![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I am attempting to locate the exact inscription on the base of the statue. Help?
==I suggest that this page be joined with the article on the Cornaro Chapel (or that the Cornaro Chapel article be added to this one) Bernini designed the chapel as a unity, which was designed to be appreciated by the spectator as a single work of art / religious chapel. Art historians, eg Wittkower in his book on Bernini, also consider the Cornaro Chapel as a single work of art. It makes no sense to have two separate pages. Xcia0069 ( talk) 00:17, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
Is it really necessary to mention a fictional reference of the work from a contemporary novel?
I second a vote for its removal. -Caravaggisti
Agreed.
I remember reading somewhere that this sculpture was first placed somewhere else (the vatican?) and removed. Can anyone confirm this? (Posted 12:47, April 30, 2006 by ImmaculateHeart)
"Titillating as such theory may be, however, most serious scholars...doubt that Bernini...consciously intended to depict an episode of lust fufilled. " This sentence needs at least one reference, if one is to say that "...most serious scholars...". Who are these scholars? Please reference. If there is a serious (although to my mind, pedantic and meaningless) debate as to whether or not this sculputure depicts a spiritual versus a physical orgasm, then there needs to be references for both sides. This article seems to be one person's point of view. (Posted 02:40, May 22, 2006 by 72.234.218.195)
I agree, this article is written in a very snobby way, it seems to be focused on telling off theories of what the statue is depicting. TostitosAreGross 10:15, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
I agree that acuracy and footnoting are essential aspects to an article. However, a little tinge of being opinionated can spice things up a bit. UTC, stop being so harsh on our colleague. Thankyou kindly for your article. AB
I added a reference to a passage from Robert Harbison's Reflections on Baroque that perhaps substantiates this claim: "It is an astonishing passage that the post-Freudian reader cannot help sniggering at -- doesn't the nun realize she is describing mainly sexual longings? Indeed, a few lines later she recognizes that it is like bodily seduction, but only as an opening or avenue for another kind of experience. Human sexuality or even the senses cannot have the primacy for Teresa or Bernini which they do for us. The shocking reciprocal movement which grabs our attention so forcibly is not intended a sensational; it aims to jar us into another place entirely."(harbison, r. p23) 134.10.12.39 11:02, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm sure I will sound like an uneducated oaf, but this entire section is wildly over-the-top with its vocabulary. I'm certainly not advocating the excision of the ideas and views presented, but could it be rewritten in a more accessible way?
The discussion in the article is a good example of what Simon Schama in his recent TV series called "ignoring the blindingly obvious". (MS, this sentence only) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.44.235.154 ( talk) 12:26, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Just came across this article and I am revising the section on "Critical assessment": the reference to QM2 proceedings paper is definitely not a reliable source; indeed, looking at the paper, it barely reference Bernini's sculpture and itself does not cite any sources. cheers. Mike Restivo ( talk) 20:25, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
(outdent) I've made some changes to address the issues under discussion, and I'm of the view that it's ready to be untagged (but of course that's not my call). DavidOaks ( talk) 18:58, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
It is spelled different ways in the title and content of the page —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.131.116.83 ( talk) 16:42, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
That is odd... Aristophanes68 ( talk) 13:56, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Is there a particular reason for the lack of a period after St in the title? It seems to contradict common language convictions. Lefteh ( talk) 03:51, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: page moved. NW ( Talk) 16:55, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Ecstasy of Saint Theresa →
Ecstasy of Saint Teresa — The Wikipedia article on the saint is listed under
Teresa of Ávila; the new name would thus be consistent with her article. Relisting, see below.
Andrewa (
talk) 03:48, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
Aristophanes68 (
talk)
16:18, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Ecstasy of Saint Teresa. 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) 00:53, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Ecstasy of Saint Teresa. 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) 14:06, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
The full (St. Teresa + cardinals) image in the gallery is flipped. In real life, the cardinals are on the right. -- Викидим ( talk) 21:08, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 02:46, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I am attempting to locate the exact inscription on the base of the statue. Help?
