User talk:Penwatchdog/Archive 4

Mona Lisa replicas

I haven't read it yet, just taken a quick look.

It looks as if it would make a great DYK article.

I will rearrange some of those pics, as a great many of them are overlapping main section breaks. Amandajm (talk) 09:37, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks amandajm! BUT, if you please: inserting images at those points is a personal design-point which I'd like to keep unless against-the-law! I find that a lot of article-space is wasted in the negative-space created by those breaks, so I usually tie my images to overlap with those breaks. This is especially helpful when there is such an abundance of interesting-&-available images to use to illustrate article content! It also points the viewer to related images/content! Please keep in touch. Penwatchdog (talk) 10:14, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To my eye, it looks messy. The positioning of the double photo beneath the single one is particularly bad. I have left the stamp sitting in a group as a temporary measure.

Importantly, would you please change every use of the word "Mona" to "Mona Lisa". You know the deal on this. You are writing an encyclopedic article, and you have read the parent article. This means that you know that "Mona" is not her name, or even part of her name. It's a courtesy title like "Mrs".

Secondly Leonardo da Vinci is "Leonardo" to the majority of art historians, regardless of what Dan Brown might call him. In Florence, they called him "Leonardo from Vinci", while in Milan they called him "Leonardo from Florence". Leonardo, Michelangelo and Raphael are known by their Christian names.

There are a few other issues. I wrote about the Isleworth Madonna at some length and am disappointed to see the facts still being misinterpreted.

Let me say this again: The canvas (CANVAS i.e. cloth support, not paint) is early to mid 15th century We have a 45 year range here.

Let us suppose that Leonardo painted the Mona Lisa on canvas (despite the fact that his other pictures are on panel).

The canvas had already been made when Leonardo was born.

He didn't paint the picture as a child, or a teenager, so even if he painted it at 20, then the canvas was already at least 25 years old and might have been 70 years old.

SO, the logical conclusion is that the age of the canvas has nothing to do with the age of the painting.

All we can say for sure is that someone painted the picture on a canvas that was probably made before Leonardo was born.

As I have said before, at considerable length, it proves nothing. Serious forgers always use old canvases.

For this reason, I am annoyed at this serious mis-statement of the facts

But results of carbon-dating tests done by the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in Zurich infer the painting to have been completed between 1410 and 1455, more than a half-century earlier than the Louvre's Mona Lisa, countering claims it was a late 16th-century copy.

That ground has already been covered! Even the article doesn't go so far as to "infer" that the painting was completed at that date!

Amandajm (talk) 10:58, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please feel free to edit using any sources you may have! Or at least supply the sources and I'll gladly rework the content. I never believed I was writing the final-word anyway, and this editing process is all the nature of the beast! Your continued input is welcome and appreciated. Penwatchdog (talk) 11:19, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

… that Mona Lisa replicas (and reinterpretations) date back to the 16th century? (w/image: Sapeck? "Early"?)
… that at least six nudes are among the numerous Mona Lisa replicas (and reinterpretations)? (w/image: Nude)
… that among the numerous Mona Lisa replicas (and reinterpretations) is one by Marcel Duchamp's great-granddaughter?(no image yet, thoug I've personally solicited one from the artist)
… that Mona Lisa replicas (and reinterpretations) are possible because Leonardo da Vinci's original was created before copyright laws were enacted? (no image)
… that seaweed, coffee, and toast are among the many mediums used to create Mona Lisa replicas (and reinterpretations)? (no image)

Mundane
Good, and can be illustrated
Most readers don't know about Marcel Duchamp's picture..... or even the name of Marcel Duchamp, so his grand-daughter carries no significance. Duchamp's painting and it's cheeky name would make a DYK.
Boring
Good but needs a picture

Amandajm (talk) 02:21, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please fix the references to Leonardo da Vinci as "da Vinci". He is either "Leonardo", or "Leonardo da Vinci". The only place in the article where he ought to be referred to as "Da Vinci" is in the title of Dan Brown's book. Don't ask me to find you an art-historical reference that states "Leonardo da Vinci" is generally referred to by art historians as "Leonardo" not "da Vinci" because this isn't the sort of statement that art historians feel they need to make. Any more than they feel that they need to inform the reading public that books on Michelangelo refer to him as Michelangelo, not Buonarotti, or that books on Caravaggio tell you to call him Caravaggio, not Michelangelo which was his first name. It is simply common practice, which Dan Brown and internet writers get wrong because they are accustomed to modern name usage. Amandajm (talk) 02:34, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, yes, I'll make it my first priority to revise all da Vinci and Mona missteps! No need to push that point; completely understandable. I'll be spending time in-general over the next few hours as best I can for now. Also following through with a suggestion from Ham about getting more specific with the headers for Prado, Isleworth and Mona Vanna. Wasn't aware of of the Isleworth article of its own and I'll be adding a Main article link for that. Maybe I'll go with:

… that at least six nudes are among the numerous Mona Lisa replicas (and reinterpretations) (+dating back to the 16th century?)? (w/image: Nude)

Unless I can find a way to work the LHOOQ angle into a DYK? Unfortunately unlikely I'd be able to find an image for the seaweed option. Penwatchdog (talk) 04:09, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Amandajm (talk) 06:56, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's a possibility; surely "sand" can be added to the list of "mediums" with which Mona Lisa's been replicated, if necessary, yes? I've already made the DYK nom with "nudes" as the first choice and "seaweed" as an ALT. Also, as your message arrived I was in the process of an article edit, adding additional material to the whole "nudes" section, a Gupta LHOOQ replica, and two new sub-heads. Please have a look, and by all means keep the input coming! Thanks very much. Penwatchdog (talk) 07:56, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Leonardo da Vinci (Fame and Reputation section update)

