Talk:Venus de Milo
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Arms?
i would just like to know why it is that the Venus De Milo sculpture has no arms? Was she created with them but found without? Was she made without them for some reason? I would appreciate a response thanks! I'll be checking the site!
- I'm fairly certain she was found that way. I know she was not sculpted without arms, but whether the arms broke off after her discovery or before I don't know. If they broke off afterwards, I'd think they would have been kept. —Frecklefoot 19:56, 2 Feb 2004 (UTC)
- The first page listed in the External links section says that she was created with arms, but that they were already missing when she was found. So there you go. —Paul A 01:27, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Twelve days out of Touloun the ship was anchored off the island of Melos. Ashore, d'Urville and [fellow officer] Matterer met a Greek peasant, who a few days earlier while ploughing had uncovered blocks of marble and a statue in two pieces, which he offered cheaply to the two young men. It was of a naked woman with an apple in her raised left hand, the right hand holding a draped sash falling from hips to feet, both hands damaged and separated from the body. Even with a broken nose, the face was beautiful. D'Urville the classicist recognized the Venus of the Judgement of Paris. It was, of course, the Venus de Milo. He was eager to acquire it, but his practical captain, apparently uninterested in antiquities, said there was nowhere to store it on the ship, so the transaction lapsed. The tenacious d'Urville on arrival at Constantinople showed the sketches he had made to the French ambassador, the Marquis de Riviére, who sent his secretary in a French Navy vessel to buy it for France. Before he could take delivery, French sailors had to fight Greek brigands for possession. In the mêlée the statue was roughly dragged across rocks to the ship, breaking off both arms, and the sailors refused to go back to search for them. [1]
[edit] Picture
I uploaded a picture at commons, see commons:Image:venus_de_milo_bs.jpg. It's an actual picture taken in the museum. I don't have an eye for aesthetics, so I'll let someone else replace it if they feel like it. CryptoDerk 05:11, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)
- Nevermind. I found 2 better pics (which I've inserted) on commons. CryptoDerk 21:57, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)
I’m not sure who/what/when (it doesn’t really matter) changed the photo to the current version, but I don’t aesthetically see how the current picture is better than the one I uploaded. The color balance and resolution are poorer in comparison. This isn’t a competition, but I disagree with the photo change. --Mespinola 19:29, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
- Well, we're both talking about our own pictures so it's hard to be impartial. Regarding resolution, both are similar: my picture is 2250x3775 and weighs 3.54 MB; yours is 2000x3008 and weighs 2.57 MB. My picture has a yellow dominant; I controlled white balance with a grey chart before shooting. You used the auto white balance mode in a mixed light environment (natural light and tungsten), which explains a slight blue tinge on the hips of the statue (my monitor is calibrated). Your picture has less noise, mine is a tad sharper. All in all it balances out. I'm not the one who changed the picture. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 13:15, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
- I shoot RAW. I color balance post-production based on location metering, but the EXIF still shows auto because thats what I leave the camera set to when I take the shot. --Mespinola 03:51, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Trivia section
I deleted the trivia section. None of the points listed were significant or relevant to Venus de Milo. Such a famous work of art is of course referenced several times in popular culture, but to list every instance would be folly. If the reference to venus is important to the popular work in question, it should be mentioned in the article dealing with the popular work itself. However, many of the mentions in this section was to very minor (generally armless and female) characters, that do not merit mention anywhere on wikipedia. For those of you who disagree with me, please read Wikipedia:Trivia before reverting my edit. If you really DO wish to include a popular culture/trivia-section in this article, I suggest it be written in prose form on the general impact of this work on popular culture rather than as a list of meaningless trivia. However, such a section would likely be original resarch. Dr bab 13:25, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
COMMON; SCULPTURES OF THAT TIME PERIOD DID NOT PORTRAY HANDS!