==I suggest that this page be joined with the article on the Cornaro Chapel (or that the Cornaro Chapel article be added to this one) Bernini designed the chapel as a unity, which was designed to be appreciated by the spectator as a single work of art / religious chapel. Art historians, eg Wittkower in his book on Bernini, also consider the Cornaro Chapel as a single work of art. It makes no sense to have two separate pages. Xcia0069 ( talk) 00:17, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
Is it really necessary to mention a fictional reference of the work from a contemporary novel?
I second a vote for its removal. -Caravaggisti
Agreed.
I remember reading somewhere that this sculpture was first placed somewhere else (the vatican?) and removed. Can anyone confirm this? (Posted 12:47, April 30, 2006 by ImmaculateHeart)
"Titillating as such theory may be, however, most serious scholars...doubt that Bernini...consciously intended to depict an episode of lust fufilled. " This sentence needs at least one reference, if one is to say that "...most serious scholars...". Who are these scholars? Please reference. If there is a serious (although to my mind, pedantic and meaningless) debate as to whether or not this sculputure depicts a spiritual versus a physical orgasm, then there needs to be references for both sides. This article seems to be one person's point of view. (Posted 02:40, May 22, 2006 by 72.234.218.195)
I agree, this article is written in a very snobby way, it seems to be focused on telling off theories of what the statue is depicting. TostitosAreGross 10:15, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
I agree that acuracy and footnoting are essential aspects to an article. However, a little tinge of being opinionated can spice things up a bit. UTC, stop being so harsh on our colleague. Thankyou kindly for your article. AB
I added a reference to a passage from Robert Harbison's Reflections on Baroque that perhaps substantiates this claim: "It is an astonishing passage that the post-Freudian reader cannot help sniggering at -- doesn't the nun realize she is describing mainly sexual longings? Indeed, a few lines later she recognizes that it is like bodily seduction, but only as an opening or avenue for another kind of experience. Human sexuality or even the senses cannot have the primacy for Teresa or Bernini which they do for us. The shocking reciprocal movement which grabs our attention so forcibly is not intended a sensational; it aims to jar us into another place entirely."(harbison, r. p23) 134.10.12.39 11:02, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm sure I will sound like an uneducated oaf, but this entire section is wildly over-the-top with its vocabulary. I'm certainly not advocating the excision of the ideas and views presented, but could it be rewritten in a more accessible way?
The discussion in the article is a good example of what Simon Schama in his recent TV series called "ignoring the blindingly obvious". (MS, this sentence only) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.44.235.154 ( talk) 12:26, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Just came across this article and I am revising the section on "Critical assessment": the reference to QM2 proceedings paper is definitely not a reliable source; indeed, looking at the paper, it barely reference Bernini's sculpture and itself does not cite any sources. cheers. Mike Restivo ( talk) 20:25, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
(outdent) I've made some changes to address the issues under discussion, and I'm of the view that it's ready to be untagged (but of course that's not my call). DavidOaks ( talk) 18:58, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
It is spelled different ways in the title and content of the page —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.131.116.83 ( talk) 16:42, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
That is odd... Aristophanes68 ( talk) 13:56, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Is there a particular reason for the lack of a period after St in the title? It seems to contradict common language convictions. Lefteh ( talk) 03:51, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: page moved. NW ( Talk) 16:55, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Ecstasy of Saint Theresa →
Ecstasy of Saint Teresa — The Wikipedia article on the saint is listed under
Teresa of Ávila; the new name would thus be consistent with her article. Relisting, see below.
Andrewa (
talk) 03:48, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
Aristophanes68 (
talk)
16:18, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Ecstasy of Saint Teresa. 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) 00:53, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Ecstasy of Saint Teresa. 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) 14:06, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
The full (St. Teresa + cardinals) image in the gallery is flipped. In real life, the cardinals are on the right. -- Викидим ( talk) 21:08, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 02:46, 18 February 2023 (UTC)