Humanities desk
< March 10	<< Feb \| March \| Apr >>	March 12 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

March 11

Alledged election fraud

There is a sentence "Monarchists advanced suspicions of fraud that were never allowed to be proved." in the beginning of the article Italian constitutional referendum, 1946, but this is not elaborated upon in the article. Could someone explain what the fraud was about and why there were suspictions about it? Snowsuit Wearer (talk|contribs) 00:02, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's apparently citing a book, and given the lack of any other info, it could be a POV-push. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:55, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There's more information in the Italian wiki article [1]. --Xuxl (talk) 09:49, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unmarried companions and scholars and died like that

Besides Imam Nawawi and Salman Al Farsi, which other companions of Prophet Muhammad Peace be upon him and scholars died as unmarried men? I rather not to use the word bachelor or single because people might think that they were not interested in sex. Please and thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.29.33.30 (talk) 03:38, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has an article titled List of Sahabah which names many of Muhammad's companions. It would provide a good source for you to start your research. --Jayron 32 04:08, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

6th program FOCAC 2015

I tried to research 2015 FOCAC but it didn't say about what month will 6th conference occur? March? June? October 2015? How many African leaders will participate in the 2015 (6th program) FOCAC meeting besides Jacob Zuma will anybody from Malawi, Senegal, Zambia, Guinea participate. Is Xi Jinping going to be the coordinator of 6th program of 2015 FOCAC? Because I tried googleling they just said it will be in South Africa and Xi Jinping (I don't know if anybody else) will participate, any other leaders besides Jacob Zuma will participate. I just know by the article FOCAC program goes every three years, so this year we are suppose to have another one.--107.202.105.233 (talk) 04:00, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Art can't be replicated?

A long time ago, a professor claimed that one defining characteristic of art was that it could not be replicated, or it would cheapen its value. He made one exception for mass-produced well-engineered manufactured goods, though, such as high-tech refrigerators and television sets. Why are refrigerators and television sets and electronic devices not considered art, even though they involve a lot of originality and creativity in the creation process? 140.254.226.189 (talk) 16:03, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It all depends on your definition. OXO and Apple computers are both renowned for mass-produced, yet artistic, industrial design. StuRat (talk) 16:10, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There were several copies made of famous works, often by apprentices of the master who created them. Reproductions of out-of-copyright works are fairly common as well; the often cost little more than the time of the artist who makes them. For paintings, prints can be churned out for little cost. The aesthetics of prints are a different matter. In general the easier it is to make something, then then competition tends to drive down prices, however with brand prestige, luxury items can sell for far more than they cost to manufacture, compared to mass-market brands. LongHairedFop (talk) 16:49, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also, some artists (such as Jeff Koons, Alberto Giacometti, or ahem, Peter Lik) themselves produce multiple editions of the same work, which in some situations can paradoxically enhance the market value of each individual piece. As Felix Salmon notes:

It’s entirely rational to think that value goes down as edition size goes up—that if a sculpture is in an edition of six, then it will be worth less than if it were unique or in an edition of two. But the art market is weird, and doesn’t work like that—or, at least, it doesn’t work like that anymore, since it has become an extension of the luxury-goods market. In order for an artist to have value as a brand, he has to have a certain level of recognizability—and for that he needs a critical mass of work. Artists with low levels of output (Morandi, say) generally sell for lower prices than artists with high levels of output—the prime example being Andy Warhol. The more squeegee paintings that Gerhard Richter makes, the more they’re worth.

