This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
The Birth of Venus article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
the link to venus should go to the goddess but instead it goes to the planet.
When I saw this painting in Florence, it was behind a 2" plate of glass. The bluish tint kind of ruined the experience for me. Supposedly this was done because someone had attacked the painting with a knife. I don't see mention of it here. Does anyone know if this is true? And do they still have it behind that glass? I saw it in 1992, so they may have changed it. 75.65.21.44 ( talk) 06:55, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
At least a significant part of the text on this page is identical to the text on this page:
should this be fixed on one or the other? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.29.153.44 ( talk) 07:48, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Is the correct word "anadyome" or "anadyomene" to describe "rising from the sea"? I think it's the latter, and so have corrected the article accordingly.-- Chuckhoffmann 02:47, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
i don't know but I guess also the latter. 213.119.207.54 12:49, 2 December 2006 (UTC)stefaan
It is the latter. "Anadyome" is the first person, as in "I am rising". "Anadyomene" is "in the act of rising". Stassa ( talk) 14:08, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
Anadyomene is the correct word, but it should not be applied to this painting,as the painting does not represent Venus rising from the sea, but the goddess being blown to shore (Cyprus) by the winds. The classical tradition for representing the Anadyomene is to show the goddess waist deep in water, often wringing water from her hair (as in the Ludovisi throne). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jclong09 ( talk • contribs) 01:50, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
You're absolutely right; I was not advocating changing the name of the painting. There is, however, a visual tradition for the representation of the Anadyomene, which this painting does not fit. See, for example, Titian's Venus Anadyomene in Edinburgh.-- Jclong09 ( talk) 18:22, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
Should the original Italian name (La nascita di Venere) be added as a subtitle to the English one (The Birth of Venus)? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.25.142.66 ( talk) 17:21, 11 April 2007 (UTC).
I added the line about the movie sketch; it seemed silly to mention the movie info when it was the same as the TV info.
Or should it have been in the movie section?
CaliforniaDave 02:05, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
The article claims that "she lived in Portovenere". Is that so? If I remember correctly, she was anecdotally linked to the place. She might have been born there - but she lived in and around Florence.
Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:La nascita di Venere (Botticelli).jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on June 29, 2010. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2010-06-29. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :) Thanks! howcheng { chat} 04:49, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
Hello, I have swapped the old image for a much higher resolution copy made by the Google Art Project, which also includes the full image (including the missing foot which led to the old image's demotion from FP). However, the colours on this reproduction are noticably less vibrant. Having never seen the original, which is the most accurate colour reproduction? I would invite discussion on the matter. Bob talk 14:28, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
The brighter picture is much more like I remember from seeing it in person, in the summer of 2010. 174.21.177.240 ( talk) 04:18, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
A fairly widely used nickname for the painting is "Venus on the half shell" (which has been used as a book title)... AnonMoos ( talk) 18:18, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
Something is fairly wrong with the tone and presentation of the "interpretation." Far too conversational, not enough citation or academia. Also, very hard to actually comprehend without further inspection. This is wikipedia, not a blog. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.41.116.21 ( talk) 00:49, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
Mack edits. Memo, appears to be high-class COI, but rather appropriates things that all historians had noted for decades. I've been spreading these around. Johnbod ( talk) 16:48, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
Currently, there is no mention in the text about all the reinterpretations, homages, etc to the painting in modern culture, so one might as well believe the painting has been forgotten by everyone except art historian. I'd say it is actually of encyclopedic interest, if an article on a historical piece of art also covers, at least in the end and shortly, the noteworthy cases where it has been referred to nowadays - in this case, from Monty Python to Lady Gaga. An encyclopedic writer on renaissance art still doesn't have to be so snobbish as to dismiss the world they dwell in entirely. Let Uma Thurman return to us! -- 62.65.236.45 ( talk) 10:25, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
At Aesthetic canon#Proportions in art, this uncited statement is made:
For his painting The Birth of Venus, the artist Sandro Botticelli stated that the distance between the nipple and navel, between the two legs and between the navel and the groin must all be equal for a figure to (in his opinion) be ideally proportioned.
I am revising Body proportions and would like to use this statement (if true) but not without a citation. Can anyone supply? -- John Maynard Friedman ( talk) 19:53, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
@ Johnbod: Hello. I see you added the note against infoboxes with this edit last year with the edit summary "no thanks". This summary and the note "NO infobox please", unfortunately, don't help me understand why you're actually against its inclusion. Infoboxes are immensely useful for readers who don't want to read through the whole article to learn key facts about the painting.
About the restoring of 3 example pictures and the video in article body (moved by John Maynard Friedman), why do we need 6 large image examples of depictions of Venus in other paintings? It clutters the article and looks horribly bad. — Golden call me maybe? 07:26, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
I moved the video down to the External links because for the life of me, I can't see what justifies it being given a featured position in the body. Indeed, per WP:ELNO, it struggle to justify even a presence there but on balance I would support its retention because the audio description is another way to access the material. As for the other images, I strongly support retention of those where the lineage of influence is evident, or where it shows the sudden transition from religious to secular figure painting. Images in articles are "to illustrate not to decorate" and in an article such as this the balance must be in favour of inclusion over exclusion. But the images also have to earn their place, otherwise there is a tendency for all comers to add their favourite nude venusian image. The Venus of Willendorf, for example? -- John Maynard Friedman ( talk) 17:54, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 8 November 2022 and 16 December 2022. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Manganr (
article contribs).
