From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
This article has been mentioned by a media organization:


I corrected the location of Titian's tomb to the Frari (and included the full name of that church, plus a remark about his being the only church burial allowed during that plague outbreak. rturus 15:43, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Headline text[edit]

Is it possible to add a list of his known works? I do not have such a list, sadly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)


What was considered to be Titian's greatest work?

-- 16:05, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

I suppose the Venus of Urbino would be his most well known, so perhaps his greatest. Cfitzart 08:24, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Any Art Historian (of which I am) will inform you that there is no such thing as a greatest work. Indeed Mark Twain described Venus of Urbino as "the foulest, the vilest, the obscenest picture the world possesses -- Titian's Venus". Titians works were also so varied that it is difficult to compare. He did, afterall, paint religious works as well as his poesia series.

Overall, I think that the greatest work should not be included as it is too subjective.


Wasn't a color of red also named after Titian? At least that's what I've read.

Yes. I can't see where to incorporate this into the article, but it's used to describe auburn hair. This is part of the entry from the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary. "2. Designating a bright golden auburn colour of hair favoured by Titian in his pictures. Also Titian red." (I missed out the other definitions, which are a noun for a picture or for a person with this hair, and an adjective for "like Titian".) Perhaps someone could incorporate a mention of this colour and its association with his models into the article?
Telsa (talk) 09:32, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

POV template[edit]

Sorry, but I had to tag this after seeing such comments as:

"...the most beautiful example of which is the wonderful Christ of The Tribute Money, at Dresden, a face whose delicacy, spirituality, and moral charm have never been surpassed by any other School."

and this:

"Titian is a painter who by wondrous magic of genius and of art satisfies the eye, and through the eye the feelings, sometimes the mind."

I'll try to help, but I think this needs a complete copyedit to help with biased statements such as these. Rampart 13:18, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Most writing about art is written in that sort of style, it is difficult to talk about without using those sort of words. But that 'wondrous magic of genius' sentence is a little too much. I'll remove that Cfitzart 00:16, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
That 1st section you mentioned was a copyvio from the Catholic Encyclopedia [1] which I removed too. Cfitzart 00:23, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
The Catholic Encyclopedia has passed into the public domain. If the Wikipedia article had ripped off the electronic presentation from the link you give, that would be a copyvio; but the text itself belongs to the public already. eritain 00:53, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Also, that critique section is insane. Besides the fact that it's a copyvio of this page [2], it's without a credited author. I don't see how we can cite uncredited criticism. And even if it came from an expert, fair use still doesn't cover quotations that extensive. --djrobgordon 04:31, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Could I please say that most decent art writings are not writting in 'flowery' style. Far from it. Academics consider this worthless padding as it serves no real function except to sound pretencious.

I would also like to say that texts should not really be used from articles such as the Catholic encyclopedia. These are biased text and therefore are not suitable for an unbiased web encyclopedia. These sources are suitable for preliminary research, but really must not be quoted. Afterall, this page is about Titian not religion.

English text[edit]

This whole article seems to be badly translated from, probably, Spanish. Needs to be rewritten in literate English. Factually innacurate. I have corrected the biggest howler, changing 'Consumption of Madonna' to 'Assumption of the Virgin' as it is generally known in English language art history texts. It is also, as any good guide book will reveal, still in situ, not in the Accademia. Lavinfont. June 2006


The art theorist Giovanni Lomazzo in 1590 declared Titian "the sun amidst small stars not only among the Italians but all the painters of the world" [quoted in the Britannica-2004]. --Ghirla -трёп- 20:59, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Fakes In Museums Link[edit]

I feel this link is sub-par at best. It is very hard to read and poorly put together. I am going to see if I can find another source for the information which cites it so it can be removed. If anyone else wants to change it, please feel free. --Saint savin 20:45, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Missing Title of Painting[edit]

The painting of the huntress (fifth image down, I think?) is missing a title in the caption. I don't know enough about Titian to complete this by myself, but I thought I would point it out. Does someone else know what it is? Still 21:47, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

If you really want to know the title, just click on the image. --Ghirla -трёп- 10:42, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

this page is copied almost exactly from

As the fine print at the bottom indicates, that page is just a mirror of Wikipedia's article. —Celithemis 00:49, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

General style of text[edit]

I am in complete agreement with others who have drawn attention to the preposterously florid language in this article. Where on earth did the original text come from? The whole thing reads like a parody of artistic criticism. It badly needs paring down to just the salient facts about the artist's life and works. It must be possible to comment on the relevant changes in his style, technique etc. in an objective and rational manner.Godingo 22:29, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Titian's brother Francesco Vecellio[edit]

