Humanities desk
< May 14	<< Apr \| May \| Jun >>	May 16 >

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

May 15

Spanish aristocratic numbering

I happened to notice that the infobox at John of Castile, Lord of Valencia de Campos says that María II Díaz de Haro was one of his wives and that María Díaz II de Haro was his daughter. It struck me as a trifle unlikely that they would have the same name and number, until I noticed that the "II" in the two names is in a different place, and in fact the two women have different articles: María II Díaz de Haro is a redirect to María Díaz I de Haro. But I see nothing on either of the two pages, or on the María Díaz de Haro disamibguation page, to indicate why it might make sense for a woman named with a number "I" in one place might also have the same name with a number "II" in a different place.

If it makes sense to someone else, they might like to provide some clarification in whatever article seems appropriate. --184.147.181.129 (talk) 03:31, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To add to the confusion, María I Díaz de Haro also redirects to María Díaz I de Haro. Here are the fruits of an historical examination. Earlier, the page María II Díaz de Haro had been moved to María I Díaz de Haro, leaving a redirect, with the edit summary: Wrong regnal numeration. (I have not examined if there are are authoritative sources on the "correct regnal numeration".) Then María I Díaz de Haro was moved to María Díaz I de Haro, again leaving a redirect, with the edit summary all of the other Haro pages go <name> <patronym> <number> de Haro, including that of María Díaz II de Haro. (I have not examined whether this way of fixing an apparent inconsistency was actually justified.) Then a little bot came and fixed the now double redirect. María II Díaz was added as spouse to the infobox way back in 2012, long before these page moves, and has apparently been overlooked as needing adjustment. (Several other articles link to María II Díaz de Haro and may also need adjustments.) María Díaz II was added as issue shortly after. I think we should go by the designations most commonly used in reliable sources. --Lambiam 10:58, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Who drew first hyper realistic artpiece ?

In this section, listed out couple of artists, but what's the origin of it? Rizosome (talk) 15:24, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

GOD (OT) in days 1 to 6 created an artwork which may be devined as being hyperrealistic. Some, eg Prof Nick Bostrom, do not agree. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 17:13, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Note that hyperrealism is not confined to 'drawing') Fittingly, and as the article explains, this word was coined in 1973 by Isy Brachot for a number of works of art on occasion of an exhibition titled L’hyperréalisme exhibiting several artists. So, I guess they did. It's not always easy pinpointing the first of a movement to one work of art. That particular movement also grew out of photorealism. Between which works of art do you draw the line? See also "The Evolution of Hyperrealism: From Religious Paintings to Simulated Reality" by Emma Taggart (My Modern Met) ---Sluzzelin talk 17:34, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is also important to note that "hyperrealism" and "photorealism" are not just vague terms describing "art that looks a LOT like real life"; they refer to specific art movements that are tied to a specific time, place, and cultural context. Art has different purposes based on context, and "looking exactly like real life" is not a goal of all art; it is for some. Fashions and trends in the visual arts come and go; the Romans (espcially c. 1st century) worked really hard to produce realistic sculpture, but by, say, the 4th or 5th century styles had changed, and the sculptures look much more stylized. In the 16th century, Hans Holbein the Younger produced some fantastically realistic paintings; his well-known painting of Sir Thomas More from 1527 shows the individual whiskers in his 3-day old beard and the iridescence of the velvet in his clothing is similarly true to life. (go to File:Hans Holbein, the Younger - Sir Thomas More - Google Art Project.jpg, select the highest resolution, and see for yourself the level of detail). But Holbein is not a hyperrealist or anything like that. He's just comes from a time, and developed a style, that had as a goal, the faithful reproduction of real life. Hyperrealism is that too but done during the mid-to-late 20th century. --Jayron 32 12:09, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, yet do note that "realism" can apply to other aspects of visual art besides verisimilitude in terms of visual reproduction. Another aspect, important to the 19th century movement of realism, focuses more on what is being depicted, e.g. real-life situations as opposed to constructed, staged, and emotionally obvious scenes of the past. This too, was always important to photo- and hyperrealism. ---Sluzzelin talk 21:44, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]