And I should clarify that this is not some newfangled phenomenon, but an established practice esp. for sculpture, eg see List of Thinker sculptures. Abecedare (talk) 21:18, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cultural appropriation may be relevant. Those pointless plastic Tiki statues probably had value once. Now "Tiki culture" means the other thing in encyclopedias. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:47, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Industrial design may explain why fridges aren't art. If the fridgemaker herself had come up with the idea, it'd be craft-based, but the committee style cheapens it (in a meaningful sense, not dollar-wise). InedibleHulk (talk) 21:55, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I can't really disagree with that, yet there must be a bit more to it. Cars, particularly high-end ones, are often discussed/valued/critiqued on values that are quite similar to those used to examine more typical artistic works. Many car enthusiasts would consider the shape/colour/textures of a car to have the same kind of aesthetics as a sculpture, for example. If that's true and car design counts as "art", then it would seem that a nice fridge could also be art. Having taken some classes in the anthropological examination of art, it seems to me that the difference between the fridge and the car and the sculpture is not in the number of designers or how it was crafted, but how they are received. Fridges aren't art only because there isn't currently a community regarding them that way. At the same time, the designer/artist/engineer responsible for the creation would also be of the same mindset. In other words, if neither creator nor audience considers something art - then it ain't. When they do - it is. Matt Deres (talk) 13:39, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I know it when I see it. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:56, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A car, no matter how artistic, is not art per se, because it won't sell in the first place if it doesn't work. To describe art as that which a community currently regards as art is to say that art is whatever you can fool people into buying, like a pet rock. μηδείς (talk) 02:00, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if any of ~~these~~ these "work", but they sure are expensive. Ten people were fooled here. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:09, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I specifically said "sold in the first place" thinking of the batmobile. It was not marketed, it was a prop for a drama--a work of art from the beginning. The same goes for antiques. In the first place they were sold. Only if they have quality and aesthetic value do they become valuable past their usefulness, but like Singer sewing machines, they would never have been made in the first place if not to be sold for a purpose. μηδείς (talk)

To the original question, fine art is usually considered something that is contemplated for its own sake, "ars gratia artis" and not utilitarian. So the comparison with refrigerators is a bit off, although of course we care about the aesthetic details of expensive objects like cars and furniture and appliances. As for reproduction, there's a difference between the rarity of an original painting, manuscript, etc., and its reproduction. Novels are written to be read, music composed to be heard, and dramas produced to be watched by large audiences. (Abecedare's points above are also quite relevant.) Nevertheless, first prints, autographed copies, animation stills, and other unique objects have much higher value than, say, a 2012 printing of Moby Dick, which you can probably get for a penny and shipping at Amazon. μηδείς (talk) 17:30, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Googling for that found me no such printing, but a delightful skink. 77 cents is as low as Amazon goes for any edition, unless you count Kindle. Zero pennies and free shipping. Eat it, Melville! InedibleHulk (talk) 02:03, 13 March 2015 (UTC) [reply]

The NY Post offered a "free" (plus shipping) deal for hardcover versions in the 2000's. I gave 2012 as an example, not to refer to any specific edition, and the printing runs are not identified by year, they just say things like "Tenth Printing". μηδείς (talk) 02:26, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Art is art because cognoscenti regard it as such. A refrigerator and a television set might not be considered art simply because they fail as art. This might not have anything to do with their existing in multiple copies. Bus stop (talk) 02:35, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"The Cog Cabrio is a top-end luxury car that combines elegance with performance. A car that says, 'I'm a man with money but also a modicum of taste'. A car that says, 'I'm not afraid to transfer $185,000 over an insecure internet connection to an unknown entity'. A car that says, 'You never accepted me, Dad, but look at me now'." InedibleHulk (talk) 02:51, 13 March 2015 (UTC) [reply]

