![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I've removed several florid passages, whose author edited under Martin Kemp's name--the tone really suggested an attempt to confirm the attribution to Leonardo, and was, one hesitates to say, unacceptably promotional. If said passages were indeed written by Professor Kemp, an acknowledged authority, they may nonetheless constitute a conflict of interest. However, his input here would still be invaluable, and said description could be restored in different form, and sourced to Professor Kemp. I've also added a section on the disagreement with the attribution, taken from the current lengthy New Yorker essay. The article still may have bias issues, as recently suggested by another editor. Until now it was a virtual sales pitch, and a great work of art, like any subject, can stand on its intrinsic merits, as well as good encyclopedic sourcing. JNW ( talk) 03:00, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
The new attribution proposed from Santa Fe is interesting, but it's not clear yet how much weight it carries. Are there any other major media sources covering this? JNW ( talk) 02:52, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
See more here http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-15105442 Drieakko ( talk) 09:13, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
There's a misleading statement in the wiki entry. The wiki entry reads, "Nicholas Penny, director of the National Gallery, said simply 'We have not asked to borrow it.'" But the cited article is from April 2010 - the October 2011 article linked by Krellkraver above clarifies that Dir. Penny did not include the item as it is not a painting. That may have merely been intended to smooth over public relations, but as it is, the wiki entry implies (pretty strongly) that the National Gallery denies authenticity, but in fact, they haven't taken a position.
69.251.45.144 (
talk)
04:36, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
I have a suggestion - the "Disagreement" section mentions Julian Schnorr von Carolsfeld and a theory that his "Half-Nude Female" drawing depicts the same subject. Perhaps, for comparison and convenience, an image of that drawing could be inserted in that section? There is an image of that drawing uploaded to Wikipedia already - under a public domain license. I don't have the skills to pull off that kind of edit and I'm not sure if anyone else would be curious enough to look want to compare the two. 69.251.45.144 ( talk) 04:36, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
currently, the article describes the image as 1490s fashion in one section, & 1480s fashion, made bwn 1480 & 1490, in another.
without any explanation or reconciliation of the dates.
so which is it? or why the disparate dates?
i can't go hunting for this right now, so it would be good if somebody else fact-checked that.
Lx 121 ( talk) 15:48, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
You reverted my amendments to the page which is titled Portrait of a Young Fiancee, which I was trying to rename/re-title as La Bella Principessa, which is the title of the picture. Many of the references refer to books and articles about La Bella Principessa. Moreover, News or Book search using a search engine returns far more information about items relating to La Bella Principessa. Indeed, it is only Wikipedia that alludes to the Portrait of a Young Fiancee. Are you able to change the title to La Bella Principessa and remove the redirect page from Portrait of a Young Fiancee? JiffyJifster 11/03/2015 JiffyJifster ( talk) 11:41, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
The results look pretty definitive. La Bella Principessa seems to be eight times as common as the next most common title for this drawing, and ten times as common as the current title. Shall we go ahead and move it now, or does somebody still object? P Aculeius ( talk) 17:10, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
Fairness demands that the names of experts who disagree with the Leonardo attribution (and there are many) should be added to this section. aldiboronti ( talk) 12:01, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
On March 23, NickCT changed the "artist" heading in the infobox to from "attributed to Leonardo da Vinci" to "unknown, purportedly Leonardo da Vinci", and changed the title of the article section, "Attribution to Leonardo" to "Support for Leonardo attribution". As these changes tended to violate the Wikipedia policy about maintaining a neutral point of view, I reverted them. On March 27, the same editor made these changes again, on the grounds that because some experts disagree with the attribution, the changes made the article more neutral, rather than less. I believe that the editor has misunderstood WP:NPOV, and am reverting the changes again. However, it seems appropriate to leave a fuller explanation of the reasons why these changes violated NPOV than an edit summary allows.
With respect to the change in the infobox, the portrait is factually "attributed to Leonardo da Vinci." That doesn't mean that Leonardo was the artist; it doesn't mean that his authorship isn't disputed. The fact that his authorship is disputed by some experts does not make the portrait unattributed or the artist "unknown". We don't use "unknown" whenever the authorship of a work is disputed or in any degree uncertain. We don't list the author of the Iliad and the Odyssey as "unknown, purportedly Homer". "Attributed to" is an accurate description that falls within normal usage in this context. "Unknown, purportedly..." is not only non-standard, but in this instance runs afoul of WP:ALLEGED, which is handily restated in NPOV. Yes, there is doubt as to the authorship, but by using "purported" in this way, the editor is implying skepticism (further emphasized by eliminating the factually accurate phrase "attributed to"). Thus, the previous wording is both more accurate and more neutral.
