51:
377:
decoration without any real accuracy - the vestments depicted would not be correct for the actual period that the person was bishop. Historical writing has gotten away from using non-contemporary depictions for medieval and ancient subjects because it gives the wrong impression. The work was painted 1000 years AFTER the bishop lived. There is no way it can be considered historically accurate and not making that clear to the readers is being misleading.
294:'s article (Girolamo Romani (c. 1485 – c. 1566) - currently is badly illustrated, he is a rather well known Italian High Renaissance painter - and he is good. The above reasoning could have possibly occurred if somebody asked for featuring a Bible-card or random Bible illustration, but Romanino, who is an artist of his own right. You don't get the Interpol to go find a stolen painting if it is not an important artist's painting.
417:
that it's not contemporary. When this FPC was started ... the bishop's article did not have that. I'm hoping that all future such uses will have the proper context given - that's my point. Or better yet, don't place a non-contemporary image into a medieval or ancient history biography article just for decorative purposes.
337:
from that article - as it's not at all useful. We'd be better off running a cartoon image ... that way readers wouldn't assume that the depiction is accurate, which they probably do now given there is no disclaimer. I see it was added just on 7 April 2015. I was tempted to remove it, but instead put in a caption.
448:
Also there is a wast amount of artwork on different themes that is part of our cultural human heritage, and it only shows that the theme they are illustrating is interesting, is a living, actual theme - that preoccupies people and they are still keep on depicting it, adding additional information and
416:
I'm not objecting to it's use in the article on the painter or in an article on the town or church. But using it on the article about the bishop turns it into history, not art history. It really does not belong in the bishop's article, but at the very least it should have a good caption that explains
336:
Yes, I get annoyed when folks use non-contemporary images for medieval (or earlier) subjects - especially (as in this case) when it's not made clear that it is not at all contemporary. There is no caption in the biography article - which is misleading the readers. Quite honestly, it should be removed
177:
The history of
Western portrait art can be pretty much summed up by Blackadder, "painted to a romantic ideal rather than the true depiction of the idiosyncratic facial qualities of the person in question", so we could question many of the portraits that end up featured. Everything with Christ in, for
523:
Hafspajen, I think that's a little patronising. I agree fully with
Ealdgyth. The picture is in use in a biography, not an article about art history. I am not going to judge it for its contribution to art history, but nor am I going to judge it as a photograph. I'm going to judge its effectiveness as
528:
judging it? Because, as far as I can see, it doesn't have much to do with how it's actually used, and that's what we're meant to be judging. Also (and I'm disengaging after this- if you still don't get it, I give up), "Nobody would ever start considering an artwork like this historically accurate.
376:
You're not getting the point ... it's not about whether or not it is supposed to depict the subject of the article. It is that it was placed in the article with no caption pointing out that it is not at all likeness of the individual. Without that context, it's misleading. And it's just a pretty
196:
I think you have missed my point. This image is not being used as a reproduction of a painting or an example of a particular style of artwork (as any FP featuring Christ will be) but as an illustration of
Gaudiosus. Were this image being used to illustrate an article about Renaissance views of
312:
I'm slightly mystified by this response. No, we don't know what Hamlet looked like, and no, I wouldn't support promoting a painting of him presented as a likeness, either. And yes, we do use "likenesses" in these articles (though it's an open question as to whether we should- I think I recall
197:
historical bishops, or as an example of a painter's work/style, or in an article about the painting itself we would not be having this conversation. As it is, the image is being used apparently simply as a likeness for the subject, and, for that, it is ill-suited.
529:
Nobody ever said it was either." I disagree. A lot of people are going to assume at a glance that this is historically accurate, and when it's placed in the lead in the way that it was (and, arguably, the way it now is), it is
317:
getting annoyed about this at one point) but "we use type x pictures in articles" is very different from "we should be promoting type x pictures to FP status". I remain unconvinced about the EV of this image.
238:
looked - and still they are depicted. This guy is from the 5th century... It is impossible to ask for a real likeness. I really can't notice any point in this opposition. The art of depiction in the
159:
Gaudiousus of Naples. More precisely, it's what someone who lived centuries after his death imagined he would look like. This is not at all useful as a likeness, which is how it is currently used.
99:
738:
398:. Are you familiar with art, art history and such? Nobody would ever start considering an artwork like this historically accurate. Nobody ever said it was either.