You're giving a circular definition Bus Stop. You might as well say fart is fart because hog-nosed entities regard it as such. Again, fine art is that which is contemplated for its own sake: Britannica: "Fine art consists of those works designed to produce an aesthetic response or that (regardless of design) function as objects of aesthetic appreciation (such as paintings, sculptures, poems, musical compositions)—those human-made things that are enjoyed for their own sake rather than as means to something else. [emph. added] Useful art has both an aesthetic and a utilitarian dimension: automobiles, glass tumblers, woven baskets, desk lamps, and a host of other handmade or manufactured objects have a primarily useful function and are made for that purpose, but they also have an aesthetic dimension: they can be enjoyed as objects of beauty, so much so that a person often buys one brand of car rather than another for aesthetic reasons even more than for mechanical reasons (of which he may know nothing)." The number of copies has nothing to do with the definition of ars gratia artis. μηδείς (talk) 05:19, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The question concerns "one defining characteristic of art." That one defining characteristic of art was that "it could not be replicated, or it would cheapen its value." Is it true that replication cheapens the value of art? I think we are not talking about the monetary value of art. We are talking about its absolute value rather than its value relative to a sum of money. Does the presence of multiple copies of the same work of art cheapen the absolute value of each of those identical works of art? No, it does not. Why would it? Bus stop (talk) 05:36, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is no such thing as the absolute value or the intrinsic value of a thing, only its worth in trade (or relative worth to a person in regard to other possible possessions). I already addressed that the number of copies of Moby Dick do not affect its value as art. Abecedere addressed that for an artist to make money he has to market himself. As for defining, it requires both a genus and a differentia "balnk which is blank" genus–differentia definition The genus of fine art is man-made object, the differentia is contemplated for its own sake. A car may be manmade and artistic, but it is not contemplated for its own sake unless it becomes an unworking antique. (There is no problem that artifacts of the past become by accident the art of the present.) A sunset or a flower may be contemplated for their own sakes, but they are not manmade. A painting, a song, a poem,or a drama are all created only to be contemplated.

Non of this has anything to do with the number of copies, per se. But humans are nostalgic, and collectors prefer originals. That explains the price of original manuscripts, etc., but not their aesthetic value. The aesthetic value lies in the joy of contemplation, not the knowledge of ownership. I'll point out Ayn Rand's Romantic Manifesto as directly relevant, and her comments on art here as an example. There is also her lecture series, published as The Art of Fiction which specifically addresses the nature of literature. It says nothing about the number of books sold. :) μηδείς (talk) 05:58, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Art is fundamentally different from anything that can have a price tag on it. Many things are called art. But these are borrowed meanings of the word "art". I was in a restaurant the other day that sold "salad art" but the salad was probably not art. Bus stop (talk) 12:39, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with both your points: about the fundamental difference from other price-taggged objects, and about borrowed meanings. If there were no such thing as art for art's sake, the term art wouldn't be used. We would just have terms like beautiful, but the concept art requires objects that are only art, and nothing else. μηδείς (talk) 17:42, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think art is for art's sake, but I think art is about art. We make art as a comment on previously made art.wp:or Bus stop (talk) 14:22, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, yes, certain art may reference other art, but your assumption still relies on the necessity of original art. Art is ultimately about what people find important; human and natural beauty, great historical events and figures, or being transgressive, for example, in the case of paintings. Consider the fact that the first representative drawing children ever do are of faces and human stick figures. This is a universal; they don't draw pictures of Van Gogh paintings. μηδείς (talk) 17:03, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

On the other hand, most sculpture is capable of being cast, more-or-less ad infinitum, as, of course, are prints. Artists such as Titian, Rembrandt, and, in particular, Durer all produced prints; Rembrandt prints, nowadays, can be picked up for about £1,000 - £1,500, whereas Christie's is selling a print by Lucian Freud at an upcoming sale with an estimate of around £120,000. Make of that what you will.

Like it or not, artistic worth is related to the rarity of the print runs or edition numbers, with superior artistic worth reflected in increased financial worth. Much of the original work of Rene Lalique is made of glass blown into moulds; essentially the same process which produces milk bottles. 86.144.114.188 (talk) 16:32, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's important to clearly distinguish two types of worth: market price and aesthetic value The latter is a matter of individual judgment and is not in any way affected by the number of copies of a true work of art. Market price, however, all other things being equal, is determined by supply and demand. How much supply to provide is answered by a minimax equation. Too many copies, and your item will sell for a penny on Amazon. Too few and you will lose out on marketing potential, and suffer because of missed sales opportunities.

