Talk:Ecstasy of Saint Teresa
|Ecstasy of Saint Teresa has been listed as a level-4 vital article in Art. If you can improve it, please do. This article has been rated as Start-Class.|
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
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)
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?
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 18.104.22.168)
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) 22.214.171.124 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 126.96.36.199 (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.188.8.131.52 (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)
- 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)
- 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 184.108.40.206 (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
- 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)