497:? Those artist's works bear with almost no likeness with depicted persons or even objects. One have to be careful about what criteria is risen. Art is not really
728:
354:
And I am not with you two here. The painting is in the church, on the high altar, where he was a bishop, in the very church, where he is buried in
17:
733:
50:
670:
653:
635:
617:
600:
583:
542:
510:
476:
458:
443:
425:
407:
385:
367:
345:
327:
303:
285:
251:
206:
187:
168:
147:
126:
683:
608:– Sorry, but as either art or portraiture, strikes me as bland, humdrum. Granted, it's 16th C., but still....
66:
87:
631:
579:
538:
506:
472:
454:
449:
things that comes from them, from their time. It is certainly not a reason to oppose a nomination.
439:
403:
363:
323:
299:
281:
247:
202:
164:
143:
485:
One can't really judge artwork like this, if they are depicting enough likeness or not. How about
422:
382:
342:
257:
183:
122:
467:
No one is opposing this nomination because there is "a amount of artwork on different themes".
276:... we just don't KNOW how they looked. And still we depict them... And use them in articles.
434:
I think it can very well illustrate the article, as you did, adding: 16th century depiction.
107:
62:
242:- was not in such state that it would have been any good for depicting any real likeness.
703:
596:
73:, Italy. This painting is part of the high altarpiece of one of the churches in Brescia.
627:
575:
534:
502:
468:
450:
435:
399:
359:
319:
295:
277:
273:
243:
198:
160:
139:
722:
667:
649:
613:
418:
378:
338:
314:
265:
179:
118:
395:
239:
592:
235:
227:
231:
223:
645:
609:
571:
490:
394:
Sorry, but You're not getting the point ... This is not photography, but
291:
269:
91:
358:. He was an Italan bishop. It is also an artwork of a well know artist.
494:
486:
355:
261:
219:
70:
49:
155:. This is not a painting by Gaudiosus of Naples- it's a painting
100:
Knowledge (XXG):Featured pictures/People/Religious figures
35:
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.
626:
Hm. Have you looked closely? Great brushwork, though.
260:- nobody has the faintest idea how he looked, really.
136:He looks weighed down by a lot of responsibility.
264:- same there, and all the rest from that period,
8:
18:Knowledge (XXG):Featured picture candidates
739:Featured picture nominations/April 2015
675:
524:a portrait of a real person. How are
7:
684:"Saint Gaudioso – Girolamo Romanino"
84:Articles in which this image appears
729:Ended featured picture nominations
256:Other guys from that period were:
24:
81:Great scan of excellent picture
65:; This is a painting of Saint
1:
218:But nobody knows how Hamlet,
734:Featured picture nominations
704:"Saint Gaudiosus of Brescia"
570:- also, fixed his article. (
499:about photographic likeness
755:
671:18:25, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
654:14:24, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
636:01:44, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
618:12:54, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
533:as historically accurate.
96:FP category for this image
644:Maybe it needs cleaning?
601:01:07, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
584:02:15, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
543:14:33, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
511:10:22, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
477:14:33, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
459:14:02, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
444:13:55, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
426:13:16, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
408:12:59, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
386:12:53, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
368:12:45, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
346:17:29, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
328:17:20, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
304:01:54, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
286:01:34, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
252:01:19, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
