733:
1097:, which he also owned. It was not a portrait of the Duchess of Malfi, but rather the wife of the viceroy of Naples, a very celebrated beauty of the time. Raphael couldn't undertake the commission, so he sent his pupil Giulio Romano instead. It couldn't possibly be a portrait of Jeanne d'Aragon (Duchess of Malfi) because she was no older than sixteen at the time and the painting is clearly sensuous (erotic) in accordance with Francis 1's avowed taste in portraiture. Even an image of her with her hair tumbling down would have quite unthinkable for a sixteen year unmarried girl, not to mention its other features that would not have escaped the attention of a medieval masturbator. HTH. And yes, it's a beautiful painting. What a shame the image you propose to feature is so completely hideous.
51:
725:
401:
197:- No way. I don't have enough computer memory to process these enormous images, but I did manage to get the retouching editor's last effort at FPC into Nikon X2 long enough to see that basically what's he's doing is "equalizing" the histogram (essentially pushing the "auto-level" button). That may be appropriate for a digital image, but it won't do for an art image. These images have simply aged, and they darken for a variety of complex reasons. Only expert restoration can bring them back to an approximation of their original appearance. This kind of processing is just silly, inauthentic, and derisory.
997:
242:
910:. Which is why we have "All objections should be accompanied by a specific rationale that, if addressed, would make you support the image." right at the top of this page. If civil comments would have been used, I doubt there would have been any comments regarding said oppose. But no, we've gotten this kind of expressions five or six times. It's just plain disrespectful; and this kind of behaviour is seriously wrong.
1013:, got that? And what you added is old news, and there is a file Portrait of Dona Isabel de Requesens, marked both Giulio Romano and Raphael, since 28 May 2008. Not exactly unusual that pictures are attributed several artists. I would be thankful if you would really stop now editing this nomination, you made enought damage already, thank you. You don't know as much about art as you try to give the impression of.
85:, Raphael was considered as the best of great masters of the Renaissance. It was not unusual that great masters had a workshop, when they became famous - usually the master painted the face and hands and the more elaborate details, while the pupil will paint the background, and less important parts of the peainting. The portrait is showing skill depicting the portrait, textile and textures.
810:
it's more authentic or better - C2RMF's images are very authentic professional works - and when viewed fullscreen or surrounded by black space, I think C2RMF's images look better as well. Again, this image was really just intended for use at thumbnail size in articles, not for any other use. I am not a professional in restoration or art history and no special trust should be placed in me.
223:, eh? All artworks are regularly restaurated, cleaned and messed with at all museums, all over the world, addressing problems of chemical and physical deterioration, and performing corrective treatment based on an evaluation of the aesthetic, historic, and scientific characteristics of the object. Latest and probably not so good example is Michelangelo's works at the
561:
57:– Jeanne d'Aragon or Dona Isabel de Requesens is depicted circa 1518, wears a rich dark red robe and the wide, open sleeves are gathered in front with ornamented bands, and the texture of the gold and velvet is almost touchable. Every trade has its master, and Raphael is one of the great portrait painters of the Renaissance.
977:
867:
for passing by. I was now checking around in all kinds of screens - for a while; and Alt1 is simply too dark on most small screens. The picture is going to be displayed on all sorts of screens - and unfortunately not Alt1 is not very visible, too dark. It is a quite valid reason for
Dcoetzee edits,
1186:
The painting is The workshop and school of Rafael - and the master always took care that the paintings coming out of his workshop were well done. And what - we don't even know for sure who exacly Mona Lisa is - that doesn't mean that the painting is not one of the greatest
Renaissance portraits. And
1070:
And also ask for stop telling
Fylbecatulous not to vote here, above in the nomination The Scream. Raphael lived 1483-1520 and Jeanne d'Aragon lived 1502–1575, it is not impossible for him to paint it. I care because it is my nomination, because it is a beautiful picture, it has character, grace and
304:
I believe that Adobe handles up to 30k pixels in each direction (at least, natively). Now how well one's computer can cope... that's a different story. My laptop (8gb RAM, Intel Core i5-3210M, NVIDIA GeForce GT630M) starts bogging up around 200 mp, like the scan of a banknote I made the other day.
