This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Vitruvian Man 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 |
Archives:
Index,
1,
2Auto-archiving period: 60 days
![]() |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||
|
![]() |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
The drawing has parts of a lion: at the stomach is a sketch of a lion head. By dragging the right parts to it, the lion will appear more clearly.</ref> https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10206865417492804&set=a.1250853470285&type=3&theater</ref>
If I understand them correctly, the translation of da Vinci's text currently (15 October 2020) in the article was done as a place-holder version by Justlettersandnumbers, a Wikipedia editor ( see above). As Justlettersandnumbers requested, the translation should be replaced by one from an external source. I propose to use this one:
The span of a man's outstretched arms is equal to his height.
[deleted inadvertent copyvio]
[etc]. [1]
(Because of the way {{ cite book}} works, I can't give the URL of the exact page, only of the chapter, but the text is just a few pages on from the start of the chapter, bottom of p213.) Unless anyone disagrees in the next day or two, I will change it. -- John Maynard Friedman ( talk) 12:02, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
References
@
Ezio Fiorillo: the second part of the section
Vitruvian Man#Textual analysis relating to body height and column modulation (that you contributed) discusses Paladio and the Tuscan Order of architecture. It is not clear to me how this material is relevant to this article? It seems that the justification for its inclusion comes in the last phrase of sentence On the other hand, the foot depicted in the Vitruvian Man instead measures 25.7 millimeters, equal to the seventh part of the height of 179.9 millimeters, in conformity with the rules of the Tuscan Order.
which is uncited and looks like
WP:Original research. Would you explain please?
John Maynard Friedman (
talk)
12:03, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
To be honest, I am increasingly worried about the validity of the whole section because it seems fundamentally to be be about a 1:7 ratio that you have cherry-picked from various sources and ascribed to it a significance that neither Leonardo nor any reliable source has done. The issue of original research arises here too. -- John Maynard Friedman ( talk) 12:53, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
Since the stature has been found to be 17.99, then the seventh part inevitably turns out to be 15.7.since 1/7 of 17.99 is 2.57? Yes, Wikipedia policies allow editors to do simple mathematics without citation. Any inferences from that definitely require citation. -- John Maynard Friedman ( talk) 15:56, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
“ | ===Textual analysis relating to body height and column modulation===
![]() In his treatise, Vitruvius recalls the proportional principles which "the architect must scrupulously respect". [a] To obtain a compositional balance, he must draw inspiration from the "perfect harmony of the limbs of a well-formed man". [b] In the fourth Book (regarding the Doric order), Vitruvius explains that in practice the Greek architects, "having measured the footprint of a foot which in man corresponds to one sixth of his height (pedem sexta partem), applied this proportion to the columns and established that their height, including the capital, was six times the diameter at the base". [2] But further on he reports that "posterity then developing and improving their taste intended for greater refinement and elegance preferred to adopt more streamlined canons, establishing that the height of the Doric columns was seven times their diameter". [c] [3] With identical proportions, in his later writing he imposes, as regards the columns of the Tuscan order, that the thickness of the base is the seventh part of the height. [d] [4] In agreement with the passage of the treatise, Leonardo da Vinci wrote (in the lower area of the sheet, on the third line): "From above the chest to the birth of the hair both the seventh part", [e] as well as "the foot is the seventh part of a man" [f] (seventh line). Andrea Palladio shows a graphic example of the Tuscan order, according to what Vitruvius says, imposing that "The columns with base and capital must be seven modules long". [5] By module, he means an entity of variable extension in proportion to the whole. In the most elementary dimension of the column it coincides with the human foot, which however could be confused with the Pes (Roman foot). If "only a unit of measurement were considered, it would be a foot with a considerable length of about 29.57 centimeters". [6] [g] This normative measure was adopted by Leonardo, indicating the submultiples. In the Vitruvian Man drawing, at the base of the square equal to the height of the body, the line of the reference graduated scale is divided into four segments, equal to four cubits. In the first he wrote the relative fractions: "fingers ..... palms" [h] and in the last "palms .....fingers", "that is, that 4 fingers make 1 palm, and 4 palms ago 1 foot", [i] "consequently a foot is sixteen toes", according to what was written by Vitruvius, [j] that is to say "the height of a person it is defined by the number of six feet". [k] On the other hand, the foot depicted in the Vitruvian Man instead measures 25.7 millimeters, equal to the seventh part of the height of 179.9 millimeters, [l] in conformity with the rules of the Tuscan Order. Leonardo worked in perfect accordance with Vitruvius, adopting the human foot as a function of proportional module; "wherever the soul turned to difficult things, he easily made them absolute". [11] |
” |
Vitruvius Pollio, Marcus (n.d.). De Architectura [Concerning Architecture] (in Latin). (De Architectura was composed between 27 and 23 BC. The Latin text is taken from the volume Zehn Bücher über Architectur: Ūberster und mit Ammerkugen versehen von Curt Fensterbunsh (in German). Darmstadt: Wissenschaftlicht Burchgesellschaft. 1976.)
