|Giotto has been listed as a level-4 vital article in People. If you can improve it, please do. This article has been rated as C-Class.|
|Giotto is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.|
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
|This article has an assessment summary page.|
Vasari says "Greek"
The verbatim of the full Vasari quote is "Et insieme a Fiorenza inviatisi, non solo in poco tempo pareggiò il fanciullo la maniera di Cimabue, ma ancora divenne tanto imitatore della natura, che ne’ tempi suoi sbandí affatto quella greca goffa maniera, e risuscitò la moderna e buona arte della pittura, et introdusse il ritrar di naturale le persone vive, che molte centinaia d’anni non s’era usato." (i.e. from http://it.wikisource.org/wiki/Le_vite_de'_pi%C3%B9_eccellenti_pittori,_scultori_e_architettori_(1550)/Giotto)
- The English translation that is quoted here uses the term "Byzantine", which is the style to which the term "greca" referred. Amandajm (talk) 21:16, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
Giotto's slave, Cimabue, (??)
Is this really correct? It seems strange given that elsewhere Giotto is referred to as Cimabue's apprentice ? Or were there two Cimabues? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 15:47, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Pick a pope... any pope
Has anyone got a more authoratative source - a book perhaps? - Solipsist 07:37, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
According to Vasari's Lives Of The Artists Volume I, it was Benedict IX. I wouldn't be surprised if it was innacurate, however being the definitive work on the life of Giotto I suppose it's at least definitively inaccurate. -22.214.171.124 01:50, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
- After reading it again, it seems that either Vasari or the translator of my copy transposed the roman numerals from IX to XI. Later in the same text he references the death of Benedict IX saying he was followed by Clement V- who in reality succeeded Benedict XI. The dates for that work out much more nicely. I will change the article. -126.96.36.199 05:34, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
- This site says Pope Boniface VIII was the pope.
- This one however says it was Pope Benedict was the one. I'm getting convinced that this is just a tall tale.
- Ghostalker 00:03, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Placing in the Divine Comedy
I remember this fellow's name from Dante, but I don't remember what transpired or where he was placed. Anyone remember? --188.8.131.52 04:32, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
There is a reference to Giotto's earthly fame in Purgatory. The lines in question talk about how Cimabue used to "hold the field" as the most famous painter in Italy but now Giotto "has the cry" of the people. I intend to reword this entry altogether and I will include the quote when I do. October 26, 2006
The tercet in question has been quoted with reference. IrlandesLuchador 18:35, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
I've started an approach that may apply to Wikipedia's Core Biography articles: creating a branching list page based on in popular culture information. I started that last year while I raised Joan of Arc to featured article when I created Cultural depictions of Joan of Arc, which has become a featured list. Recently I also created Cultural depictions of Alexander the Great out of material that had been deleted from the biography article. Since cultural references sometimes get deleted without discussion, I'd like to suggest this as a model for the editors here. Regards, Durova 15:09, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
A biography apport
I've read a few ago that in 1334, the Florence's Council proclaimed that. I need a page source for it. ( and also, any one could check the ortography and the grammar? thanks) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 13:42, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
- Please get back to us with more information about this. If you copy what it says in the book directly to this page, I will simplify it if necessary, and insert the info. I've deleted it for the time being, because, although I get the gist of it, it would be good to know exactly what the council said. :-) Amandajm (talk) 15:10, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
- Yes it is. Someone should write an essay on why, as the question comes up so often with pre 19th century Italians (but oddly, rarely with Germans). Johnbod (talk) 03:08, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
- No way? Let's look at what the sentence actually says:
- He is generally considered the first in a line of great artists who contributed to the Italian Renaissance.
- This doesn't state that Giotto was a Renaissance person. It states most specifically that his work contributed to the Italian Renaissance. The Renaissance didin't happen the instant that the clock ticked over to 1401.
- Amandajm (talk) 03:03, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
- Giotto seems to have been a Renaissance painter, given my study of European history. Oh, and for the record, most books say the Renaissance began in about 1300. Giotto died in 1337! Classicalfan2 (talk) 02:16, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
- Some aspects of the Renaissance began earlier than others. In a broad sense, Giotto is referred to as a Renaissance painter and appears in books on the Renaissance, because of the step forward that his art took. However, its probably more appropriate to classify him as "Proto-Renaissance" which indicatesd that he was part of a developmental stage. While Giotto is often considered Renaissance, none of his successors generally are, until Massacio, 100 years later. Amandajm (talk) 06:21, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
I think it bares mentioning that Divinci was greatly influenced by giotto. Divinci's most recognizable works are the "circle" of the vitruvian man and the deep unnatural shading of the Mona Lisa reminicent of Giottos figures in a scene from the Arena Chapel or Morning of St Francis in Bardi Chaple.
- Sparky, Please don't write his name as Divinci! It is da (meaning "of") Vinci. Vinci is a town. He is Leonardo of Vinci. When he was in Vinci they would have called him Leonardo of Ser Piero. Ser Piero (Mr Piero) was his father.
- There is a long line of painters between Giotto and Leonardo. By the time that Leonardo was a boy, many artists since Giotto had painted naturalistic figures and many artists had experimented with light and shade on faces. Of course the Bardi Chapel frescoes would have looked much more impressive then than they do now, and Leonardo would have looked at them, and heard the stories about Giotto. But he would also have seen Massaccio's famous Adam and Eve, and the powerfully drawn faces of the Brancacci Chapel.
- Leonardo knew far more about light than Giotto did. It was one of his subjects of study.
- As for the circle, well, Leonardo had a passion for geometery, and was employed to draw a series of geometric shapes for a book on geometery, call "Divine Proportion" by Luca Pacioli.
- The famous drawing of a man in a circle, called the Vitruvian Man doesn't go back to Giotto. It goes back a lot further than that. Leonardo was illustrating an idea written more than a thousand years earlier by Vitruvius.
- Giotto is believed to have drawn a circle, freehand. Leonardo drew a circle with a man inside. I ask you to imagine how many artists, architects, sculptors, hat makers, tray makers, shield makers, potters and maths students had drawn circles or made circular things in Florence, in the two hundred years between Giotto and Leonardo. Uccello, for one, was passionate about the geometry of circles. He must have drawn hundreds of them in his lifetime.
- I am not saying that Giotto had no influence on Leonardo. He did. But his influence was filtered through a long chain of people, before it reached Leonardo.
- Amandajm (talk) 11:30, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
"the crude Greek style"
- Who knows what El Greco's opinion might have been, considering that he himself abandoned the Byzantine style and imitated the Venetian manner of painting?
- The word "crude" is certainly not one that a modern historian would chose in relation to the great masterpieces by Cimabue and Duccio in the "Greek style" as Vasari would have called it. But Vasari was writing in the 16th century and perceives things from that perspective. Other people who had opinions on Giotto's work were his imitators, and they were legion, from his own time, to Masaccio, Fra Angelico and Benozzo Gozzoli more than 100 later. Amandajm (talk) 14:10, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
- "Who knows what El Greco's opinion might have been" - We do know what his opinion was considering that we have his comments on Vasari, however. My basic point was that Vasari's opinion appears right in the intro with almost no further explanation (yes, the real point is the "break" though Vasari himself would have seen it as a break in a better direction), so it looks as if the article is adopting that viewpoint. Imagine if we replaced the comment with "Giotto's simplistic style compared to the Greek manner" right in the intro because another great guy wrote it back then, instead. 220.127.116.11 (talk) 06:31, 14 May 2011 (UTC)