![]() | Dresden Triptych is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | |||||||||
![]() | This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on March 30, 2021. | |||||||||
|
![]() | This article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
|
I dont think this sect is going anywhere; prob best to just merge within description. Ceoil ( talk) 18:20, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
As with other van Eyck depictions of churches, the space has not been been identified with any known building, and instead seems to be an idealised architectural space.
I don't like that section - I think I've shoved in too much, but might be losing perspective. I wasn't going to do much about the frames, but on a second reading they seemed important because they had a protective function, so I stuffed it in there and added the inscriptions there too. I think the long inscription in the note is overkill, but I suppose educational in that shows how densely the frame was inscribed. Anyway, all of these words to say I need some feedback. Victoria ( talk) 19:03, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
No idea where this came from, although, ahem, it was probably me that introduced it. Smith, not an easy name to be narrowing down to an individual. But the statement it supports is banal, will have to replace. Ceoil ( talk) 21:42, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
With a great deal of difficulty and twisting of arms to get behind a paywall into an academic database I found this annunciation. It's quite pretty and the floor tiling, the edging on Mary's dress, look somewhat van Eyckian. Only problem: it has faint watermarks. So I haven't bothered to upload in case they're too unsightly. Input? Victoria ( talk) 21:45, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
The full inscriptions of the St. Michael and Catherine frames are in Dhanens, but I haven't bothered to copy out - they're quite long and for some reason she hasn't identified the source. Do we need them or is it okay as is w/ only the full inscription from the center panel frame? Victoria ( talk) 15:28, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
Some phrase. I break down each time I read it. Too good. Ceoil ( talk) 21:17, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
Parking this here, interesting: [1]. Victoria ( talk) 14:11, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
I think the statement "The rich and complex iconography and symbolic meaning attached to the many objects seem overall to highlight the co-existence of the spiritual and material worlds." falls flat in that its not really backed up. Its undoubtly true, well its characteristic, but I'm searching through the sources, but not finding much to back it up *for this work*. Ceoil ( talk) 16:22, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
In the religious pictures datable after 1436 - the Virgin and Child in Frankfurt, the Dresden triptych, and the Virgin and Child with a Fountain and St Barbara in Antwerp - there are only vestigial traces of the kind of dynamic symbolic interaction described here. The smaller size of the works and Van Eyck's assessment of the patron and his interests many have had something to do with this. Given the difficulty of contriving new disguised symbols to express essentially the same concept with very similar subject matter, Van Eyck may also have decided that he had exhausted the most interesting possibilities and that the whole method was in danger of becoming a formula. Or he may have discovered that the disguises worked only too well and that much of his carefully planned symbolism went unappreciated by patrons or by viewers. – Ward, page 13
In the best tradition of working on van Eyck FACs I've missed the inlines (jokingly referred to as snark) that Yomangani has in the past strewn about to keep us on track. Lo and behold, an imitator has shown up and I've taken that person's advice and moved the donor section up. I like it that way - seems to fit well after the provenance - so I'm leaving it as is, but won't have a problem with yet another rearranging if it seems wrong. Victoria ( talk) 19:59, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
While the frame is the original oak frame (how cool is that?) and thus old enough to be out of copyright, because it is a 3-D work, photographs of it are not automatically free under US law. US law holds that photos of free 2-D art works are automatically free (as taking a photo of a flat artwork is not a creative act), but photos of 3-D works are not free (even if the work itself is no longer copyrighted) because there is a creative aspect to the photo. Thus, photos of this painting and its frame have to be freely licensed by the photographer. That is why the current lead image File:Jan van Eyck - Triptych of Mary and Child, St. Michael, and the Catherine - Google Art Project.jpg from Google Art Project has had a non-free frame template added on Commons.
I found a freely licensed photograph on Flickr which I uploaded on Commons here and show with the current lead image in the gallery below, and see several possible solutions.
For now, I'll leave this until we have all possible solutions on the table, then Ceoil and I will decide how to go forward. Thanks again!. Victoria ( talk) 13:23, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, but I am not sure - perhaps we should ask Dcoetzee who uploaded the Google Art image on Commons and added the non-free frame template there. My gut reaction is that the frame is an integral part of the work and we should have as good a photo of it and the paintings as possible, but the law may be against me on this. A useful rule of thumb is, if it can cast a shadow, it is considered 3-D. Still waiting on the Commons user I asked (he is usually not around on weekends). Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:57, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
Ruhrfisch asked me to offer a comment. The conversation above is quite good, but I'm not sure the issue is fully understood. Be careful with wording, as three dimensional (i.e., having length, width and height - however slight) is the actual legal consideration, not “flat” (i.e., generally being level on the horizon). File:Dresden triptych center panel.jpg and File:Dresden triptych Catherine and frame.jpg, for example, are in fact not two dimensional, as the frame is visible in its entirety or in part. The issue of dimension is one of originality (in the US, a mere prohibition on copying). The presence of engraving, embossing, beveled edges, etc. (i.e., three-dimensional features) allows an author of a derivative to add something original. Indeed, this is the issue mentioned by Crisco 1492 related to coins. In File:Dresden triptych center panel.jpg, for example, note the highlight in the lower right of the frame. Note also how the lighting highlights the embossed text along the perimeter in both images. These are unique elements (original to the photographer, not present in the existing frame) which would be expected to allow the derivative photograph to be copyrightable.