Hi Penwatchdog, I've been working on this on and off for a few weeks, holding off submission until I could find verifiable sources to match the content I wanted to add, as well as working on other Wikipedia projects. I think its about as complete as I can get it at the moment. Please have a look at it HERE and give me your thoughts on it. I have asked the same of Amandajm as it was derived out of her suggestion. Jodon | Talk 19:25, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have to step back for now, Jodon. My dance-card is full right now, I haven't got the sources I'm thinking about close at hand, and no time to put in at the moment but I'll be keeping it in mind and contribute what I can, when I can. You're doing a good job, so keep up the good work! As an aside, I'm of the opinion that "angles" can be found in the cracks as well as scraped from the surface, especially when writing about someone like Leonardo. What often happens is you have a long list of people all quoting from the same three sources, resulting in books full of quotes or comments on what the "scholars" have written as much as the subject itself. At some point the topic is no longer da Vinci (I'm sorry, Leonardo) but instead becomes a discussion about what Vasari and Goethe and Ann Landers wrote about him. Conjecture based on theories formed from opinions. If you start relying on too many quotes, they start seeming more like padding and therefore probably not necessary. I back away from relying on scholars whenever possible; most people just use that as a way of seeming scholarly themselves, not to mention that the original scholars were also in the business of selling books and hoping to seem scholarly. A self-reinforcing dynamic touched upon in my new Mona Lisa replicas & reinterpretations wiki (and an angle you may want to expand upon here?). I've already said too much, Jodon! I'll leave it at that. Talk to you again soon. Penwatchdog (talk) 04:34, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply. I've decided to pull out of this myself, as I think my contribution would not be appreciated in the right context. If you have time, you can check my recent lengthy discussions with User:Amandajm HERE and her replies to me HERE. In a nutshell, she says my contribution would overbalance the already over-long article towards Leonardo's fame and reputation, bringing speculation into an article in which no speculation currently exists. As you can see from our discussions, we're trying to get different points across to each other. I am conceding, because I acknowledge she has already put a lot of work into the article and it already stands up well enough without me adding my two cents worth.

I like that article you're doing about the Mona Lisa replicas. I'll be keeping an eye on it. This makes me want to do the same about Leonardo's last supper. I'm actually making my own replica of that at the moment, a little hobby I've been working on for some time - a large pencil drawing (about A1 size), exact same composition, using some replicas to "fill in the gaps" so to speak left by the original, to help me complete details, particularly faces. I wish I had more time to spend on this as it has helped me "rediscover" the Leonardo I was intensely interested in from my art college days. But of course the day job and real life always take over!

In the meantime I totally agree about the the danger of the citation of authors being the only source to rely on (not just on Wikipedia but in life itself), and it becoming the standard by which to gauge everything. Leonardo himself admonished this practice. In any discussion about Leonardo, I always try to go back to the man himself, i.e. his notebooks. I think there is no better way to get closer to the way he thought or about his works than by reading his own words (not a biographer's words), which is why I tried to stress this in my discussion with User:Amandajm. Unfortunately I think the point was lost on her because her interest in Leonardo (from an art historian's point of view) does not correlate with my own (of Leonardo's "universal science" as being central to his intellect, and therefore naturally being of interest to anyone wishing to understand the man and his works better).

While I accept that Wikipedia's intentions are admirable, particularly about trying to be neutral, in my experience I have found this is quite difficult to achieve in practice - for 3 reasons; the first which you have already covered, the second being certain editors (and I don't mean User:Amandajm, I think she is very fair), abuse their seniority to give their articles a certain slant, to the exclusion of what value other Wikipedians might bring to the table. These other "junior" Wikipedians might back off because they simply don't have the clout to pursue their argument further, regardless of how valid their argument would be. The third being related to the first, in that I have heard Wikipedia being accused of being too self-referential. This may or may not be true, and a criticism of that is explored HERE, but it means you could write an article that uses liberal use of other Wikipedia articles (which themselves could be flawed), without a single external source, that follows all the other Wikipedia guidelines correctly, and then be used by some college students as a legitimate source in their studies! It means that at no point can you know for sure that you are getting all the correct knowledge about the subject in an article! Jimmy Wales has said Wikipedia is always a work in progress, and with all due respect to the man I think this is more of an excuse than a reason for its flaws. I think Wikipedia's reputation as a reliable source has suffered as a result. Wikipedia is more like an arena in which different contestants battle out their edits and arguments with each other, some winning by playing by the rules, others losing because they either don't know rules, or having discovered them, object to them.

I've probably also already said too much!

Jodon | Talk 14:19, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mona Lisa replicas and reinterpretations

Thanks for your interest and input. Yes, I'd questioned my own use of the ampersand in the title; thanks for settling that for me! Another point I'd been troubled by from the start: INFO BOX. I hate the way there's immediately just one solo sample up-front like that, without some proper boxed-overview of the article; I think an INFO BOX often makes-the-page somewhat. Are you aware of one which might be suitable there? OR, is there a simple way to compose a custom info box? Meanwhile I'm on standby for further DYK-related revisions. Penwatchdog (talk) 13:21, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for tolerating the change – ampersands really get my goat! I can't think of any infoboxes that fit the bill, and I'm not really a believer in infoboxes for infoboxes' sake. If you feel a replicas infobox would add anything then you're welcome to create one at Category:Arts and culture infobox templates, but I can't advise on how to make one. (Sorry!) Ham 14:42, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]