Talk:Portrait of a Man in Red Chalk
 | Visual arts Start‑class | ||||||
| |||||||
Identity of the man in red chalk
It's Pope Julius II.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Julius_II
Tobias316 (talk) 22:29, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
Tobias316 (talk) 19:34, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
Tobias316 (talk) 17:34, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
Identity of Man is UNCERTAIN
There has been recent discussion in the field about whether the article really is Leonardo.
Deleting the existence of such discussion is nothing short of vandalism. It is biased and advocates one part of the debate while completely ignoring another.
I personally believe the drawing is indeed of Leonardo, but it is extremely incorrect to claim it as a consensus and ignore the evidence to the contrary as the user is doing.
I suggest changing this page to protected if the other user continues to make edits of that nature. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.241.126.2 (talk) 07:55, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
Hi,
It is one thing to say that some people do not believe it is Leonardo and another to say it is not universally accepted to be his portrait. I have mentioned this in several talk pages that are obviously yours. The current article contains a section on controversy. WHAT YOU ARE DOING IS ADDING YOUR OPINION AND DELETING ACTUAL EVIDENCE. THINGS LIKE: "IT IS ABSOLUTELY NOT UNIVERSALLY ACCEPTED THAT THIS IS LEONARDO"S PORTRAIT". That is just putting opinion on facts. Instead, you simply write that there are people who suggest this portrait is Leonardo's father or uncle, this is currently written in the article. (and of which there is evidence that these people claim this although again, it should not be emphasized since they are obviously the exception).
And yes, this article should be protected against people like YOU. Read its history. You are obviously the same person that edited this article to add opinion on how much it is or isn't accepted.
I have looked at this article's history and there were 'sources' added that DO NOT mention anything related to the controversy.
In addition. This article is on Leonardo's a portrait of a man in red chalk. It is not on other possible portraits of Leonardo, so there is no need to talk about these in this article. If you believe they are related to this topic, add a Related Articles version, and link other portraits of Leonardo. There are hundreds of wikipedia pages in which this is done.
The only person here with an agenda is you, I have no problem if you mention other people's views as long as they are REFERENCED!!! If the reference you add does not mention what you are saying then it is absolutely legal to delete it. Get that in your head. Walnut77 (talk) 01:14, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
Don't worry, I will revamp the article with several sources when I get the chance in a couple weeks, though I'm pretty busy until then. I actually never added any sources myself, and it's cute that you get so offensive and try to claim other people are me with 0 evidence. What I did is go back to a version of the page from a few months ago that included the discussion (before I even knew about this subject) and reverted to it. In my courses, we learn that it is not universally accepted.
Regardless, the page is fine as is with the sources, but it will be changed when I get the chance (unless the couple other people do it first).
129.2.129.108 (talk) 03:05, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
Hey,
I don't see anything cute in you so it isn't mutual sorry. If you use the word universally, it better be in the sources you name. If this isn't there then it will e changed. The article currently contains good sources, these cannot be changed. You can certainly add additional information that is referenced, there is no problem there.
Walnut77 (talk) 03:59, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
The Lucan portrait--doubt and uncertainty
I would suggest that the issue of the doubt and debate over whether the 'red chalk drawing' is actually a representation of Leonardo, or some other individual, should probably also take note of the so-called "Lucan" portrait...and the existence of that portait and the issues it presents might also well be included in this article. They are necessarily intertwined, in my opinion.
(And I certainly agree with those expressing the existence of the debate. I stated my belief that the man in the 'red chalk drawing' is actually Pope Julius II as fact because that is a conclusion that I have come to and I believe is entirely defensible. I recognize that is not currently a consensus opinion).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucan_portrait_of_Leonardo_da_Vinci
And, perhaps it might be particularly worthwhile (especially for the person who keeps deleting references to the controversy involving the portraits entirely)...to take note of the following, from the Wiki article on the 'Lucan' portait:
"The recreated three-dimensional image was compared with other images believed to represent Leonardo da Vinci, including the iconic red chalk in Turin, the profile drawing believed to be by Leonardo's pupil Francesco Melzi, the painted portrait in the Uffizi and the recently discovered image in the Codex on the Flight of Birds. A conclusion was that all the images, but one, reveal a face that is elongated in the lower two thirds. The image that did not comply was the red chalk so-called self-portrait in Turin, considered by some to be of Leonardo in old age". (My emphasis).
