Talk:Ecstasy of Saint Teresa

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


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)

Book Reference?[edit]

Is it really necessary to mention a fictional reference of the work from a contemporary novel?

I second a vote for its removal. -Caravaggisti


Keep - Assuming that this discussion is about the "See also" link to Dan Brown's book Angels and Demons, I think the link is entirely appropriate. The best-selling novel has been the primary vehicle for the popularizing of the sculpture, and has resulted in a massive increase in interest and tourism. Indeed, I think it would be worth adding a section to this page, especially to discuss the "fact and fiction" of the novel, since it makes some incorrect statements about the sculpture's history. It is very likely that many people will be consulting Wikipedia to check whether or not the facts are correct. Elonka 19:44, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
I agree with Elonka that we should keep the mention of the fictional reference. I do think it is important point in the history of this work and society's relationship with it. Johntex\talk 18:31, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Removal of sculpture?[edit]

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)

That theory was an entirely fictional one, used as part of the novel The Da Vinci Code. It has no basis in fact. The truth is that the sculpture was commissioned for its exact location, in the Cornaro Chapel, by the Cornaro family. --Elonka 19:11, 22 May 2006 (UTC)


"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

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

Yes, no doubt violating Wikipedia policy left and right can "spice things up a bit". -- Jibal 11:05, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

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) 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 (talk) 12:26, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I'm not an uneducated oaf but with text like "Furthering the dynamics, Bernini has untamed stone into ripples of fabric, [...] defiling the immaculate petrous conception of the virgin marble [...] Teresa's gown would appear to suffice in her levitation, if not wreak on observers the undertowing swoon of Stendhal syndrome", this is just plain wank. It doesn't need to be rewritten "in a more accessible way" as someone above has suggested, it just needs to be de-wanked. (talk) 00:17, 1 September 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)

The section title "Critical assessment" is itself a POV, and the section has WP:OR. --Nvineeth (talk) 09:29, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
I agree, in part. If this section was to cite prominent art historians, philosophers or aestheticians, then their 'critical assessment' of the sculpture would be encyclopediac. I am not an expert in this field; maybe those who are can help improve this section? cheers. Mike Restivo (talk) 17:49, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
I have stuff to add which refutes "lust fulfilled". Will do so when I get time. Thanks. --Nvineeth (talk) 08:28, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Are there no critics who assert that she's having an orgasm? Shouldn't they too be heard? Are there any that talk about the sculpture's depiction of the conflation of religious and sexual ecstasy? We seem to be giving short shrift to a highly complex problem set. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:28, 20 March 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)

Theresa v. Teresa[edit]

It is spelled different ways in the title and content of the page —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:42, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

That is odd... Aristophanes68 (talk) 13:56, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes. I also think the lead could identify which Saint Teresa it's talking about, so I added the one it might be. :) -SusanLesch (talk) 00:17, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

St or St.[edit]

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)

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. NW (Talk) 16:55, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Ecstasy of Saint TheresaEcstasy 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)

  • Any references to support this move? Wikipedia doesn't count. —  AjaxSmack  01:29, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose Support (see below) renaming an article on a work of art to be "consistent" with the title of the subject's biography is the very worst argument for renaming I have ever seen. We don't make up titles for works of art here, we use what art historians & other RS use. Johnbod (talk) 01:59, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
Look on Google Books--there are plenty of books that use "Teresa" for the title of this statue. I wouldn't have suggested it if I hadn't already verified that. Good grief--the article itself uses Teresa everywhere BUT the title! But it's not just about the wikipedia title of Teresa's page: As far as I know, Bernini, being Italian, would have used Teresa. Theresa is the English spelling. Here are pages in Italian that use Teresa for the title of this statue: [1], [2], [3], [4] and this encyclopedia entry with Italian title. So apparently the sculptor used the name Teresa and we Anglophiles have re-christened her Theresa. Is that good enough for you? Aristophanes68 (talk) 04:26, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
I have to admit I misread the proposal as one to rename to Ecstasy of Saint Teresa of Ávila! Sorry. But you are still not arguing this the right way. Of course Italians use the Italian spelling in Italian! That is beside the point. This is the relevant search, of which the first three pages mostly show guide books etc using "h" & academic art history books not, though the 2 main US Art History 101 texts go one each way (Gardner's & Jannsons). You needed to put that in the nom - WP consistency is irrelevant here. Only the normal COMMONNAME in English matters, and there are thousands of similar cases where the English version of the name is used. Johnbod (talk) 04:50, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Support but relisting... Google actually seems [5] [6] to support the existing name ...Theresa (note that many hits are common to both searches). Both names seem to have currency. I'm inclined to go with the scholarly correct name ...Teresa but can see arguments both ways. Andrewa (talk) 03:48, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
Note that Ecstasy of Saint Theresa (band), who certainly use the "h", feature very largely in that search - 5/10 on the first page! It is not a case of "correct" - for the sculpture (not the band) both are that, but the most commonly used by RS. Johnbod (talk) 03:58, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
Yes, agree that the searches leave a lot to be desired, and it's necessary to examine the individual hits to get a picture of what is going on. It still seems to me that both have significant currency as the title of the work in English, and it's not obvious that either has greater acceptance. Andrewa (talk) 11:50, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.