Talk:Primavera (painting)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Visual arts (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Visual arts, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of visual arts on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the quality scale.


This is dreadful. I started to try to edit this article, but whoever wrote the original was so poorly-informed that the entire article needs to be thoroughly rewritten. The "Primavera" is one of the most iconographically-complex (and argued-about) paintings in the History of Art. Let's start trying to do it justice. -Neddyseagoon, I think

hi —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:13, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I thought the wind god Zephyrus was only forcing his way in because he was going to rape the nymph Chloris? this whole article pretty much contradicts what I learned about this painting.... (talk) 17:37, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Can someone find a better picture that has cupid in it? I spent ages trying to find him before I noticed the top of the picture has been cropped off... 3rd Sep 2009 Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:15, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Possible copyvio?[edit]

The article reads like a transcription. Durova412 17:12, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed[edit]

One or more portions of this article duplicated other source(s). The material was copied from: Infringing material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:25, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

"Castello di Montegufoni, about 40 miles from Florence"[edit]

The article in the Guardian i linked claims that Montegufoni Castle is about 40 miles from Florence, but a look at the link below suggests it is more like ten miles:,+18,+Montagnana,+Montespertoli,+Italia&sll=41.87194,12.56738&sspn=11.645917,19.753418&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Via+Montegufoni,+18,+50025+Montespertoli+Firenze,+Toscana,+Italy&t=h&z=16

... and so i have claimed ten miles in the wikipedia article, rather than going with the forty miles mentioned in the Guardian.
jonathan riley (talk) 11:12, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Khan Academy[edit]

Information sourced to Khan Academy's SmARThistory was removed here with a note that it "looked a bit dodgy". I've looked at as well. (Note: I did not add this source originally. This material was added here.) I don't think the source looks dodgy; it's cited to reputable project within a reputable website. The lecture is by Beth Harris (former Director of Digital Learning at The Museum of Modern Art) and Steven Zucker (former chair of History of Art and Design at Pratt Institute and of the art history department at SUNY). Both of these professors have extensive publishing histories. Seems thoroughly reliable to me. I've restored it. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:22, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

if you put that back, i think you should attribute it to who said it, - dont leave it like anyone else has said so. what have they extensively had published- i couldnt find anything by them on amazon. Sayerslle (talk) 12:33, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
While Amazon is a lovely resource, it's not the only resource for finding scholarly works. Check Google Scholar for instance ([1]; [2]). See also Pratt Institute bio on Zucker. If you disagree that this source is reliable, a WP:3O may be appropriate, or a listing at WP:RSN. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:45, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
(I'm actually listening to the interview to see what exactly they say....) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:51, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I've listened. That's what they say. I've attributed as per your request. The commercial nature of the website doesn't figure into its reliability; the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography is commercial. University presses are (mostly) commercial. Even the source you've been using on The Secret Life of Paintings started as a tv show by Richard Foster and Pamela Tudor-Craig. Commercial isn't inherently bad. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:02, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
when i click on the ref it just repeats 'harris & zucker' -shouldnt it lead somewhere. the video was not very impressive imo. Sayerslle (talk) 13:01, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
I'll fix the reference link. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:02, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
the french article has this : "On peut reconnaître le dieu Mercure (Hermès chez les Grecs) grâce à ses trois attributs : le casque d'Hadès, le caducée et les sandales ailées qui font de lui le messager des dieux olympiens. Il constitue le gardien du jardin et en chasse les nuages qui risqueraient de l'assombrir : rien, pas même les intempéries, ne doit troubler l'idéal platonique apporté par les personnages-idées placées sur ce tableau." it mentions 3 attributes that distinguish the man as Mercury including les sandales ailées - winged sandals, - and no mention of Mars. Sayerslle (talk) 00:23, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
I'm not sure what bearing that has. We certainly have variation across wikis. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 00:31, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
THe bearing it has it is further evidence of the bloke being Mercury. Camille Paglia said on private Life of a Masterpiece "the figure of Mercury is one of the most glamorous homo-erotic images in all of Renaissance art’ theres great ambiguity - the fact that he’s turned his back to the lovely women behind him – he’s looking for forbidden fruit." –if its just one critic says its Mars , and every other commentator from the REnaissance to now says Mercury couldnt it be wp:undue to keep the sentence in. Sayerslle (talk) 00:39, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
File:Primavera screenshot.png
Issues with images; click for better view. Specifics in text.
The article says pretty clearly that the identification of Mercury (with the others) is widely embraced. You were right that the alternate view should be attributed - I listened first to make sure that they weren't making more sweeping claims. But just as with Ernst Steinmann, some reliable sources identified some of the figures otherwise. There's nothing wrong with letting the readers know that; we're not here to make up their minds for them...simply to let them know what reliable sources say about the subject.
That aside, I'm afraid the pictures either need to be fixed or put back into a gallery with abbreviated text. They are overwhelming the article - including the squeezing the footnotes into a narrow box (see MOS:IMAGES) - and overlapping with the text. WP:IMAGE cautions us not to overwhelm the article, and I'm afraid these do so. See screenshot for a specific example with Mercury overlapping the word "generally". --Moonriddengirl (talk) 01:16, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
i'll put the gallery back and integrate the written bits if I can into the main part of the text-i wanted to have a bit of writing under the pics in the gallery but it messed it all up,- as for 'we're not here to make up their minds for them' - to me, what I'm saying is more like, if this opinion is not so much an alternative view, but just an aberration, if no other critic in the history of art criticism has ever made such an identifictaion, its just a mistake kind of thing, then whats the point of writing it - i mean editors do filter whats on the page all the time - thats a fact.Sayerslle (talk) 02:14, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
Re: the images, thanks. :) I don't know that no other critic has made such an identification. It's really hard to prove a negative. But I think there's room in the article myself, as long as it's made clear what the dominant view is. Similarly to your note that Camille Paglia had a pin-up of the poster on her wall, I think it's detail in an article that is not so long that such detail from reliable sources needs to be cut. If you disagree, I'd have no objection whatsoever to seeking a 3O. I initially restored the material simply because I disagreed with your removal based on your comment that the source was dodgy or not scholarly. While I think there's room to note the variation, I would feel much more strongly about removing Steinmann...but I worry that might reflect my own bias, because I tend to think that this is pretty clearly Mercury myself. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:26, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
The figure on the left is clearly Mercury. His boots have wings on them; he is carrying a caduceus in his right hand (a staff with winged serpents on either side); on his waist is the curved sword that he lent to Perseus. This is an error that should be deleted. Alexalderman (talk) 05:07, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
  • The Khan Academy videos are generally good and RS. in this case Dr Harris seems to have made a slip in recording, and the video subtitles now carry an erratum note saying the male is Mercury (after all), as of course everybody has always said. The text with Mars is now removed. Johnbod (talk) 16:25, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Flora 2x[edit]

The description of the painting refers to the figure twice, as the one on the right side scattering flowers, and then againas the one nex to her nearest companion. -- (talk) 19:52, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Indeed. Fixed. Johnbod (talk) 19:16, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

"The recent discovery of a disguised message"[edit]

That paragraph is terribly vague and the reference links to what seems to be a fringe theory about the painting. Either let's expand it if the theory is supportable, or cut it out, but at the moment even the claim itself is missing (as it is from the publicity material about the 2014 book). So there's a disguised message in the painting? What is it? That floral dress detail? Very unclear. Complex Analysis (talk) 21:45, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Now cut. New theory by a non-professional. Too soon, at best. Johnbod (talk) 19:16, 14 June 2017 (UTC)