Option one (I) above is valid, but I disagree with two (II) and three (III). As explained above, the proposed cropped "flat" image has not resolved the issue as rather large portions of the 3D frame have been retained. Regarding III, consider, for example, the millions (if not billions) of photographs of the Statue of Liberty. Within that sample, undoubtedly many are all but identical. Nevertheless, copyright would not be expected to be denied to the photographers on that basis. Alternatively, imagine of the chaos (legally, as in disorder) that would ensue if the mere ability of an author to replicate the work of another was grounds, in and of itself, to void the latter's copyright. Эlcobbola talk 15:26, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
Thanks guys for putting so much effort and thought into this. (I) is not ideal but I can live with it fine, while also searching around for a better quality freely licensed version. I would be in favour of retaining this for now as the lead image. Re the crops - condisering the article goes into depth on the inscriptions and timber and so on, would one or FU crops (of portios of the frame only) be acceptable? I mean if the rational was explicitly saying how the portion shown relates to the article text, and is of educational use. Other wise I think the article may be slightly blunt. Anyways...I appreciate the situation we are faced with, such as it is. Tks. Ceoil ( talk) 21:54, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
==Rationale for use in [[Dresden Triptych]]== Though this image may be subject to copyright, its use is covered by the U.S. fair use laws, and the stricter requirements of Wikipedia's non-free content policies, because:
I plan to contact Google and see if they might freely license the gorgeous hi-res image they have. Can't hurt to try (and their motto is not to be evil, so if I tell them it would be very good to freely license it, who knows?). Do NOT wait for this for the FAC. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:12, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Dresden Triptych. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 07:37, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
![]() | Dresden Triptych is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | |||||||||
![]() | This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on March 30, 2021. | |||||||||
|
![]() | This article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
|
I dont think this sect is going anywhere; prob best to just merge within description. Ceoil ( talk) 18:20, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
As with other van Eyck depictions of churches, the space has not been been identified with any known building, and instead seems to be an idealised architectural space.
I don't like that section - I think I've shoved in too much, but might be losing perspective. I wasn't going to do much about the frames, but on a second reading they seemed important because they had a protective function, so I stuffed it in there and added the inscriptions there too. I think the long inscription in the note is overkill, but I suppose educational in that shows how densely the frame was inscribed. Anyway, all of these words to say I need some feedback. Victoria ( talk) 19:03, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
No idea where this came from, although, ahem, it was probably me that introduced it. Smith, not an easy name to be narrowing down to an individual. But the statement it supports is banal, will have to replace. Ceoil ( talk) 21:42, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
With a great deal of difficulty and twisting of arms to get behind a paywall into an academic database I found this annunciation. It's quite pretty and the floor tiling, the edging on Mary's dress, look somewhat van Eyckian. Only problem: it has faint watermarks. So I haven't bothered to upload in case they're too unsightly. Input? Victoria ( talk) 21:45, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
The full inscriptions of the St. Michael and Catherine frames are in Dhanens, but I haven't bothered to copy out - they're quite long and for some reason she hasn't identified the source. Do we need them or is it okay as is w/ only the full inscription from the center panel frame? Victoria ( talk) 15:28, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
Some phrase. I break down each time I read it. Too good. Ceoil ( talk) 21:17, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
Parking this here, interesting: [1]. Victoria ( talk) 14:11, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
I think the statement "The rich and complex iconography and symbolic meaning attached to the many objects seem overall to highlight the co-existence of the spiritual and material worlds." falls flat in that its not really backed up. Its undoubtly true, well its characteristic, but I'm searching through the sources, but not finding much to back it up *for this work*. Ceoil ( talk) 16:22, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
In the religious pictures datable after 1436 - the Virgin and Child in Frankfurt, the Dresden triptych, and the Virgin and Child with a Fountain and St Barbara in Antwerp - there are only vestigial traces of the kind of dynamic symbolic interaction described here. The smaller size of the works and Van Eyck's assessment of the patron and his interests many have had something to do with this. Given the difficulty of contriving new disguised symbols to express essentially the same concept with very similar subject matter, Van Eyck may also have decided that he had exhausted the most interesting possibilities and that the whole method was in danger of becoming a formula. Or he may have discovered that the disguises worked only too well and that much of his carefully planned symbolism went unappreciated by patrons or by viewers. – Ward, page 13
In the best tradition of working on van Eyck FACs I've missed the inlines (jokingly referred to as snark) that Yomangani has in the past strewn about to keep us on track. Lo and behold, an imitator has shown up and I've taken that person's advice and moved the donor section up. I like it that way - seems to fit well after the provenance - so I'm leaving it as is, but won't have a problem with yet another rearranging if it seems wrong. Victoria ( talk) 19:59, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
While the frame is the original oak frame (how cool is that?) and thus old enough to be out of copyright, because it is a 3-D work, photographs of it are not automatically free under US law. US law holds that photos of free 2-D art works are automatically free (as taking a photo of a flat artwork is not a creative act), but photos of 3-D works are not free (even if the work itself is no longer copyrighted) because there is a creative aspect to the photo. Thus, photos of this painting and its frame have to be freely licensed by the photographer. That is why the current lead image File:Jan van Eyck - Triptych of Mary and Child, St. Michael, and the Catherine - Google Art Project.jpg from Google Art Project has had a non-free frame template added on Commons.
