Talk:Virgin of the Rocks

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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.

Contents

[edit] Removed Da Vinci Code stuff

The content about the Da Vinci Code is rediculous to even bother including; that is a passing fad and is irrelavant to the work at hand. In 10 years no one will care about Dan Brown, but the painting will still be important. --Matt Aufderheide

[edit] comment 2

i find this painting to be extraordinary

Well, great. It is! Paul B 11:31 28 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] comment

I'm changing "The only significant compositional difference between the two versions is the fact that Uriel no longer points" into "The main compositional...": in the Paris version, John doesn't have a scepter, the circle on the characters' heads (sorry, I don't remember the English word) are absent, and Uriel's gaze is directed to the viewer instead of John. The article could really use having both versions and a section on the differences between them. Jules LT 22:06, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

The operative word is "significant". It is already explained that John's stick (which is not a "sceptre") was not added by Leonardo, neither were the halos (circles on the heads). The direction of Uriel's gaze is not really a compositional difference, since composition concerns the arrangement of motifs across the pictorial space. Eye direction barely registers in comositional terms. The issue in this section concerns Leonardo's own supposed changes, so the post-Leo additions don't count as differences, significant or otherwise, in this aspect of the issue.
The specific "differences between" the versions are already discussed, but more detail is always a good thing. Paul B 23:44, 21 September 2005 (UTC)


The article says that the Louvre version was originally on panel and transferred to canvas. How exactly was this accomplished? Does the paint have enough substance that you can peel it off and press it onto canvas and it'll stick? ASWilson 21:17, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Why Not Use the Louvre Version?

If the Louvre version is considered the original version and the one with more of da Vinci's own work, why isn't it the one displayed?Flannel 00:08, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

If you have a non-copyrighted photo, add it. Paul B 07:48, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

That wasn't an answer. An answer would have been "Because there are no available non-copyrighted photos of it available." Can I assume that's what you meant to say?Flannel 01:28, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

You can assume what you like, but it was an answer. Paul B 07:25, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fake??

I added this:

"The authenticity of the London painting has been called in question by geologist Ann C. Pizzorusso, who argues its geological inaccuracies, unlike the Louvre version, means it is a fake."

I believe this is sourced from Boorstin's The Discoverers. Hopefully somebody can confirm... Trekphiler 18:58, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

There really is no suggestion that it is a "fake". That is is a different claim from the argument that it wa not wholly - or even at all - painted by Leonardo himself. Paul B 19:26, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Madonna or Virgin?

This article never fully explains which picture is which name, or which name is used more, or should be used. Could someone please tell me or note it so that other people will understand why the picture has 2 names? → J@red  22:25, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

The picture does not have two names, it has no name at all. Artists did not give names to paintings in those days. The titles are just conventional descriptions. "Madonna" (Italian for "my Lady") and "Virgin" are just two different terms for Mary. Both are often used in English. In French the term "Vierge" is normally used, which translates literally as "Virgin", however in English it has been more common to adopt the Italian word, mainly because English-speaking countries are mostly Protestant and so treat "marioloatry" as an alien phenomenon. In The Da Vinci Code, Dan Brown states, oddly, that the Louvre painting was called The Madonna of the Rocks and that the NG painting was called The Virgin of the Rocks. In fact the painting in France is generally known as La Vierge aux rochers, which can legitimately be translated as Virgin or as Madonna, but which, as I said, literally means "Virgin". In the NG itself the title Virgin of the Rocks is preferred [1]. So we use "Virgin of the Rocks" as the title in both cases. Paul B 00:54, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

The above is in fact, untrue. There were two paintings created. The first was called Madonna on the Rocks. When it was presented to the Monks who commissioned it they were disgusted with certain details in the painting. And so, after a long legal feud, Da Vinci was forced to create another(more holy looking) painting, which is the one we know as Virgin on the Rocks. This site has the names of the paintings wrong. The pictures of the paintings shown have their names mixed up. The painting with the halos and cross is Virgin on the Rocks, and the one with the warmer colours and no halos and cross is the original painting Madonna on the Rocks. The The Madonna on the Rocks resides in France in the Louvre.

Untrue, sez 'oo? Paul B is in fact correct. Both museums call their paintings in English the Virgin ... but Italians & best-seller writers may prefer Madonna. [2] London, [3] Paris. Neither painting is called anything "on" the rocks, a quite different concept. Johnbod 19:41, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unsupported and Non-Neutral Claim

There is no historical evidence to support any of these contentions.

There's no source cited that seems to claim this. It seems to be the author's opinion. There is no attempt made to support it's verifiability (Wikipedia:Verifiability), nor does it seem to be written from a neutral point of view (Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view). I'll also note that any kind of statement that there, "is no evidence," is awfully difficult to support.

It is impossible to "cite" the non-existence of sources, because there is nothing to cite. It does not alter the fact than no evidence exists. Art historical literature does not discuss this non-issue precisely because it is never even a question. All the historical sources regarding the paintings are discussed exhausively in the catalogues of the London National Gallery and the Louvre. There are also numerous books by Leonardo scholars in which the documents relating to these works are examined. These paintings have been as thoroughly researched as is humanly possible over the last century and more. NPOV policy clearly states that facts should be presented. ("We sometimes give an alternative formulation of the non-bias policy: assert facts, including facts about opinions — but don't assert opinions themselves. There is a difference between facts and opinions. By "fact" we mean "a piece of information about which there is no serious dispute."). We do not dispute that the Battle of Waterloo was in 1815 just because someone writes a science fiction novel in which it occurs in the year 2345 due to a temporal distortion. Likwise here. We state the facts, about which there is no serious dispute amongst scholars. Paul B 09:56, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Different(ish) topic:

Sorry, I've added the refernce - YET AGAIN. This seems to be regularly deleted by people for unknow reasons. Can I suggest that UNLESS Zollner has been shown to be wrong people leave it alone - please, I'm getting tired of having to re-enter the reference details again and again! Mercury543210 20:54, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

This is dealt with in the section further up. As it says there are a number of theories on the existence of 2 (or more) copies but no evidence at all. Johnbod 21:02, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

READ the references! The explanation is the standard view. UNLESS you have evidence to the contrary, then please cite this/these or leave this alone. Thank you. Mercury543210 21:28, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

It is very far from the standard view. The standard view, which is followed from and referenced to the relevant volume of the full National Gallery catalogue in the earlier section, is that no one has any idea when how and why the Louvre version exists, nor whether it was completed before or after the commission was placed by the confraternity. Beyond that there are only theories, of which there has always been no shortage: Davies summarizes several, but it is not appropriate to go into them all in this article. What is "so" supposed to mean? Who was the collector? What does your reference actually say? What documents is it sourced from? The fact you persist in adding your material to the wrong section suggests you have not looked into this very fully. Johnbod 23:37, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

On reflection I don't mind adding something on this as a speculation. But I'm sure you will agree that in this of all articles it is essential to keep a very clear distinction between what is documented and what is speculation, which this is. Johnbod 13:29, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

OK, though I still believe that Zollner's discussion is the most authoritative. His is the most recent assessment of the evidence by decades. Mercury543210 19:15, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
And what new evidence has turned up in the intervening years? The subject was not exactly unexplored in 1961, and Davies is on the whole a more authoritative figure than Zollner. Johnbod 21:05, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Two Different Explainations

There are two opposing reasons given as to why two paintings were painted and bother are given as fact.

The completed work was finally installed in 1508. It seems as though the original work was sold to a private client after a lengthy financial dispute with the confraternity. A second version was eventually produced by Leonardo and his assistants, which was installed with the de Predises's side-panels.

and

As for the painting being "too scandalous" to show in a church, Leonardo and de Predises actually wanted more money from the church than had been originally agreed. The church agreed to pay a substantial bonus but not as much as Leonardo and de Predises wanted. So Leonardo and de Predises sold it to a private collector and then made a second copy.

Light 22:49, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Where is the contradiction? One says it was a financial dispute and the other fleshes out the nature of the dispute. Paul B 14:19, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
In fact there is a contradiction, and only the second bit of text remains (currently), minus the last sentence, for which there is no evidence. Johnbod 03:19, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
There is still no contradiction. Error, maybe. Paul B 07:28, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] blacklisted link removed

www.davincisketches.com/Human/Studies1.htm Leonardo da Vinci's study for the Virgin of the Rocks

- site has ok pics of various sketched. Johnbod 22:03, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dubious section

This bit needs a major rewrite, by someone who understands what it is trying to say, especially the parts I have bolded:

In her 1967 book (published in English in 1985) Angela Ottino della Chiesa cites four derivations of The Virgin of the Rocks. The Holy Family and St. John by Bernardino Luini in the Prado in Milan, The Thuelin Madonna by Marco d'Oggiono in the Thuelin collection in Paris and The Holy Infants Embracing by Joos van Cleve in the Capodimonte Museum in Naples are all shown in 'thumbnail' form, but can be found by searching on www. Only Leonardo was capable of taking the form of the Virgin of the Rocks and removing Mary and the Angel Uriel to leave the two Holy Children, Jesus and St.John the Baptist in a humanist embrace. This image was much copied by Flemish artists such as Joos van Cleve and Quentin Messys - there is a small painting in Chatsworth by the latter. The name on the frame is LEONARDO DA VINCI, showing that at one time, this Flemish work was once attributed to the Master, Leonardo. Angela is an authority on Bernardino Luini; here work The Complete Paintings of Leonardo da Vinci (introduced by Leopold Ettlinger) is more readily available than Leonardo da Vinci; The Complete Paintings by Pietro C. Marani (Abrams - New York, 2000)

Johnbod 22:10, 10 March 2007 (UTC)