From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
|
This article is within the scope of multiple WikiProjects.
Click [show] for further details |
 |
An appropriate infobox may need to be added to this article, or the current infobox may need to be updated. Please refer to the list of biography infoboxes for further information. |
 |
This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Visual arts, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to visual arts on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. |
|
| ??? |
Class: This article has not been assigned a class according to the assessment scale. |
|
[edit] Full name
The Britannica article is called Jacopo da Pontormo. Is there any particular reason why the first name is omitted in the Wikipedia article? --Ghirla -трёп- 14:23, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
- Es:, fr:, and it: use Pontormo. I think it is like Rembrandt, or Michelangelo, or Ghirlandajo for that matter ;-) I wouldn't object to moving it to the full name though. Either is fine with me. DVD+ R/W 17:57, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, both would be acceptable (as would Jacopo Pontormo, used on Pl: and the wga), but in my experience simply Pontormo is most common. Skarioffszky 18:48, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
- I would defer to the Getty Index on this, which preferences Pontormo. Planetneutral 06:12, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Vasari & Pontormo, Tone
Oh dear, I feel that poor Pontormo has been subject to some rather rough treatment here! Vasari had a field day making fun of Pontormo, that characterization seems to emerge here in almost every section. But as Elizabeth Pilliod has (I think convincingly) argued, Vasari had good reason to run down Pontormo: he and Bronzino were rivals for Medici patronage. In fact, in the years between Vite editions, Vasari was in the process of wresting courtly favor away from Bronzino and securing it all for himself. So, certainly Vasari shouldn’t be ignored, but perhaps taken with two grains of salt? Anyway, that’s why I’m trying to deemphasize this notion of ‘Pontormo as emotionally volatile’ a little bit… Hope no one minds! Thanks Isocephaly (talk) 14:12, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
- Sounds like a good idea. Recent scholarship like this [1] might be a valuable source, and prove helpful in this regard. JNW (talk) 16:41, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