I found a freely licensed photograph on Flickr which I uploaded on Commons here and show with the current lead image in the gallery below, and see several possible solutions.
For now, I'll leave this until we have all possible solutions on the table, then Ceoil and I will decide how to go forward. Thanks again!. Victoria ( talk) 13:23, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, but I am not sure - perhaps we should ask Dcoetzee who uploaded the Google Art image on Commons and added the non-free frame template there. My gut reaction is that the frame is an integral part of the work and we should have as good a photo of it and the paintings as possible, but the law may be against me on this. A useful rule of thumb is, if it can cast a shadow, it is considered 3-D. Still waiting on the Commons user I asked (he is usually not around on weekends). Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:57, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
Ruhrfisch asked me to offer a comment. The conversation above is quite good, but I'm not sure the issue is fully understood. Be careful with wording, as three dimensional (i.e., having length, width and height - however slight) is the actual legal consideration, not “flat” (i.e., generally being level on the horizon). File:Dresden triptych center panel.jpg and File:Dresden triptych Catherine and frame.jpg, for example, are in fact not two dimensional, as the frame is visible in its entirety or in part. The issue of dimension is one of originality (in the US, a mere prohibition on copying). The presence of engraving, embossing, beveled edges, etc. (i.e., three-dimensional features) allows an author of a derivative to add something original. Indeed, this is the issue mentioned by Crisco 1492 related to coins. In File:Dresden triptych center panel.jpg, for example, note the highlight in the lower right of the frame. Note also how the lighting highlights the embossed text along the perimeter in both images. These are unique elements (original to the photographer, not present in the existing frame) which would be expected to allow the derivative photograph to be copyrightable.
Option one (I) above is valid, but I disagree with two (II) and three (III). As explained above, the proposed cropped "flat" image has not resolved the issue as rather large portions of the 3D frame have been retained. Regarding III, consider, for example, the millions (if not billions) of photographs of the Statue of Liberty. Within that sample, undoubtedly many are all but identical. Nevertheless, copyright would not be expected to be denied to the photographers on that basis. Alternatively, imagine of the chaos (legally, as in disorder) that would ensue if the mere ability of an author to replicate the work of another was grounds, in and of itself, to void the latter's copyright. Эlcobbola talk 15:26, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
Thanks guys for putting so much effort and thought into this. (I) is not ideal but I can live with it fine, while also searching around for a better quality freely licensed version. I would be in favour of retaining this for now as the lead image. Re the crops - condisering the article goes into depth on the inscriptions and timber and so on, would one or FU crops (of portios of the frame only) be acceptable? I mean if the rational was explicitly saying how the portion shown relates to the article text, and is of educational use. Other wise I think the article may be slightly blunt. Anyways...I appreciate the situation we are faced with, such as it is. Tks. Ceoil ( talk) 21:54, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
==Rationale for use in [[Dresden Triptych]]== Though this image may be subject to copyright, its use is covered by the U.S. fair use laws, and the stricter requirements of Wikipedia's non-free content policies, because:
I plan to contact Google and see if they might freely license the gorgeous hi-res image they have. Can't hurt to try (and their motto is not to be evil, so if I tell them it would be very good to freely license it, who knows?). Do NOT wait for this for the FAC. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:12, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Dresden Triptych. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 07:37, 30 September 2017 (UTC)