In other words, it is the 'red chalk drawing' that is 'odd man out'...doesn't agree with other probable and known images of Leonardo...and is, on the basis of physical observation alone...highly suspect.
Opinions, no matter how many times they are published, or accepted by "the consensus", are not evidence.
As to the 'School of Athens' image of Plato and that unfortunate and mistaken connection to this controversy...please look carefully at the images I have uploaded here.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vocation_of_the_Apostles
http:/upwiki/wikipedia/commons/7/74/Domenico_ghirlandaio%2C_chiamata_degli_apostoli_02.jpg
I would submit that it is highly likely that the person shown in Ghilrandaio's 'Vocation of the Apostles' is the same person whose image is displayed as Plato in the 'School of Athens'...and that neither are Leonardo nor the man in the 'red chalk drawing'.
At the very least, can anyone reasonably say that the image of the man in 'Vocation of the Apostles' is not the source of the Plato image?
Tobias316 (talk) 15:19, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
Hello,
That is great you want to observe things that aren't there. The two images are not the same, Leonardo has a different nose and different eyes. The portrait of a man in red chalk has these features more than the plato image.
What two images are not the same? What image are you referring to as "Leonardo"?
You do understand that a (mis)identification of the Plato figure as being the red chalk man plays an important part in this ridiculous mess, don't you? My point in showing the similarity to the figure in 'Vocation of the Apostles'...is that it could easily be that same figure or any other balding guy with a beard. Can you tell me, with absolute certainty, that it is not? Have you noticed that the red chalk man has no moustache? And Plato does? The point that I am attempting to illustrate is about the uncertainty and doubt surrounding the red chalk drawing and the questionable logic of the identifications it depends upon...as the topic heading clearly states.
Tobias316 (talk) 13:32, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
Another thing. Are there any renown art history teachers/students etc. that suggest this? I have no problem if they do as long as there is evidence for it is perfectly acceptable to put this as possibilities as long as you reference it (and the reference should obviously be respectable). This article is on this specific painting by Leonardo, though, and not on Plato or any other painting.
Yes. Look at the topic heading that refers to the 'Lucan' portrait and its contents. As I have stated, above, analysis of that work along with the red chalk drawing, and the portrait in the Uffizi concluded that it is the red chalk drawing that is the least likely to be an accurate representation of Leonardo's features.
In other words, there is more than considerable doubt as to whether the red chalk drawing is of Leonardo. The available evidence (not opinion) suggests otherwise.
Ignoring that, and removing references to that, is an ill-advised attempt to 'bully' one point of view. I assume that it is you doing this?
If so, PLEASE stop it. Removing references to the debate is not providing accurate information.
Tobias316 (talk) 13:32, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
If there are related wikipedia articles that talk about this painting, they can be linked in a Related Articles section.
Walnut77 (talk) 01:23, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. But the content of the 'Lucan' article bears directly on the issue of doubt and uncertainty concerning the red chalk drawing here. The 'Lucan" portrait is of another person entirely ...other than the one in the red chalk drawing. The two images are mutually exclusive. If I understand, the debate concerning the 'Lucan' portrait is only concerned with whether it is a self-portrait. That certainly would lead to a conclusion that the red chalk drawing is an image of someone other than Leonardo. But it is kind of pointless to include that information here if it is just going to be removed.