In the case of the section heading, the editor is attempting to give equal weight to those disputing the attribution, although the contents of the section fail to demonstrate that they are entitled to equal weight or even that they represent a majority view. The first four paragraphs of this section are based almost entirely on a Daily Telegraph article by Richard Dorment, and a New Yorker article about Peter Paul Biro, the fingerprint expert who believed that a print on this portrait was a good match with another print from an authenticated Leonardo. Of the remaining four paragraphs, only two dispute the original attribution, both with completely incompatible theories. One is by an art expert who thinks he knows of someone else who might have made the portrait, and the other is that of a notorious art forger claiming that he made it himself.
So what we have here is one section containing a thoroughly explained analysis of the attribution, together with a list of experts who concur with it; and another section which criticizes this part or that part of the original attribution, and suggests ways in which the portrait could have been made by someone else. We have an attribution, and some arguments against the attribution. They're not of equal weight, and shouldn't be presented as if the matter were really just a toss-up in which the original attribution is essentially "as likely as not" to be incorrect. The editor in question seems to be trying to dispute whether the portrait has been attributed to Leonardo, not whether he actually made it, and that's why it's not neutral. P Aculeius ( talk) 04:36, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
There is an article on provenance but not on attribution in an art-historical sense. It is an important topic, and frequently misunderstood. A proper attribution by an expert is not guess-work or speculation, but an expert judgement based on the available evidence. At best, there will be a consensus judgement from several acknowledged experts, but it will rarely be definitive and of course consensus can change. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.205.251.100 ( talk) 20:01, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on La Bella Principessa. 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.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 22:52, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on La Bella Principessa. 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) 18:06, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
According to the prolific forger Shaun Greenhalgh, who claims to have produced the 'Principessa' drawing at some time in the 1970s, he drew it on the outer 'hair' side of the vellum, instead of the inner 'flesh' side, which is easier to draw on and 'much preferred'. He says that he made this unusual choice because after sanding off the writing on the smooth side (used originally in the late 1500s for a legal document) he found that this 'looked too new for anything old to look right on it.' He also says that 'the texture of the sanding should still be seen on its reverse'. These are objective physical characteristics which could be either confirmed or disproven by careful analysis. I may have overlooked it, but I don't think the present article states which side of the vellum was used for the drawing. If it was in fact the inferior 'hair' side, defenders of the attribution to Leonardo need to explain this. 2A00:23C8:7907:4B01:E5FC:ACB5:5D20:7BD0 ( talk) 22:23, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I've removed several florid passages, whose author edited under Martin Kemp's name--the tone really suggested an attempt to confirm the attribution to Leonardo, and was, one hesitates to say, unacceptably promotional. If said passages were indeed written by Professor Kemp, an acknowledged authority, they may nonetheless constitute a conflict of interest. However, his input here would still be invaluable, and said description could be restored in different form, and sourced to Professor Kemp. I've also added a section on the disagreement with the attribution, taken from the current lengthy New Yorker essay. The article still may have bias issues, as recently suggested by another editor. Until now it was a virtual sales pitch, and a great work of art, like any subject, can stand on its intrinsic merits, as well as good encyclopedic sourcing. JNW ( talk) 03:00, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
The new attribution proposed from Santa Fe is interesting, but it's not clear yet how much weight it carries. Are there any other major media sources covering this? JNW ( talk) 02:52, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
See more here http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-15105442 Drieakko ( talk) 09:13, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
There's a misleading statement in the wiki entry. The wiki entry reads, "Nicholas Penny, director of the National Gallery, said simply 'We have not asked to borrow it.'" But the cited article is from April 2010 - the October 2011 article linked by Krellkraver above clarifies that Dir. Penny did not include the item as it is not a painting. That may have merely been intended to smooth over public relations, but as it is, the wiki entry implies (pretty strongly) that the National Gallery denies authenticity, but in fact, they haven't taken a position.
69.251.45.144 (
talk)
04:36, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
I have a suggestion - the "Disagreement" section mentions Julian Schnorr von Carolsfeld and a theory that his "Half-Nude Female" drawing depicts the same subject. Perhaps, for comparison and convenience, an image of that drawing could be inserted in that section? There is an image of that drawing uploaded to Wikipedia already - under a public domain license. I don't have the skills to pull off that kind of edit and I'm not sure if anyone else would be curious enough to look want to compare the two. 69.251.45.144 ( talk) 04:36, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
currently, the article describes the image as 1490s fashion in one section, & 1480s fashion, made bwn 1480 & 1490, in another.
without any explanation or reconciliation of the dates.
so which is it? or why the disparate dates?
i can't go hunting for this right now, so it would be good if somebody else fact-checked that.