— Assignment last updated by Manganr ( talk) 17:31, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
The Birth of Venus article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
the link to venus should go to the goddess but instead it goes to the planet.
When I saw this painting in Florence, it was behind a 2" plate of glass. The bluish tint kind of ruined the experience for me. Supposedly this was done because someone had attacked the painting with a knife. I don't see mention of it here. Does anyone know if this is true? And do they still have it behind that glass? I saw it in 1992, so they may have changed it. 75.65.21.44 ( talk) 06:55, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
At least a significant part of the text on this page is identical to the text on this page:
should this be fixed on one or the other? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.29.153.44 ( talk) 07:48, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Is the correct word "anadyome" or "anadyomene" to describe "rising from the sea"? I think it's the latter, and so have corrected the article accordingly.-- Chuckhoffmann 02:47, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
i don't know but I guess also the latter. 213.119.207.54 12:49, 2 December 2006 (UTC)stefaan
It is the latter. "Anadyome" is the first person, as in "I am rising". "Anadyomene" is "in the act of rising". Stassa ( talk) 14:08, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
Anadyomene is the correct word, but it should not be applied to this painting,as the painting does not represent Venus rising from the sea, but the goddess being blown to shore (Cyprus) by the winds. The classical tradition for representing the Anadyomene is to show the goddess waist deep in water, often wringing water from her hair (as in the Ludovisi throne). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jclong09 ( talk • contribs) 01:50, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
You're absolutely right; I was not advocating changing the name of the painting. There is, however, a visual tradition for the representation of the Anadyomene, which this painting does not fit. See, for example, Titian's Venus Anadyomene in Edinburgh.-- Jclong09 ( talk) 18:22, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
Should the original Italian name (La nascita di Venere) be added as a subtitle to the English one (The Birth of Venus)? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.25.142.66 ( talk) 17:21, 11 April 2007 (UTC).
I added the line about the movie sketch; it seemed silly to mention the movie info when it was the same as the TV info.
Or should it have been in the movie section?
CaliforniaDave 02:05, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
The article claims that "she lived in Portovenere". Is that so? If I remember correctly, she was anecdotally linked to the place. She might have been born there - but she lived in and around Florence.
Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:La nascita di Venere (Botticelli).jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on June 29, 2010. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2010-06-29. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :) Thanks! howcheng { chat} 04:49, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
Hello, I have swapped the old image for a much higher resolution copy made by the Google Art Project, which also includes the full image (including the missing foot which led to the old image's demotion from FP). However, the colours on this reproduction are noticably less vibrant. Having never seen the original, which is the most accurate colour reproduction? I would invite discussion on the matter. Bob talk 14:28, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
The brighter picture is much more like I remember from seeing it in person, in the summer of 2010. 174.21.177.240 ( talk) 04:18, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
A fairly widely used nickname for the painting is "Venus on the half shell" (which has been used as a book title)... AnonMoos ( talk) 18:18, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
Something is fairly wrong with the tone and presentation of the "interpretation." Far too conversational, not enough citation or academia. Also, very hard to actually comprehend without further inspection. This is wikipedia, not a blog. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.41.116.21 ( talk) 00:49, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
Mack edits. Memo, appears to be high-class COI, but rather appropriates things that all historians had noted for decades. I've been spreading these around. Johnbod ( talk) 16:48, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
Currently, there is no mention in the text about all the reinterpretations, homages, etc to the painting in modern culture, so one might as well believe the painting has been forgotten by everyone except art historian. I'd say it is actually of encyclopedic interest, if an article on a historical piece of art also covers, at least in the end and shortly, the noteworthy cases where it has been referred to nowadays - in this case, from Monty Python to Lady Gaga. An encyclopedic writer on renaissance art still doesn't have to be so snobbish as to dismiss the world they dwell in entirely. Let Uma Thurman return to us! -- 62.65.236.45 ( talk) 10:25, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
At Aesthetic canon#Proportions in art, this uncited statement is made:
For his painting The Birth of Venus, the artist Sandro Botticelli stated that the distance between the nipple and navel, between the two legs and between the navel and the groin must all be equal for a figure to (in his opinion) be ideally proportioned.
I am revising Body proportions and would like to use this statement (if true) but not without a citation. Can anyone supply? -- John Maynard Friedman ( talk) 19:53, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
@ Johnbod: Hello. I see you added the note against infoboxes with this edit last year with the edit summary "no thanks". This summary and the note "NO infobox please", unfortunately, don't help me understand why you're actually against its inclusion. Infoboxes are immensely useful for readers who don't want to read through the whole article to learn key facts about the painting.
About the restoring of 3 example pictures and the video in article body (moved by John Maynard Friedman), why do we need 6 large image examples of depictions of Venus in other paintings? It clutters the article and looks horribly bad. — Golden call me maybe? 07:26, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
I moved the video down to the External links because for the life of me, I can't see what justifies it being given a featured position in the body. Indeed, per WP:ELNO, it struggle to justify even a presence there but on balance I would support its retention because the audio description is another way to access the material. As for the other images, I strongly support retention of those where the lineage of influence is evident, or where it shows the sudden transition from religious to secular figure painting. Images in articles are "to illustrate not to decorate" and in an article such as this the balance must be in favour of inclusion over exclusion. But the images also have to earn their place, otherwise there is a tendency for all comers to add their favourite nude venusian image. The Venus of Willendorf, for example? -- John Maynard Friedman ( talk) 17:54, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 8 November 2022 and 16 December 2022. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Manganr (
article contribs).
— Assignment last updated by Manganr ( talk) 17:31, 22 November 2022 (UTC)