809:
I have no opinion on the nomination. The only changes I made to the image were to adjust levels (manually using the Curves function in
Photoshop), and solely because some parts of the original were dark and difficult to see when surrounded by whitespace in the context of an article. I don't think
1167:
Hafs, that's nonsense. The painting is not by
Raphael. He may have intervened on the face and the painting may have been have been based on a design by him, but the only source for that is Vasari. We have in Raphael's own handwriting documentation testifying that he depatched his ablest student
1031:
The point is the nomination no longer has EV. It doesn't have EV because the painting is not by
Raphael (not listed by the Louvre as such) and it doesn't have EV as a portrait of the Duchess of Malfi otherwise. That surely was worth highlighting at the outset once discovered. I'm not trying to
1216:). As I say you won't find this painting searching under "Raphael" in the museum catalogue. Romano was a master draughtsman, given important commissions in his lifetime. His was perfectly capable of painting this work and that he did do is attested by Raphael himself. The
463:. Bit of a difference I fancy. Did DCoetzee use x-rays, cat scans and laser imaging as preparation before pushing autolevel? Enough already if you're wilfully not going to get the point. Nominate away. You're never going to get me to change my vote on these. Cheers.
703:". If he can't handle an editor opposing his nomination stating a valid reason citing the guidelines and makes an issue of it, then he must expect a response. If he tries his hand at wit and subtlety, then he must expect me to respond in kind. No lady, no gent
407:- But right, that has a FRAME. AND, I think that the original is probably much more like the one painting Raphael once painted, to be sincere. If Raphael would come back to look, he would recognize his work more when looking at original - and not Alt.
90:(Warning -some browsers may have trouble displaying this image at full resolution: This image has a large number of pixels and may either not load properly or cause your browser to freeze. Just click on the last resolution at 810 × 1,024 pixels.)
420:
objection. I trust
Dcoetzee when it comes to this, also. It looks to me like any other regular old Renaissance portrait made by Raphael. And you couldn't even look at it. There is no real difference beteewen this and the one presented at
676:
I've removed the two images that were not being discussed for FPC (left Coat's as a link). Ladies, gentlemen, art lovers, and bystanders (choose your own category): let's please try to be civil, and try to avoid overpowering the page with
624:
that is visually disturbing or I am going to do it. It has nothing to do with this and it is the same size as the nominations. I don't want that picture in my nomination. You can link to it but you don't need to post it right here.
1307:
1022:
796:
442:
189:
374:
is fairly clear on the subject. We know from other examples that images like these are likely to be picked up and sold commercially as posters. Knowledge (XXG) shouldn't be placing a seal of approval on such images. They
786:
None of the above criteria forbidden applies on the
Original, no manipulation that caused the main subject to be misrepresented. You made your point - and it is now enough. Let other editors have some space too.
579:
Could you please remove that picture, or I am going to do it. It has nothing to do with this and it is the same size as the nominations and frankly it is irritating. No need to make a circus of this nomination.
1317:
1294:
1270:
1229:
1200:
1177:
1158:
1136:
1106:
1084:
1041:
988:
968:
919:
854:
832:
814:
732:
716:
686:
671:
634:
611:
589:
574:
537:
512:
490:
472:
392:
362:
337:
314:
295:
273:
210:
328:- Coat, you'd need to use the large image viewer and/or download the image to see it. Browsers crash at this resolution, not owing to a lack of computing power, but owing to their own limitations. —
1145:
And - you are assuming above a great deal. People in the Middle Ages and
Renaissance were getting married when 14 - 15 and cetainly a painting of a girl at the of 16 in the Renaissance should be
283:
499:
Boje moy! Chto xudshee sanskrtiskee akkcentee ya kagdee-libo slishal. Hope that's right, French was never my strong point. I'll try to beg, borrow, or steal a high resolution image of the
219:
Whatever. But please don't start changing the file. And if you think that your van Gogh you nominated or any other artwork has not been restaurated at the museums you are in error.
