Now, who was it?..... perhaps we have a Leonardo that once belonged to...... Oh dear, I have forgotten his name! ..... I challenge you to discover who the painter of white feathers was..... Do find out before it is removed! Amandajm (talk) 11:32, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I have replies to the initial post from both Nico and Gianni - neither very complimentary! The first is from Nico per Google Translate, so some of the stynax &c. is a bit scrambled, and the second is from Gianni in English;

Dear Murray,

I do not mind the "challenge" in this jurisdiction. His arguments are devoid of logic, who is he? , Is a scholar? , Has written books about Leonardo? Has seen the painting Lucan?

Its stupid statements do not deserve to be replicated.

The painting Lucan [corrected- AJM] was recognized as a self-portrait from international crtitica. Friday, 'Dec. 3 will be on display in the most important Italian museum: the Capitoline Museums and placed next to [the] portrait of [the] musician, moved from Milan.

The allegations of this pseudo-scholar I am not interested, perhaps in Italy and is discussing.

As for Wikipedia, they must be good news and no nonsense. If the painting is attributed to Leonardo can not write SCHOOL OF LEONARDO, Who says so? Who is the scholar who claims the school? If this news is not correct denounce 'everything to the Italian police.

Forget that the fingerprints found on the panel were recovered by the Police and not by individuals.

A hug,

Nicola

Hello Murray all the observations are just stupid suppositions made by who doesn't know the Lucan portrait nor the Uffizi Portrait. Very easy to answer to every consideration. I will do it as soon as possible.

All the best

Gianni

(I think they are shooting from the hip and forget you might like to write the eventual article because you do it so well. Please forgive my hot-blooded friends!) 202.180.123.144 (talk) 12:10, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I very much look forward to reading Gianni's response to this. For the attribution to be correct, it must answer on stylistic grounds. Amandajm (talk) 14:19, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

NOTE: a couple of minor edits were made to the Google translation, for the sake of clarity. See history to compare versions. Amandajm (talk) 11:32, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Question

• When this painting first came to light, Alessandro Vezzosi, Director of the Museo Ideale Leonardo da Vinci at Vinci, proposed an attribution to Cristofano dell'Altissimo.
• Has the painting been properly investigated in the light of other works by this artist? If not, why not?

Similarities include:

• size and format
• base and medium
• position of figure
• relation of head and body, ie. turned at same angle (unlike Leonardo's practice and advice)
• 3/4 face with eyes toward viewer
• the expression of the eyes, despite the fact that they are very different shapes and colours
• the slightly pursed mouth with a very well-defined point to the centre of the upper lip (characteristic of Cristofano's portraits), shadow that defined the upper lip as concave on either side of the bow. (characteristic of Cristofano's painting of mouths and the opposite to the convex curves of the upper lips painted by Leonardo), the sharp definition of the underlip.

The "kissy" quality of the Lucan Leonardo lips is apparent in almost every portrait Cristofano painted, regardless of whether it is a beautiful youth with a full African mouth, a handsome duke, a thin-lipped old patriarch, a gay philosopher or a fat Pope with an underslung lower law.

Please note: Everything that is written here by me is personal opinion. That is why it is on the discussion page, not in the article. In the article, I have presented the facts that the dating of the board, and the examination of the fingerprints make the attribution a possibility. However, I don't consider the matter proven. I cannot write that it is a Leonardo. It is best to be cautious.

Amandajm (talk) 13:53, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Here's a theory...

....to equal the theory of the ghost, the kiss and the puzzle.

Forget for a moment the question of whether or not Leonardo painted the Lucan portrait.

• The evidence indicates a late 15th/early 16th century date. OK.
• The evidence indicates a 17th century date for the Uffizi portrait.
• The evidence of ones eyes is that the Uffizi portrait is more 3D, more dynamic, and has bodily structure lacking in the other. This leads a critical thinker to believe that the more structured picture is NOT the copy. (As an aside, I must say here that the highly scientific mind of Leonardo da Vinci was most unlikely to put aside the sciences of anatomy and light in order to play games with his viewer. This alone suggests it is by another hand. But just for the sake of the theory, it doesn't matter!)
• So what say this painting (the Lucan one) by some artist who had disregarded form (be it Leonardo, Cristofano or whoever), fell into the hands of a highly competent artist for whom structure was of great significance, and who used light to define it. This artist admired the great Leonardo, and had learned (by osmosis perhaps) some of his scientific approach to anatomy and light, and some of his technique. This artist then paints (on a previously-used surface) a copy of the portrait of his hero... much more dynamic and three dimensional than the original, ....and he leaves a little sign on the Lucan portrait, to show that he once had it in his hands- the white feather!
• The Lucan portrait, white feather and all, sits on a shelf and waits to be found.
• Meanwhile the other portrait finds its way into the Uffizi. It's obviously a rather good picture, so it is presumed a self portrait, until it becomes apparent that it isn't....
• .....but because it is by an artist lost and forgotten for two centuries, it fell into unwarranted obscurity.
• Can I suggest that the painting belonging to the Uffizi

1. might provide valuable insight into the Lucan portrait
2. is worth investigation in its own right, because whoever painted it was no mean painter.

Amandajm (talk) 15:27, 2 December 2010 (UTC)