Tobias316 (talk) 14:20, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
Tobias316 (talk) 13:32, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
Hi,
You are not supposed to break up my comment that way... Do you have references that you can link here in this conversation so I can also take a look at them. You said that there are important and renown art history teachers/students that suggest this, please link the information. I do not see the direct influence of the Lucan portrait, information on that portrait can be written on THAT article's page. I think it is only logical. You can mention the Lucan and then link it in the related article. Why would you make an article on this red chalk painting and talk about the Lucan portrait? it is redundant.
Walnut77 (talk) 20:17, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
You what? READ the Wiki article that I supplied the link to, please.
You don't see the "direct influence of the Lucan portrait"? Did you bother to read the piece at all? The Lucan portrait is of someone other than the man in the red chalk drawing. And the Lucan portrait has been determined to be a portrait of Leonardo. So, the red chalk drawing MUST be of someone else. Get it? The identification of one bears directly on the other.
Again...you are apparently deleting material contributed by others that refers to the controversy surrounding the identification of the drawing in red chalk as if no such debate or dispute exists. You seem to want to state that the red chalk drawing is a "selfie"...as a matter of undisputed, objective fact. And that, at best, is misleading. Inaccurate. The identity of the sitter has long been disputed.
IF you bothered to read the text of the Wiki piece on that portrait...(link was supplied)...you should be able to grasp that the EVIDENCE has been analyzed and the red chalk drawing has been determined to NOT likely represent the features of Leonardo. It does NOT agree with other known and probable portraits. This is direct evidence...primary source material...not secondary OPINION sources from "respectable" entities like the Huffington Post. (Sarcasm intended).
Now, no one, I don't think, is asking you to accept or even consider that the red chalk drawing is not really Leonardo...but are simply asking you, politely, hopefully, to stop removing material which suggests that the identity of the sitter is not a complete certainty.
Now, why is that a problem for you? Clearly, the controversy not only exists...but the weight of the available evidence suggests that it is NOT Leonardo.
Tobias316 (talk) 00:18, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
I would also like to point out that I do not know who you are, and what your credentials are in order to make such claims. You have to understand, nobody in the internet does. It is for this reason that sources are used to refer to people who DO have the credentials, who have extensively studied this and suggest alternatives to topics. You cannot simply write about what you think is a similarity between two people if you do not have any qualification to do so. I am not bullying a point of view, I have added a controversy section in the article. You cannot, though, add information that is opinionated. If you have references in which people who have studied the subject have suggested what you are saying then you can reference it and mention it. There is no need to add opinion to facts. Period.
Walnut77 (talk) 20:23, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
My comments here, addressed to you, were only meant to demonstrate to you some measure of doubt that does exist concerning the identity of the man in the red chalk drawing, so that you will, hopefully stop what appears to be an incredibly wasteful campaign of attempting to censor the thoughts and contributions of others. I do not know who you are, either, but from the list of your interests on your user page, it would appear that your interests run more to the physical sciences than the humanities or social sciences. Perhaps you are not particularly accustomed to some of the constructs involved in those fields of study?
But understand this...personal observations and logic DO play an integral role in this type of process. As does, hopefully, reason and logic.
Appeals to "authority" may make you more comfortable...but there is a hierarchy of evidentiary sources. Opinion is NOT evidence.(Even if it comes from the Huffington Post).
Tobias316 (talk) 00:06, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
Hi,
I do not know if you understand the things that I write. It seems that you do not. YOUR opinion means nothing unless you back it up with people who are experts in the subject (this means it should have been published somehow). No where in this article is my opinion being expressed, if it is I want you to quote the part that is. The changes I have made to this article are not CENSORING so do not manipulate. I have explained this several times. I have deleted the information because it is not found in the sources that were provided. If you find sources from people who are qualified and certified to make those claims, then show them (I already asked you for this and you have not provided them). Again, opinion by expert people IS valuable (because they have had to peer-review their conclusions). On the other hand, YOUR opinion is not valid unless you have published this with evidence (which means you would have had to have proven the information you provided). It is as simple as that, I am not censoring you, I am deleting information that is NOT true!