201:
still beautiful: " ... thy eternal summer shall not fade / Nor lose possession of that fair thou ow'st": but this is just horrible, a kind of art botox. Not on my account, sorry.
65:
Portrait of Dona Isabel de
Requesens, Lady Viceroy of Naples, formerly known as Portrait of Jeanne d’Aragon. This work is now attributed to Raphael (Raffaello Santi), and even
621:
551:
1127:, that you are still editing the nomination after being asked several times not to, and what a shame that you are a truly disruptive editor, but nobody dares tell you that.
1220:
is iconic in its own right, but this painting on the face of it has no EV, not by a great master and of only minor historic importance. It shouldn't be a Featured Picture.
842:
503:, failing which (likely the Uffizi being what it is) I'll just upload a photoshopped version of what I would have done if I had painted this great masterpiece myself.
154:
1342:
1149:
because it was an age when girls were about to marry. Not American standards. Could have been a portrait to show for a rich bachelor - no snapshots at the time.
1209:
944:
767:
Digital manipulation for the purpose of correcting flaws in a photographic image is generally acceptable provided it is limited, well-done, and not deceptive.
547:
748:
Digital manipulation for the purpose of correcting flaws in a photographic image is generally acceptable provided it is limited, well-done, and not deceptive
1332:
50:
724:
1212:. Its title is "Giulio Romano, peut-être avec l’intervention de Raphaël, Portrait de Doña Isabel de Requesens y Enríquez de Cardona-Anglesola, 1518" (
422:
86:
17:
939:(just 18 years old and unmarried when Raphael died). It is rather attributed to Raphael's pupil Giulio Romano and is thought to be a portrait of
1337:
948:
400:
699:
of trusty old DCoetzee's restoration nominated here. I've told Hafs that in future I will oppose these kind of nominations as "inauthentic
1032:'destroy' your nomination. That's your take. I'm simply pointing out that the image sucks. Get over it and move on. Stop caring so much.
521:
Your French is not French. And I wan't to remind you that once upon a time when Raphael made it this picture looked like this kind of
379:
inauthentic. Of course I have no objection to Dcoetzee uploading derivative files such as these, but I really can't see how they satisfy
1214:"Giulio Romano, possibly with the intervention of Raphaël, Portrait of Doña Isabel de Requesens y Enríquez de Cardona-Anglesola, 1518"
113:
770:
Typical acceptable manipulation includes cropping, perspective correction, sharpening/blurring, and colour/exposure correction.
1225:
1173:
1102:
1037:
984:
964:
850:
828:
712:
667:
607:
570:
508:
468:
426:
388:
291:
206:
286:
I nominated at FPC. I'm talking about digitally processing an art image as if that could emulate such restoration.It can't.
481:
Why your passion? Gnothi seauton. And your example is about the Madonna of the Goldfinch by Raphael. Not nominated here.
1071:
it is lovely. If it is attributed to several painters - this kind of doubt happens in the world of art history. Why do
845:
appreciated by the way. I can't make any of the JPEG 2000 viewers I see on Google work for me. Email me if you like.
695:
The point about the image of the Raphael restoration I uploaded was its subtlety, quite unlike the chocolate botox
779:
Note that this criterion is not relevant to vector-based SVG images, as the entire image is a digital construction.