Lx 121 ( talk) 15:48, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
You reverted my amendments to the page which is titled Portrait of a Young Fiancee, which I was trying to rename/re-title as La Bella Principessa, which is the title of the picture. Many of the references refer to books and articles about La Bella Principessa. Moreover, News or Book search using a search engine returns far more information about items relating to La Bella Principessa. Indeed, it is only Wikipedia that alludes to the Portrait of a Young Fiancee. Are you able to change the title to La Bella Principessa and remove the redirect page from Portrait of a Young Fiancee? JiffyJifster 11/03/2015 JiffyJifster ( talk) 11:41, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
The results look pretty definitive. La Bella Principessa seems to be eight times as common as the next most common title for this drawing, and ten times as common as the current title. Shall we go ahead and move it now, or does somebody still object? P Aculeius ( talk) 17:10, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
Fairness demands that the names of experts who disagree with the Leonardo attribution (and there are many) should be added to this section. aldiboronti ( talk) 12:01, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
On March 23, NickCT changed the "artist" heading in the infobox to from "attributed to Leonardo da Vinci" to "unknown, purportedly Leonardo da Vinci", and changed the title of the article section, "Attribution to Leonardo" to "Support for Leonardo attribution". As these changes tended to violate the Wikipedia policy about maintaining a neutral point of view, I reverted them. On March 27, the same editor made these changes again, on the grounds that because some experts disagree with the attribution, the changes made the article more neutral, rather than less. I believe that the editor has misunderstood WP:NPOV, and am reverting the changes again. However, it seems appropriate to leave a fuller explanation of the reasons why these changes violated NPOV than an edit summary allows.
With respect to the change in the infobox, the portrait is factually "attributed to Leonardo da Vinci." That doesn't mean that Leonardo was the artist; it doesn't mean that his authorship isn't disputed. The fact that his authorship is disputed by some experts does not make the portrait unattributed or the artist "unknown". We don't use "unknown" whenever the authorship of a work is disputed or in any degree uncertain. We don't list the author of the Iliad and the Odyssey as "unknown, purportedly Homer". "Attributed to" is an accurate description that falls within normal usage in this context. "Unknown, purportedly..." is not only non-standard, but in this instance runs afoul of WP:ALLEGED, which is handily restated in NPOV. Yes, there is doubt as to the authorship, but by using "purported" in this way, the editor is implying skepticism (further emphasized by eliminating the factually accurate phrase "attributed to"). Thus, the previous wording is both more accurate and more neutral.
In the case of the section heading, the editor is attempting to give equal weight to those disputing the attribution, although the contents of the section fail to demonstrate that they are entitled to equal weight or even that they represent a majority view. The first four paragraphs of this section are based almost entirely on a Daily Telegraph article by Richard Dorment, and a New Yorker article about Peter Paul Biro, the fingerprint expert who believed that a print on this portrait was a good match with another print from an authenticated Leonardo. Of the remaining four paragraphs, only two dispute the original attribution, both with completely incompatible theories. One is by an art expert who thinks he knows of someone else who might have made the portrait, and the other is that of a notorious art forger claiming that he made it himself.
So what we have here is one section containing a thoroughly explained analysis of the attribution, together with a list of experts who concur with it; and another section which criticizes this part or that part of the original attribution, and suggests ways in which the portrait could have been made by someone else. We have an attribution, and some arguments against the attribution. They're not of equal weight, and shouldn't be presented as if the matter were really just a toss-up in which the original attribution is essentially "as likely as not" to be incorrect. The editor in question seems to be trying to dispute whether the portrait has been attributed to Leonardo, not whether he actually made it, and that's why it's not neutral. P Aculeius ( talk) 04:36, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
There is an article on provenance but not on attribution in an art-historical sense. It is an important topic, and frequently misunderstood. A proper attribution by an expert is not guess-work or speculation, but an expert judgement based on the available evidence. At best, there will be a consensus judgement from several acknowledged experts, but it will rarely be definitive and of course consensus can change. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.205.251.100 ( talk) 20:01, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on La Bella Principessa. 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.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 22:52, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on La Bella Principessa. 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) 18:06, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
According to the prolific forger Shaun Greenhalgh, who claims to have produced the 'Principessa' drawing at some time in the 1970s, he drew it on the outer 'hair' side of the vellum, instead of the inner 'flesh' side, which is easier to draw on and 'much preferred'. He says that he made this unusual choice because after sanding off the writing on the smooth side (used originally in the late 1500s for a legal document) he found that this 'looked too new for anything old to look right on it.' He also says that 'the texture of the sanding should still be seen on its reverse'. These are objective physical characteristics which could be either confirmed or disproven by careful analysis. I may have overlooked it, but I don't think the present article states which side of the vellum was used for the drawing. If it was in fact the inferior 'hair' side, defenders of the attribution to Leonardo need to explain this. 2A00:23C8:7907:4B01:E5FC:ACB5:5D20:7BD0 ( talk) 22:23, 22 June 2023 (UTC)