207:23:17, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
188:22:50, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
169:22:43, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
148:19:06, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
127:17:55, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
290:Also. Even if even if
74:
69:, who was a bishop in
39:Voting period ends on
88:Gaudentius of Brescia
53:
115:Support as nominator
67:Gaudiosus of Brescia
258:Augustine of Hippo
75:
137:
108:Girolamo Romanino
63:Girolamo Romanino
47:
746:
714:
713:
711:
710:
700:
694:
693:
691:
690:
680:
135:
38:
36:
754:
753:
749:
748:
747:
745:
744:
743:
719:
718:
717:
708:
706:
702:
701:
697:
688:
686:
682:
681:
677:
37:
34:
31:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
752:
750:
742:
741:
736:
731:
721:
720:
716:
715:
695:
674:
664:Not Promoted
661:
660:
659:
658:
657:
656:
639:
638:
621:
620:
603:
586:
564:
563:
562:
561:
560:
559:
558:
557:
556:
555:
554:
553:
552:
551:
550:
549:
548:
547:
546:
545:
520:
519:
518:
517:
516:
515:
514:
513:
480:
479:
462:
461:
446:
429:
428:
411:
410:
389:
388:
371:
370:
349:
348:
331:
330:
307:
306:
288:
274:Attila the Hun
254:
210:
209:
191:
190:
172:
171:
150:
129:
111:
110:
105:
102:
97:
94:
85:
82:
79:
59:Saint Gaudioso
45:17:55:25 (UTC)
33:
30:
28:Saint Gaudioso
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
751:
740:
737:
735:
732:
730:
727:
726:
724:
705:
699:
696:
685:
679:
676:
673:
672:
669:
665:
655:
651:
647:
643:
642:
641:
640:
637:
633:
629:
625:
624:
623:
622:
619:
615:
611:
607:
604:
602:
598:
594:
590:
587:
585:
581:
577:
573:
569:
566:
565:
544:
540:
536:
532:
527:
522:
521:
512:
508:
504:
500:
496:
492:
488:
484:
483:
482:
481:
478:
474:
470:
466:
465:
464:
463:
460:
456:
452:
447:
445:
441:
437:
433:
432:
431:
430:
427:
424:
420:
415:
414:
413:
412:
409:
405:
401:
397:
393:
392:
391:
390:
387:
384:
380:
375:
374:
373:
372:
369:
365:
361:
357:
353:
352:
351:
350:
347:
344:
340:
335:
334:
333:
332:
329:
325:
321:
316:
311:
310:
309:
308:
305:
301:
297:
293:
289:
287:
283:
279:
275:
271:
267:
266:Saint Patrick
263:
259:
255:
253:
249:
245:
241:
237:
233:
229:
225:
221:
217:
214:
213:
212:
211:
208:
204:
200:
195:
194:
193:
192:
189:
185:
181:
178:example... –
176:
175:
174:
173:
170:
166:
162:
158:
154:
151:
149:
145:
141:
133:
130:
128:
124:
120:
116:
113:
112:
109:
106:
103:
101:
98:
95:
93:
89:
86:
83:
80:
77:
76:
72:
68:
64:
60:
56:
52:
48:
46:
42:
29:
26:
19:
707:. Retrieved
698:
687:. Retrieved
678:
663:
662:
605:
588:
567:
535:Josh Milburn
530:
525:
498:
469:Josh Milburn
320:Josh Milburn
215:
199:Josh Milburn
161:Josh Milburn
156:
152:
131:
114:
58:
54:
44:
41:16 Apr 2015
40:
32:
27:
396:art history
240:5th century
723:Categories
709:2023-04-25
689:2023-04-25
236:Robin Hood
234:, or even
228:Augustinus
61:(1524) by
628:Hafspajen
576:Hafspajen
531:presented
503:Hafspajen
451:Hafspajen
436:Hafspajen
400:Hafspajen
360:Hafspajen
296:Hafspajen
278:Hafspajen
244:Hafspajen
232:St. Peter
224:Nicodemus
222:, Jesus,
140:CorinneSD
668:Armbrust
589:Support
572:Romanino
501:at all.
491:Mondrian
419:Ealdgyth
379:Ealdgyth
339:Ealdgyth
315:Ealdgyth
292:Romanino
270:Pelagius
180:SchroCat
119:SchroCat
92:Romanino
55:Original
606:Comment
574:'s *)
568:Support
495:Matisse
487:Picasso
356:Brescia
262:Hypatia
220:Ophelia
216:Comment
132:Support
104:Creator
71:Brescia
153:Oppose
78:Reason
593:Jobas
16:<
650:talk
632:talk
614:talk
597:talk
580:talk
539:talk
507:talk
473:talk
455:talk
440:talk
423:Talk
404:talk
383:Talk
364:talk
343:Talk
324:talk
300:talk
282:talk
248:talk
203:talk
184:talk
165:talk
144:talk
123:talk
646:Sca
610:Sca
526:you
90:,
43:at
725::
666:--
652:)
634:)
616:)
599:)
582:)
541:)
509:)
493:,
489:,
475:)
457:)
442:)
421:-
406:)
381:-
366:)
341:-
326:)
302:)
284:)
272:,
268:,
250:)
230:,
226:,
205:)
186:)
167:)
157:of
146:)
138:–
134:–
125:)
117:–
57:–
712:.
692:.
648:(
630:(
612:(
595:(
591:-
578:(
537:(
505:(
471:(
453:(
438:(
402:(
362:(
322:(
298:(
280:(
246:(
201:(
182:(
163:(
142:(
121:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