1221:
1169:
1098:
1033:
980:
960:
846:
824:
708:
663:
603:
566:
504:
464:
384:
287:
202:
1093:
Raphael retouched the face because he was worried about the comparison his patron Francis I would make with the
429:. And the gown was probably clear strong red - much much more reddish than this one - when it was painted. And
956:
902:- should not be alowed to be used more in any nominations, not here, not anywhere. It is framed in with red:
1287:
1265:
1061:
253:
996:
682:
358:
333:
310:
241:
456:
257:
1196:
1154:
1132:
1080:
1018:
940:
936:
915:
792:
630:
585:
533:
486:
438:
353:
when it comes to this, although I agree that he should probably document his edits a bit better. —
269:
232:
185:
145:
137:
1279:
1260:
1191:
cames up with? No good quality - but this one is marvelous. He could not have done this alone...
524:
700:
452:
380:
371:
198:
119:
110:
82:
678:
354:
329:
306:
162:
74:
141:
935:. The painting is not attributed to Raphael and is no longer thought to be a portrait of
1192:
1150:
1128:
1076:
1014:
911:
788:
626:
581:
529:
482:
434:
265:
228:
224:
181:
1326:
1314:
1304:
1188:
900:
like he tries his hand at wit and subtlety, then he must expect me to respond in kind
864:
811:
430:
350:
166:
66:
776:
Any manipulation which causes the main subject to be misrepresented is unacceptable.
78:
1065:
460:
282:
I'm not talking about museum restorations such as the 2007 restoration of the
305:(Gets even worse once we add new layers, but then you weren't doing that). —
70:
1000:
Portrait of Dona Isabel de Requesens, marked both Giulio Romano and Raphael
122:
1054:( I removed some new ones added here again) and stop adding comments like
773:
More extensive manipulation should be clearly described in the image text.
1009:
Don't you make comments in the MIDDLE OF THE nomination text, like you
170:
736:
And this is the kind of reference standard we should be aiming for
731:
723:
240:
49:
870:
Also I think this kind of language used in this nomination like:
552:
thumb|upright= 2.0|right|Not the way I would have done it myself.
1050:
I have to seriously ask you stop editing this nomination, stop
952:
1060:
and now I am asking for administrators intervention agains
896:
chocolate botox kitsch of trusty old DCoetzee's restoration
951:. The subtle and beautiful image on the Louvre page is by
892:
Chto xudshee sanskrtiskee akkcentee ya kagdee-libo slishal
728:
This is the kind of colour revival that should be avoided
941:
Doña Isabel de Requesens y Enríquez de Cardona-Anglesola
1051:
1010:
823:
Cheers DC. Thanks for this. A fan of yours by the way.
69:
a pupil of Raphael. Raphael was an Italian painter and
35:
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.
955:
and later this evening I will upload it as a file in
1075:
care som much, that is on the other hand a mystery.
622:
File:Raphael - Saint John the Baptist Preaching.JPG
155:
Knowledge (XXG):Featured pictures/Artwork/Paintings
620:Could you please remove that oversized picture,
908:, ...+ to comment on the image, not the person
602:wasn't a poke in the chest and it wasn't nice.
1115:What a shame that you are using such words as
745:And I told you I don't agree. The WP?#8 say -
1210:This is the image held in the Louvre database
109:. London: Macmillan Reference Books. p. 357.
8:
18:Knowledge (XXG):Featured picture candidates
888:you're wilfully not going to get the point
894:and the rest of similar expressions as:
995:
399:
1168:Giulio Romano to execute the painting.
96:
1343:Featured picture nominations/July 2014
455:' objection. Why the passion? Here is
28:Portrait of Jeanne d'Aragon by Raphael
1187:have you seen what kind of paintings
868:since we use this on Knowledge (XXG).
550:. Another recently restored version (
262:just silly, inauthentic, and derisory
245:Daniel, before and after restoration.
7:
558:
134:Articles in which this image appears
105:Honour, Hugh; Fleming, John (1982).
260:??? Here you can use your epitets:
1333:Ended featured picture nominations
1313:Not enough support for promotion.
600:Reverting my upload of the Raphael
24:
559:
26:
660:Support Alt (but not original)
554:). I'll let you have the last
457:the latest Raphael restoration
1:
1278:- for original as nominated.
383:, the basis of my objection.