So was Francesco his younger or older brother? This Titian article claims both. "Francesco Vecellio, his younger brother, later became a painter of some note in Venice" and "Francesco Vecellio, his elder brother, was introduced to painting by Titian". The Wikipedia article about Francesco states that he was Titian's elder. The Grove Dictionary of Art states that Francesco was Titian's older brother and was already trained as a painter in Venice when Titian joined him there. From what I know I am inclined to think Francesco was the older brother, even though he came under the influence of Titian at a later point, but as I haven't studied this matter thoroughly I hesitate to make changes. In any case both of the quoted sentences are factually incorrect as far as I'm aware. 18:04, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Under "growth" section[edit]

The caption of the picture includes the words "the classiest painter north of Rome." Possibly vandalism, but I cannot find an earlier version of the page with text that seems more appropriate.

I'd noticed that before, also. Replaced 'classiest' with 'preeminent'. JNW 16:46, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

The caption under the "Assunta" claims this painting is a fresco, but it is not. It's an oil painting, an altarpiece over the high altar in the Church of the Frari in Venice Maestrodan (talk) 01:38, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Done. JNW (talk) 01:44, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Madonna title. I have added the better known name of the painting that the contributor refers to as the "Pesaro Madonna", i.e. Madonna di Ca' Pesaro. rturus (talk) 05:18, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I would have said the other was more common in English. Johnbod (talk) 16:27, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Renaissance or Mannerism?[edit]

The article now states that Titian is a representative of High Renaissance art. But isn't this wrong both chronologically and stylistically? Didn't the High Renaissance peak around 1500-1520, nearly a century before Titian began to be important? And isn't his own style--exuberant, wild gestures, with rough, impressionistic brush strokes--quite at odds with the Renaissance? Interlingua 14:07, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

No, no, and no, to answer briefly. How did Titian "begin to be important" ca. 1600? Johnbod (talk) 16:25, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Though Tiziano Vecellio lived a remarkably long life and died in the middle of the Mannerist age, I've never read about him as a Mannerist in any art history book that I've browsed: he's always grouped with the great Renaissance painters. Don't forget he was born and died--more or less--in the same years of Michelangelo.-- (talk) 16:56, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Age at death[edit]

We have conflicting information on his year of death, with the infobox saying 1572 and the article's leader saying 1576, so which is right? TheRetroGuy (talk) 12:38, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Ah, someone fixed it as I was writing the above message. :) TheRetroGuy (talk) 12:41, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
Just to be clear, those are the year of birth, not death. Johnbod (talk) 11:48, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
The Wikipedia entry regarding the age of Titian at his death has just been discussed on the BBC's The Daily Politics show with Andrew Neill. During PMQs last week Gordon Brown said Titian died at the age of 90; the leader of the oppposition, David Cameron stated this week during PMQs that the PM was wrong, and that Titian died at 86. So the researchers at the Daily Politics checked Wikipedia, and came up with the answer of 91 (to laughter in the studio). Is Wikipedia correct? Rebel Redcoat (talk) 14:36, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
See the article! No one knows when he was born, and many scholars suspect he played up his age at the end of his life. The article does not commit to any dob, but discusses the issue - more BBC inaccuracy, it seems! Johnbod (talk) 13:05, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
You are completely wrong and the BBC accurately quoted Wikipedia. If you could be bothered to look at the history of this article, looking back before the 11th of February and David Cameron's notorious gaffe, the date given for Titian's birth in Wikipedia is 1485. However, since the 11th of February 2009, Titian has mysteriously lost three years of his life. Actually, Titian himself believed and often asserted in public, that he was born in 1477, which would have made him 99 years old on his deathbed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:22, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
The fact people are unsure of this painters birth year should be made very clear in the opening paragraph so everyone is clear this isnt an exact date and is disputed to prevent such things happening again. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:06, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
It is - just not quite clear enough for a BBC researcher. Maybe they should use the Simple English WP. Also this is further evidence of how infoboxes mislead. Johnbod (talk) 13:09, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
It is only evidence of how inaccurate/incomplete information in infoboxes misleads. --Tagishsimon (talk) 17:22, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
A quick look at the intro and the infobox does not make it clear the year of his birth is disputed. We dont hear about that until reading part of the article. People should be clear from the introduction the year of his birth is disputed. The info box is misleading and that should be changed. Its better to include no information than inaccurate information. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:13, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
I referenced the Metropolitan Museum of Art's timeline [3] which says - c.1488-1576...Modernist (talk) 13:14, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
The article is ok as is....Modernist (talk) 13:16, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
The date is clearly still disputed and that should be written in the introduction to avoid people assuming its just the day / month thats not known when infact people have no clue about his birth year. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:17, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
It is not really "disputed" - everybody agrees that nobody knows. Johnbod (talk) 13:17, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
Different sources say different things there for its disputed aswell as unknown. Anyway recent changes certainly make it more clear the date is unknown, rather than before when it was misleading. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:19, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
Maybe we oughta dig em up and carbon date him...Modernist (talk) 13:22, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Ref added, and intro changed to show anywhere between 1473 and 1490, though that c. 1488 is favoured. Nice to see that the extent of the BBC's research is wikipedia... (talk) 13:25, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