References
If the above is the proposed text, then it has no place in this article. It is WP:OR based almost solely on primary sources, which is not permitted. If Mr. Fiorillo is using their own self-published publication, this makes the case even less convincing. I'm not sure what else there is to say. Aza24 (talk) 18:58, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
An anthropometric study of 1197 North American adult Caucasian malesin an article about a work of art is a red flag for synthesis. XOR'easter ( talk) 18:36, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
It looks like Vitruvian Man is the center of controversy: The Italian Museum That Owns Leonardo’s ‘Vitruvian Man’ Has Successfully Sued to Stop Production of a 1,000-Piece Puzzle Based on the Work.
Maybe the articles should include a section on it?
From the article:
An Italian court has blocked the German toy company Ravensburger from producing puzzles featuring Leonardo da Vinci’s iconic Vitruvian Man drawing.
Ravensburger was brought to court by the Gallerie dell’Accademia in Venice, where the real Vitruvian Man lives. The museum claimed that it was owed financial compensation from the puzzle manufacturer, even though the 500-year-old artwork in question belongs to the public domain.
At the heart of the case is Italy’s Cultural Heritage and Landscape Code, which grants public institutions in the country the ability to request concession fees for—or outright bar—commercial reproductions of important artworks, regardless of their copyright status.
Last fall, the Court of Venice sided with the Gallerie dell’Accademia in the case, ruling that Ravensburger must cease production on its puzzle and any other pieces of merchandise featuring Vitruvian Man.
The court rejected Ravensburger’s argument that the Cultural Heritage Code only applies in Italy, and has now ordered the toy company to pay the Gallerie dell’Accademia a fee of €1,500 ($1,626) for each day that the puzzle has been manufactured since November 17, 2022.
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Vitruvian Man 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 |
Archives:
Index,
1,
2Auto-archiving period: 60 days
![]() |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||
|
![]() |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
The drawing has parts of a lion: at the stomach is a sketch of a lion head. By dragging the right parts to it, the lion will appear more clearly.</ref> https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10206865417492804&set=a.1250853470285&type=3&theater</ref>
If I understand them correctly, the translation of da Vinci's text currently (15 October 2020) in the article was done as a place-holder version by Justlettersandnumbers, a Wikipedia editor ( see above). As Justlettersandnumbers requested, the translation should be replaced by one from an external source. I propose to use this one:
The span of a man's outstretched arms is equal to his height.
[deleted inadvertent copyvio]
[etc]. [1]
(Because of the way {{ cite book}} works, I can't give the URL of the exact page, only of the chapter, but the text is just a few pages on from the start of the chapter, bottom of p213.) Unless anyone disagrees in the next day or two, I will change it. -- John Maynard Friedman ( talk) 12:02, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
References
@
Ezio Fiorillo: the second part of the section
Vitruvian Man#Textual analysis relating to body height and column modulation (that you contributed) discusses Paladio and the Tuscan Order of architecture. It is not clear to me how this material is relevant to this article? It seems that the justification for its inclusion comes in the last phrase of sentence On the other hand, the foot depicted in the Vitruvian Man instead measures 25.7 millimeters, equal to the seventh part of the height of 179.9 millimeters, in conformity with the rules of the Tuscan Order.
which is uncited and looks like
WP:Original research. Would you explain please?