Walnut77 (talk) 00:40, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
You state, again and again, that the red-chalk drawing IS a self-portrait of Leonardo. You state this as fact.
This IS opinion. Citing published sources that quote that OPINION does NOT magically elevate opinion into objective fact.
No. Sorry. It doesn't work that way.
Tobias316 (talk) 02:04, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
In addition, this is not a philosophical matter, by true is meant what we hold as truths today (these things can change with new discoveries obviously). What we consider valuable truths today is what has been published and accepted by people who are experts in certain subjects. These people have had to work very hard to do this (to research, study and publish their work) as they must endure a lot of criticism by colleagues until their work is sound. This is the kind of evidence I am asking you to provide.
Besides, the current state of the article DOES provide your point of view. THERE IS A CONTROVERSY SECTION I HAVE TOLD YOU THAT. This means it does say that some people have suggested that the identity of the sitter has been questioned. I do not know what you are complaining about. If there are other suggestions MADE BY EXPERTS that have been made as to the identify of the sitter (right now the sources stated it could be his father), then also add them BY CITING THE SOURCE!
A WIKI ARTICLE IS NOT EVIDENCE! EVIDENCE IS A BOOK, A PUBLISHED SOURCE IN THE INTERNET THERE ARE MILLIONS OF THOSE! LINK THEM!
Walnut77 (talk) 00:52, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
I did not cite the Wiki article to you for inclusion in the article. I cited it to you so that you might try to come to some appreciation of the existence of the controversy which you seem to want to continually deny.
Tobias316 (talk) 02:04, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
AND NO! The Lucan portrait is a portrait that some people believe to have been BY leonardo NOT OF LEONARDO!!! And experts have suggested it is a forgery. SO NO YOU ARE WRONG, AND YOU KNOW WHY THIS CONFUSION IS OCCURRING? BECAUSE YOU DO NOT PROVIDE EVIDENCE/SOURCES! How many times do I have to say this??
Experts do not agree that the Lucan is BY LEONARDO. On the other hand, the red chalk painting has been proven to be by him. This is the huge difference!
Walnut77 (talk) 00:59, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
You are incorrect. The issue involving the Lucan portrait is whether it is a self-portrait or not.
Again...PLEASE read the article and the section on comparisons of the known and probable likenesses that I keep repeating.
The red-chalk drawing is the one whose features do NOT agree with the others.
Tobias316 (talk) 02:04, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
Umm NO!
This is directly from the article (which is still a wikipedia article and should be backed by evidence!
"The Lucan portrait of Leonardo da Vinci is a late 15th - early 16th century portrait of a man that was recently discovered in a cupboard of a private house in Italy. It strongly resembles a portrait of Leonardo da Vinci held by the Uffizi Gallery and regarded by experts as a forgery."
THIS MEANS IT IS NOT EVEN CERTAIN IT IS BY LEONARDO!!! WHETHER IT IS LEONARDO OR NOT SHOULD NOT EVEN MATTER IF YOU CANNOT EVEN PROVE IT IS BY HIM!!
ON THE OTHER HAND THIS IS THE RED CHALK PAINTING AND WITH REFERENCE:
"The drawing has been drawn in fine lines, shadowed by hatching and executed with the left hand, as was Leonardo's habit. The paper has brownish "fox marks" caused by the accumulation of iron salts due to moisture. It is housed at the Royal Library (Biblioteca Reale) in Turin, Italy, and is not generally viewable by the public due to its fragility and poor condition. “Researchers have developed a nondestructive way to gauge the condition of the drawing by quantifying the chromophores in the paper, the culprit behind its yellowing. Their technique, described in Applied Physics Letters (2014), will be used to assess the rate at which the image is degrading and to estimate its life expectancy.” "Visual degradation in Leonardo da Vinci's iconic self-portrait: A nanoscale study"."
The red chalk painting shows clear signs (corroborated by experts) that is a painting BY Leonardo. Whether or not it is him is conjectured, it is held to be him by most experts. There are some that disagree (and this can be added with evidence!!)
Walnut77 (talk) 02:14, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
This is the title of the article on the Lucan portrait:
"Lucan portrait of Leonardo da Vinci"
Now, what do you suppose that means?
Whether you are aware of it or not, what you are currently doing is providing ample proof of the controversy which you deny...and justification for allowing those who want to take note of that controversy to have their uncensored say. Why not just acknowledge that the dispute exists?
You are stating the identity as FACT. Do you have a problem with saying that it is regarded by some as being a likeness of Leonardo...although this OPINION is not shared by others?
All I can do is to repeat to you that you need to think about the implications of the lack of agreement between the red chalk drawing and the other likenesses.
Now are we finished with this? It's getting repetitious and tedious.
Tobias316 (talk) 02:40, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
Regardless of all of this.. I want to add AGAIN that you are not an expert who has published this information (NEITHER AM I, BUT I base what I write on sources, and by the way, that Lucan article is incredibly badly referenced.. I have clicked on most references and they do not take you to actual studies but instead to other websites or even broken links.. that is not something to depend on).
Even if you were and expert you would have to link your sources and your studies in order to conclude that one is not Leonardo if the other is. Even if you think this is obvious, you have to PROVE THIS with sources.
Walnut77 (talk) 02:35, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
Oh, I see...
You mean my opinion is not "respectable"? (I thought you said you didn't know who I was)? :)
Tobias316 (talk) 02:40, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
I am not saying your opinion is not respectable. I am saying you should back it up with sources from experts.. that is all. That is what references are for.
Walnut77 (talk) 02:47, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
You are not writing the information where it is supposed to go. There should probably be an article on Leonardo's Identity or something like that where these conjectures can be made. THIS PORTRAIT is a work of art, independently of who the sitter is thought to be. This is what this should describe and the evidence for who the sitter might be. Information on other portraits go on other articles. Information on Leonardo da Vinci's life also goes in another article (for example).
I do not want to keep discussing. I just want to say that any new additions to the page should be referenced that is all. Changing the references that have been provided right now would be illegal because they are accurate.
Walnut77 (talk) 02:56, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
Yes, yes, YES.
We all understand about references and source citations. One can use this as a bludgeon, though, an excuse to remove others' contributions.
I believe, though, there was some material here that spoke to the 'dubious' nature of the red chalk drawing's alleged connection to the image of Plato, and the circular reasoning employed...which I can no longer find. Do you know anything about this? Or, am I just mistaken? I certainly hope you are not demanding sources and then deleting them. The problem, also, is that it is all too easy for one to question the validity of other's sources. For instance, citing the Huffington Post for the proposition that the drawing is "universally accepted'...strikes me as being kind of, well, laughable, to be perfectly candid.
I would think, though, that the goal of any encyclopedia would be to provide accurate and balanced information. And you are not doing that. You can object, I suppose, to the lack of source citations from others, but why, then, do you not supply them yourself to make the article reflect the true "state-of-the-art"?
Here's a fairly good article that manages to accurately sum up the existing state-of-affairs, I think:
I think that you could certainly improve the article and remove some objections by simply stating that while the red chalk drawing is believed to be of Leonardo by most, others disagree...as this article does, rather than asserting that it is a 'selfie' as a matter-of-fact.
Tobias316 (talk) 14:21, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
I checked all the sources I deleted. The history shows all of the edits that were made so you can check sources that were there if they do exist like you say.
I still find it strange that you do not do the same with the Lucan portrait which was discovered just very recently and has not undergone any stylistic studies to determine whether it is Leonardo's or not. It is strange that you question this one so much, while you leave the Lucan as fact which is actually more dubious than anything else.
I see the source you have mentioned, but as before, it does not come from a scientific study (anyone can put up a website and say anything they want about this).