Let's say at a blind auction, The Mona Lisa is offered, and the bids are $20 million, $19 million, $18 million, and so on down to $14 million. The $20 million bidder wins, and the auctioneer says, "Ladies and gentlemen, we are pleased to announce that there are six additional identical copies for sale, and we will honor each of your seven bids as they were made!" If even the $20 million bidder cancels his bid, since he wanted the unique copy, as long as at least two buyers accept, the auction makes a minimum of $29 million.

Some techniques for making art result in one copy of an artwork and other techniques for making art result in more than one copy of an artwork. Bus stop (talk) 23:29, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Recording of evidence from a closed case?

Hello, I'm writing a story that involves a closed murder case where the killer was never found. An important part of the evidence is a phone recording. I was wondering, would it be possible for the average Joe who is unrelated to the case to get their hands on the recording?

Thanks! 76.216.209.128 (talk) 20:10, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, depending on your jurisdiction, you could try a Freedom of Information Act request. Those are often used by the media to get material for their stories from supposedly public records. The organizations that receive the request, can and do, however, charge you for the time to retrieve and copy the records. Also they can deny the request with a reasonable explanation. In this case, they might want to keep some details hidden from the public, so that if somebody confesses, they can verify the confession with those missing details. StuRat (talk) 20:25, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Walter de Coutances

Our article says, On 17 November 1184 Coutances was translated to the diocese of Rouen, becoming Archbishop of Rouen... Later it says, Coutances hesitated about the translation to Rouen, as the see there was poorer than Lincoln, but as an archbishopric rather than a bishopric it was of a higher status. The medieval chronicler William of Newburgh wrote that eventually Coutances' ambition overcame his greed, and he agreed to the translation. When does that mean that officially took office at Rouen then?--Christie the puppy lover (talk) 22:12, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

According to our article in French, section "Évêque puis archevêque", his solemn (or pompous) entry at Rouen happened on 24 February, 1185. (referencing Léon Alfred Jouen (canon) (preface by. André du Bois de La Villerabel), La cathédrale de Rouen, Rouen and Paris, Defontaine / Aug. Picard,‎ 1932, LXXIV Pl. - 166 p., p. 14) ---Sluzzelin talk 22:29, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merci beaucoup. --Christie the puppy lover (talk) 10:50, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

de rien ... except I messed up and had left the wrong link (to English instead of to French WP). Fixed now ... finally. ---Sluzzelin talk 20:31, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much.--Christie the puppy lover (talk) 22:03, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The five Coles brother knights

George Coles (entrepreneur) and his brothers Arthur, Kenneth, Edgar and Norman Coles were all knighted for their services to Australian business. I seem to recall reading that there was no other case of 5 brothers all receiving knighthoods, but I can't confirm this anywhere. Can anyone help? Thanks. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 23:28, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would guess that this has happened at least a few times with royal brothers. For example, the five sons of King Edward III of England who survived childhood (Edward, Prince of Wales, Lionel, Duke of Clarence, John, Duke of Lancaster, Edmund, Duke of York and Thomas, Duke of Gloucester) were all knighted (indeed all were Knights of the Garter). The seven sons of King George III of the United Kingdom who survived childhood also all seen to have been knights. Proteus (Talk) 16:04, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I was thinking of non-royal persons who actually earned their awards (the royals seem to get honours just for being royal, rather than for any meritorious service to a field of human endeavour). I know of a few cases of two knighted brothers, but don't know of any three brothers, let alone four or five, apart from the Coleses. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:05, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've found Coles company publications that say the 5 Coles brothers were unique in this regard and were acknowledged as such in the Guinness Book of Records, but I'd prefer to see an independent source for this claim. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 23:21, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If we include damehooods, there were the three Sitwell siblings: Dame Edith Sitwell, Sir Osbert Sitwell and Sir Sacheverell Sitwell. There's gotta be a list of these things somewhere. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:32, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oops. Osbert and Sacheverell were not knighted but inherited baronetcies. Edith was the only one who earned her award. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 23:36, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I was about to ask how two brothers could both inherit baronetcies: but it appears that they inherited the same baronetcy. —Tamfang (talk) 09:36, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But there isn't, as far as I can tell. Here's what I know about so far (includes later contributions by others):