John Maynard Friedman (
talk)
12:03, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
To be honest, I am increasingly worried about the validity of the whole section because it seems fundamentally to be be about a 1:7 ratio that you have cherry-picked from various sources and ascribed to it a significance that neither Leonardo nor any reliable source has done. The issue of original research arises here too. -- John Maynard Friedman ( talk) 12:53, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
Since the stature has been found to be 17.99, then the seventh part inevitably turns out to be 15.7.since 1/7 of 17.99 is 2.57? Yes, Wikipedia policies allow editors to do simple mathematics without citation. Any inferences from that definitely require citation. -- John Maynard Friedman ( talk) 15:56, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
“ | ===Textual analysis relating to body height and column modulation===
![]() In his treatise, Vitruvius recalls the proportional principles which "the architect must scrupulously respect". [a] To obtain a compositional balance, he must draw inspiration from the "perfect harmony of the limbs of a well-formed man". [b] In the fourth Book (regarding the Doric order), Vitruvius explains that in practice the Greek architects, "having measured the footprint of a foot which in man corresponds to one sixth of his height (pedem sexta partem), applied this proportion to the columns and established that their height, including the capital, was six times the diameter at the base". [2] But further on he reports that "posterity then developing and improving their taste intended for greater refinement and elegance preferred to adopt more streamlined canons, establishing that the height of the Doric columns was seven times their diameter". [c] [3] With identical proportions, in his later writing he imposes, as regards the columns of the Tuscan order, that the thickness of the base is the seventh part of the height. [d] [4] In agreement with the passage of the treatise, Leonardo da Vinci wrote (in the lower area of the sheet, on the third line): "From above the chest to the birth of the hair both the seventh part", [e] as well as "the foot is the seventh part of a man" [f] (seventh line). Andrea Palladio shows a graphic example of the Tuscan order, according to what Vitruvius says, imposing that "The columns with base and capital must be seven modules long". [5] By module, he means an entity of variable extension in proportion to the whole. In the most elementary dimension of the column it coincides with the human foot, which however could be confused with the Pes (Roman foot). If "only a unit of measurement were considered, it would be a foot with a considerable length of about 29.57 centimeters". [6] [g] This normative measure was adopted by Leonardo, indicating the submultiples. In the Vitruvian Man drawing, at the base of the square equal to the height of the body, the line of the reference graduated scale is divided into four segments, equal to four cubits. In the first he wrote the relative fractions: "fingers ..... palms" [h] and in the last "palms .....fingers", "that is, that 4 fingers make 1 palm, and 4 palms ago 1 foot", [i] "consequently a foot is sixteen toes", according to what was written by Vitruvius, [j] that is to say "the height of a person it is defined by the number of six feet". [k] On the other hand, the foot depicted in the Vitruvian Man instead measures 25.7 millimeters, equal to the seventh part of the height of 179.9 millimeters, [l] in conformity with the rules of the Tuscan Order. Leonardo worked in perfect accordance with Vitruvius, adopting the human foot as a function of proportional module; "wherever the soul turned to difficult things, he easily made them absolute". [11] |
” |
Vitruvius Pollio, Marcus (n.d.). De Architectura [Concerning Architecture] (in Latin). (De Architectura was composed between 27 and 23 BC. The Latin text is taken from the volume Zehn Bücher über Architectur: Ūberster und mit Ammerkugen versehen von Curt Fensterbunsh (in German). Darmstadt: Wissenschaftlicht Burchgesellschaft. 1976.)
References
If the above is the proposed text, then it has no place in this article. It is WP:OR based almost solely on primary sources, which is not permitted. If Mr. Fiorillo is using their own self-published publication, this makes the case even less convincing. I'm not sure what else there is to say. Aza24 (talk) 18:58, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
An anthropometric study of 1197 North American adult Caucasian malesin an article about a work of art is a red flag for synthesis. XOR'easter ( talk) 18:36, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
It looks like Vitruvian Man is the center of controversy: The Italian Museum That Owns Leonardo’s ‘Vitruvian Man’ Has Successfully Sued to Stop Production of a 1,000-Piece Puzzle Based on the Work.
Maybe the articles should include a section on it?
From the article:
An Italian court has blocked the German toy company Ravensburger from producing puzzles featuring Leonardo da Vinci’s iconic Vitruvian Man drawing.
Ravensburger was brought to court by the Gallerie dell’Accademia in Venice, where the real Vitruvian Man lives. The museum claimed that it was owed financial compensation from the puzzle manufacturer, even though the 500-year-old artwork in question belongs to the public domain.
At the heart of the case is Italy’s Cultural Heritage and Landscape Code, which grants public institutions in the country the ability to request concession fees for—or outright bar—commercial reproductions of important artworks, regardless of their copyright status.
Last fall, the Court of Venice sided with the Gallerie dell’Accademia in the case, ruling that Ravensburger must cease production on its puzzle and any other pieces of merchandise featuring Vitruvian Man.
The court rejected Ravensburger’s argument that the Cultural Heritage Code only applies in Italy, and has now ordered the toy company to pay the Gallerie dell’Accademia a fee of €1,500 ($1,626) for each day that the puzzle has been manufactured since November 17, 2022.