1338:Featured picture nominations
957:Romano's category at Commons
707:BTW. Got that quite wrong.
1359:
1062:Knowledge (XXG):Harassment
1052:posting more pictures here
949:this page at another place
898:and other personal attacs
501:Madonna with the Goldfinch
461:a video of the restoration
235:) 06:20, 18 July 2014(UTC)
151:FP category for this image
1318:06:03, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
1308:06:03, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
1295:11:14, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
1271:19:49, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
1230:17:33, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
1201:05:30, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
1178:05:08, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
1159:04:50, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
1137:00:34, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
1107:00:27, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
1085:22:55, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
1042:20:10, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
1023:03:03, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
989:18:22, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
969:04:14, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
920:16:57, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
855:22:23, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
833:16:29, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
815:14:44, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
797:01:14, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
717:00:43, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
687:23:14, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
672:22:27, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
635:22:37, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
612:22:17, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
590:22:15, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
575:18:56, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
538:18:21, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
513:18:16, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
491:17:42, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
473:17:20, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
443:16:35, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
427:www.larousse.encyclopedie
393:11:19, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
363:05:38, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
338:05:38, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
315:15:50, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
296:11:19, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
274:07:06, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
211:05:18, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
190:02:22, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
880:just silly, inauthentic
1259:: per nom, Hafspajen.
1001:
904:Please remember to be
737:
729:
408:
246:
107:A World History of Art
58:
39:Voting period ends on
999:
763:digital manipulation.
735:
727:
433:is a trusted editor.
403:
244:
53:
1222:Coat of Many Colours
1170:Coat of Many Colours
1124:medieval masturbator
1099:Coat of Many Colours
1064:on this nomination,
1034:Coat of Many Colours
1015:Hafspajen Wade Retro
981:Coat of Many Colours
961:Coat of Many Colours
847:Coat of Many Colours
825:Coat of Many Colours
709:Coat of Many Colours
664:Coat of Many Colours
604:Coat of Many Colours
567:Coat of Many Colours
505:Coat of Many Colours
465:Coat of Many Colours
385:Coat of Many Colours
288:Coat of Many Colours
252:Or maybe you prefer
203:Coat of Many Colours
178:Support as nominator
751:- a picture should:
1118:completely hideous
1002:
738:
730:
423:La Petite larousse
409:
247:
138:Giovanna d'Aragona
59:
953:Hervé Lewandowski
662:- Alt is lovely.
556:poke in the chest
528:- just you know.
523:strong colours -
103:See, for example
83:Leonardo da Vinci
47:
1350:
1292:
1284:
1283:
1147:clearly sensuous
1057:this image sucks
907:
598:Play fair Hafs.
564:
563:
562:
425:or here att the
163:Raphaello Sanzio
146:Ramón de Cardona
127:
126:
101:
77:. Together with
75:High Renaissance
38:
36:
1358:
1357:
1353:
1352:
1351:
1349:
1348:
1347:
1323:
1322:
1288:
1281:
1280:
937:Jeanne d'Aragon
905:
560:
546:Sign language,
142:Duchy of Alvito
131:
130:
116:
104:
102:
98:
37:
34:
31:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1356:
1354:
1346:
1345:
1340:
1335:
1325:
1324:
1321:
1320:
1301:Not Promoted
1298:
1297:
1273:
1253:
1252:
1251:
1250:
1249:
1248:
1247:
1246:
1245:
1244:
1243:
1242:
1241:
1240:
1239:
1238:
1237:
1236:
1235:
1234:
1233:
1232:
1204:
1203:
1181:
1180:
1162:
1161:
1140:
1139:
1110:
1109:
1088:
1087:
1069:
1045:
1044:
1026:
1025:
994:
993:
992:
991:
972:
971:
945:Louvre webpage
929:
928:
927:
926:
925:
924:
923:
922:
869:
858:
857:
836:
835:
818:
817:
806:
805:
804:
803:
802:
801:
800:
799:
783:
782:
781:
780:
777:
774:
771:
768:
753:
752:
722:
721:
720:
719:
690:
689:
674:
656:
655:
654:
653:
652:
651:
650:
649:
648:
647:
646:
645:
644:
643:
642:
641:
640:
639:
638:
637:
615:
614:
593:
592:
577:
541:
540:
516:
515:
494:
493:
476:
475:
446:
445:
398:
397:
396:
395:
366:
365:
343:
342:
341:
340:
322:
321:
320:
319:
318:
317:
299:
298:
277:
276:
239:
238:
237:
236:
225:Sistine chapel
214:
213:
192:
174:
173:
160:
157:
152:
149:
135:
129:
128:
114:
95:
94:
93:
92:
88:
63:
45:02:22:44 (UTC)
33:
30:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1355:
1344:
1341:
1339:
1336:
1334:
1331:
1330:
1328:
1319:
1316:
1312:
1311:
1310:
1309:
1306:
1302:
1296:
1293:
1291:
1285:
1282:SagaciousPhil
1277:
1274:
1272:
1269:
1268:
1264:
1263:
1262:Fylbecatulous
1258:
1255:
1254:
1231:
1227:
1223:
1219:
1215:
1211:
1208:
1207:
1206:
1205:
1202:
1198:
1194:
1190:
1189:Giulio Romano
1185:
1184:
1183:
1182:
1179:
1175:
1171:
1166:
1165:
1164:
1163:
1160:
1156:
1152:
1148:
1144:
1143:
1142:
1141:
1138:
1134:
1130:
1126:
1125:
1120:
1119:
1114:
1113:
1112:
1111:
1108:
1104:
1100:
1096:
1092:
1091:
1090:
1089:
1086:
1082:
1078:
1074:
1067:
1063:
1059:
1058:
1053:
1049:
1048:
1047:
1046:
1043:
1039:
1035:
1030:
1029:
1028:
1027:
1024:
1020:
1016:
1012:
1008:
1007:
1006:
1005:
1004:
1003:
998:
990:
986:
982:
979:
976:
975:
974:
973:
970:
966:
962:
958:
954:
950:
946:
942:
938:
934:
931:
930:
921:
917:
913:
909:
901:
897:
893:
889:
885:
881:
877:
873:
866:
862:
861:
860:
859:
856:
852:
848:
844:
840:
839:
838:
837:
834:
830:
826:
822:
821:
820:
819:
816:
813:
808:
807:
798:
794:
790:
785:
784:
778:
775:
772:
769:
766:
765:
764:
762:
761:inappropriate
757:
756:
755:
754:
750:
749:
744:
743:
742:
741:
740:
739:
734:
726:
718:
714:
710:
706:
702:
698:
694:
693:
692:
691:
688:
684:
680:
675:
673:
669:
665:
661:
658:
657:
636:
632:
628:
623:
619:
618:
617:
616:
613:
609:
605:
601:
597:
596:
595:
594:
591:
587:
583:
578:
576:
572:
568:
557:
553:
549:
545:
544:
543:
542:
539:
535:
531:
527:
526:
520:
519:
518:
517:
514:
510:
506:
502:
498:
497:
496:
495:
492:
488:
484:
480:
479:
478:
477:
474:
470:
466:
462:
458:
454:
450:
449:
448:
447:
444:
440:
436:
432:
428:
424:
419:
415:
414:
413:
412:
411:
410:
406:
402:
394:
390:
386:
382:
378:
373:
370:
369:
368:
367:
364:
360:
356:
352:
348:
345:
344:
339:
335:
331:
327:
324:
323:
316:
312:
308:
303:
302:
301:
300:
297:
293:
289:
285:
281:
280:
279:
278:
275:
271:
267:
263:
259:
255:
251:
250:
249:
248:
243:
234:
230:
226:
222:
218:
217:
216:
215:
212:
208:
204:
200:
196:
193:
191:
187:
183:
179:
176:
175:
172:
168:
167:Raphael Santi
164:
161:
158:
156:
153:
150:
147:
143:
139:
136:
133:
132:
124:
121:
117:
115:9780333235836
112:
108:
100:
97:
91:
87:
84:
80:
76:
72:
68:
67:Giulio Romano
64:
61:
60:
56:
52:
48:
46:
42:
29:
19:
1300:
1299:
1289:
1275:
1266:
1261:
1256:
1217:
1213:
1146:
1123:
1122:
1117:
1116:
1094:
1072:
1056:
1055:
932:
903:
899:
895:
891:
887:
883:
879:
875:
874:, a kind of
871:
760:
758:
747:
746:
704:
696:
659:
599:
555:
522:
500:
417:
404:
376:
346:
325:
261:
220:
199:The original
194:
177:
106:
99:
89:
79:Michelangelo
54:
44:
41:28 Jul 2014
40:
32:
27:
943:- see this
679:Crisco 1492
677:images.. —
355:Crisco 1492
330:Crisco 1492
307:Crisco 1492
1327:Categories
863:Thank you
525:like HERE
451:No, it's '
349:- I trust
284:Frans Hals
169:or simply
1218:Mona Lisa
1193:Hafspajen
1151:Hafspajen
1129:Hafspajen
1095:Mona Lisa
1077:Hafspajen
912:Hafspajen
876:art botox
789:Hafspajen
627:Hafspajen
582:Hafspajen
530:Hafspajen
483:Hafspajen
459:and here
435:Hafspajen
266:Hafspajen
256:or maybe
229:Hafspajen
221:Art botox
182:Hafspajen
71:architect
1315:Armbrust
1305:Armbrust
1011:did HERE
886:, and
884:derisory
872:horrible
865:Dcoetzee
812:Dcoetzee
548:whatever
431:Dcoetzee
416:That is
351:Dcoetzee
171:Raphael
55:Original
1276:Support
1257:Support
933:Comment
843:on this
453:WP?#8's
347:Support
326:Comment
159:Creator
123:8828368
73:of the
1066:Drmies
882:, and
841:Hints
759:Avoid
697:kitsch
195:Oppose
62:Reason
906:civil
701:WP?#8
381:WP?#8
372:WP?#8
16:<
1290:Chat
1267:talk
1226:talk
1197:talk
1174:talk
1155:talk
1133:talk
1121:and
1103:talk
1081:talk
1038:talk
1019:talk
985:talk
978:Done
965:talk
916:talk
851:talk
829:talk
793:talk
713:talk
683:talk
668:talk
631:talk
608:talk
586:talk
571:talk
534:talk
509:talk
487:talk
469:talk
439:talk
418:your
389:talk
359:talk
334:talk
311:talk
292:talk
270:talk
264:...
258:THIS
254:THIS
233:talk
207:talk
186:talk
120:OCLC
111:ISBN
81:and
1073:you
947:or
705:moi
405:ALT
377:are
227:.
165:or
43:at
1329::
1303:--
1286:-
1228:)
1199:)
1176:)
1157:)
1135:)
1105:)
1083:)
1040:)
1021:)
987:)
967:)
959:.
918:)
890:,
878:,
853:)
831:)
795:)
715:)
685:)
670:)
633:)
610:)
588:)
573:)
565:.
536:)
511:)
489:)
471:)
441:)
391:)
361:)
336:)
313:)
294:)
272:)
209:)
188:)
180:–
144:;
140:;
118:.
1224:(
1195:(
1172:(
1153:(
1131:(
1101:(
1079:(
1068:.
1036:(
1017:(
983:(
963:(
914:(
849:(
827:(
791:(
711:(
681:(
666:(
629:(
606:(
584:(
569:(
532:(
507:(
485:(
467:(
437:(
387:(
357:(
332:(
309:(
290:(
268:(
231:(
205:(
184:(
148:;
125:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