Five brothers

The Coleses (above)
the 2nd Earl of Shrewsbury, Sir Christopher Talbot, the 1st Viscount Lisle, Sir Louis Talbot and Sir Humphrey Talbot

Four brothers

the 1st Marquess Wellesley, the 3rd Earl of Mornington, the 1st Duke of Wellington and the 1st Baron Cowley

Three siblings

~~The Sitwells (above)~~

Two brothers

David Attenborough and Richard Attenborough
David and Frederick Barclay
Bernard Delfont and Lew Grade
James Houblon and John Houblon [2]
Ross Macpherson Smith and Keith Macpherson Smith

Two sisters

A. S. Byatt and Margaret Drabble

If anyone knows of any others, please speak up. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:50, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've found four: the 1st Marquess Wellesley, the 3rd Earl of Mornington, the 1st Duke of Wellington and the 1st Baron Cowley, all sons of the 1st Earl of Mornington. Proteus (Talk) 23:18, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that, Proteus. Added to the list. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 23:27, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And five: the 2nd Earl of Shrewsbury, Sir Christopher Talbot, the 1st Viscount Lisle, Sir Louis Talbot and Sir Humphrey Talbot, all sons of the 1st Earl of Shrewsbury. Proteus (Talk) 23:30, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ah ha! That could do with some more sourcing, but if confirmed it would challenge the Coles claim. Perhaps we can still say the Coleses were the only modern case of five brothers. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 23:45, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose it depends on your definition of "modern", but it wouldn't surprise at all if there was an example in the 18th, 19th or early 20th century nobility. (I've found another two sets of four in the 19th/early 20th - sons of the 16th Earl of Derby and the 2nd Earl Grey - and that's on a pretty cursory look.) In such families, younger sons were often plentiful and generally went into politics, the armed forces or the church. In the armed forces in particular, they often rose far (generally due to family connections, occasionally due to real talent - as in the case of the Duke of Wellington above), and knighthoods were pretty standard for generals and admirals. Proteus (Talk) 17:52, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Three of Sir James Hay's children received an accolade: Sir Hamish Hay, Sir David Hay and Dame Margaret Salas. Sir David and Sir Hamish were identical twins. [3] Hack (talk) 18:26, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sir Charles Egerton (1848–1921) and three of his brothers were apparently knighted.[4] Hack (talk) 18:46, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sir Richard Solomon, Sir Edward Philip Solomon and Sir William Henry Solomon were all knighted. I've come across quite a few instances where two brothers were knighted — it seems it is not that uncommon. Hack (talk) 19:47, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mind week... body strong... (or possibly the other way around) ... must not use admin super-powers to WP:REDIRECT Dame Edith Sitwell, Sir Osbert Sitwell and Sir Sacheverell Sitwell to Hernia Whittlebot, Gob Whittlebot and Sago Whittlebot. --Shirt58 (talk) 11:02, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Four of the six sons of Spencer Compton, 2nd Earl of Northampton were knighted;([5]) three after the Battle of Edgehill. ([6]) jnestorius^(talk) 22:17, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And I've just created John Byron (died 1625) four or five of whose ten sons were knighted. The Cavaliers are a fruitful area for this. jnestorius^(talk) 23:57, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Seems I've open a can of knightly worms. Rich pickings here for that list article now on my To Do list. If anyone else feels like getting it started, be my guest. Thanks to all who contributed. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 00:58, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved