Talk:The Sorcerer (cave art)

I have studied the photograph on this blog. It seems to me that what is depicted is a pair of lions mating. Dirk BontesDirk Bontes (talk) 13:37, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Whoever added the uncited info about modern photographs not depicting anything around the head....

You really need to come up with a reliable source for this info or I say it should be removed. I did some searching myself and came up with this image:

http://media-2.web.britannica.com/eb-media/63/4763-004-824529EB.jpg

from Britannica and I can clearly see some charcoal etching above the heard where the sketch claims horns. Granted, my statement would qualify as original research as what one sees in the photograph is up for interpretation. Someone needs to find a reliable source that discusses recent photographs of the image arguing either way. As currently there is an un-cited sentence in the article basically going against all the work I've heard about the image up to this point.

If your citation is supposed to be "Hutton, Ronald Witches, Druids, Arthur. p.34" please include the text that states the no horns theory here, and if in fact the no horns is a theory and not definite fact. From what I can gather from other internet sources about "Hutton, Ronald Witches, Druids, Arthur. p.34" (as I do not myself have the book and therfore why you posting the section here would be helpful) is that all Hutton says is that "the figure drawn by Breuil is not the same as the one actually painted on the cave wall." Not a specific claim against the horns. Additionally, I've found a few internet sources that discuss that section and mention Hutton only talks about the sketch of the image and not the engraving (which the horns are mostly found in) as engraving is known to be difficult to view in photography with flash or light being shined directly on an object. As I do not have the book I do not feel qualified to edit this until the exact quote is found.

Even so, since that is the only source making this claim in contrast to many more claiming otherwise, it should be stated as a theory and not a fact.24.190.34.219 (talk) 05:38, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Wow. looking at that photo, I have to say that the Breuil sketch (which I've been familiar with for decades) resembles the actual image only in its broadest contours. I do see indications of marks above the shoulders in the photo, but they're nothing like the head and antlers Breuil drew. Either he was depicting a lot of very faint marks that don't show up in the photo (a distinct possibility--the photo isn't very high-resolution), or he was letting his imagination run away with him. 65.213.77.129 (talk) 15:03, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

It looks like something walking on two legs and that's it. I didn't see any head in the photo either. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.51.145.197 (talk) 09:25, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Replace the poorly made sketch by an actual photo?

This article claims to be about Cave Art, yet instead of actually showing the cave art, it shows a poor drawing supposed to represent that cave art, but which has been made with significant artistic freedom.

Maybe rename this article to "The Sorcerer (drawing by Henri Breuil"), and make, if it even seems necesary, a separate article about the actual cave art?FreieFF (talk) 13:34, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

That sounds like a good idea to me b/c the actual photo looks NOTHING LIKE the drawing. Breuil became famous because he drew a picture from his own imagination then said it looked like what was in the cave. It categorically does not. What a crock. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.138.95.24 (talk) 10:13, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

The nuance seen in real life is not comparable to the low quality image floating around, if any image at all could capture it in its entirety. Jean Clottes himself attests to the drawing being correct. LarsTheFirst (talk) 20:35, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Pintura Trois Freres.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:39, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

NPOV

This section:

"However, this ignores the well-known fact that prehistoric art figures commonly use accidents in the material's surface (bumps, holes, cracks...) as part of their shape, in many occasions drawing only the lines needed to complete the figure; a technique reinforced with the optical effects brought by flickering fire light.[7]

Also, "the Sorcerer" is composed of both charcoal drawings and etching within the stone itself; details, such as etching, are often difficult to view from photographs due to their size and the quality of the light source."

does not report what academics say about the painting, but instead uses wikipedia's voice to make a specific critique of one academic's analysis. It also uses inappropriate rhetorical flourishes like "the well-known fact".71.32.167.13 (talk) 04:31, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Well, it's a "well known fact' that Wikipedia editors are completely biased. LOL. 65.248.13.32 (talk) 13:59, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

The ancient/actual artwork...

The Britannica version now seems to be at https://cdn.britannica.com/63/4763-004-824529EB/Sorcerer-cave-Trois-Freres-Ariege-France-image.jpg as used at https://www.britannica.com/place/Trois-Freres The artwork shown on the page seems to fairly accurately replicate the lines with its thick lines, but then it adds a lot of detail that isn't in the original. Personally, I think it looks like a seated human figure with a damaged head. Orientation may be part of this, as rotate 90 degrees counter-clockwise, I think it looks a little like a jumping antelope. While my views of the figure would be OR, including some version of the real image in the article would be a good idea. (I am not doing so because I don't know the license issues.) --David Garfield (talk) 14:26, 16 April 2024 (UTC)