The change is better thanks, id blame the conservatives researchers more than the BBCs. They should of found out the date was unclear before attacking the PM over it. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:35, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
I think both parties have been exposed: choosing only the information that fit their own view and ignoring contrary evidence. Brown should have known that the historical consensus (for the moment) is that Titian was likely dead at 90; Cameron should have known that there's still an arguement that Titian was alive at 90. I can see the article in the papers tomorrow: "So, when was Titian born?" 8o) (talk) 13:48, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
That article is interesting. Ofcourse it is wrong to claim they tried to make his birthdate later, what that edit by the IP linked to the Conservative party did was change the guys death date, saying he died 4 years earlier which is a pretty pathetic thing to do. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:50, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
Sam, no party-political bias has been averred. One may, although, suggest that interested journalists should be directed to academic works on Titian and not rely solely on one source (i.e. wikipedia) for their information! (talk) 14:53, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
The BBC did not rely solely on what wikipedia said, they checked it and looked into the matter further. Sams comment is more about the fact that someone with an IP linked to the Conservative Party (dont know if its true) but they edited this article to make it appear this guy had died several years earlier. That kind of vandalism is pathetic and troubling if its being done by a political party. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:01, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
I don't know about the IP, but the editors previous contributions [4] suggest this might be true. The Waugh blog uses the wrong diff of course - the one he wants is this one. Johnbod (talk) 15:10, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
I'm pleased that my ref is effecting British politics....hmmm If only I could make a ref to affect the economy..Modernist (talk) 15:14, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
lol i see the page has been updated to say "3PM UPDATE: CCHQ sources tell me it was "an over enthusiastic member of staff" who was responsible for the amendment and the operation was totally unauthorised." BritishWatcher (talk) 15:15, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
And desperately half-hearted. Couldn't even be bothered to alter the lead or main text. (talk) 15:19, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
I meant to warn both sides, both those who want to substantiate David Cameron and those who want to indict him. Strange that the 15th century birth year of a renaissance painter should be so important in contemporary British politics but I suppose stranger things have happened. Sam Blacketer (talk) 15:31, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Conservatives had just admitted changing the date. Rebel Redcoat (talk) 16:06, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

As the BBC says at --Rumping (talk) 16:22, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
The whole episode has made Brown and Cameron look like a right pair of Titians. Perhaps instead of debating the lifespan of a long dead artist, they should be doing something to help those hit hardest by their mutual love of big business economics. Riversider (talk) 16:36, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
It's true. They're (wait for it)... wiki-fiddling while Rome burns. (talk) 17:52, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Is the political spat over his age really of any interest to someone reading about the artist? I'm inclined to just delete that last paragraph as being irrelevant to the subject, but I don't want to start an edit war. — PhilHibbs | talk 13:40, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Year of Birth (conversation 2)[edit]

I read that he was born in approximately 1488, which would be more credible, considering the year of his death. Anglius 23:26, 1 June 2005 (UTC)

You should read this concerning Titian's age. Sure makes the "corrected" year of birth look poorly substantiated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 23:30, 19 April 2006
  • I've looked him up in an old encyclopaedia and have the dates as 1477-1576. 99 years old. I don't think he was born in 1988 as Anglius has read. --Artypants (talk) 09:04, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Anglius actually wrote 1488. "1988" was an edit made by an anonymous IP troll [5] yesterday evening. Jheald (talk) 09:48, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Here are quotations on the subject from a couple of books.
The catalogue for the National Gallery's big Titian show in London in 2003 starts with a fifteen page essay by Charles Hope on "Titian's Life and Times".
On the question of the birth date, Hope writes "Unfortunately it is not known for certain when he was born, and this is one reason why his early career is still the subject of intense controversy". But considering the dates of the Titian's brothers and sisters, Hope writes: Titian's father Gregorio "with his wife Lucia... had four children: Titian, Francesco, Dorotea and Orsa. Francesco, also a painter and later a timber merchant in partnership with his brother, acted as Titian's assistant in 1511 and joined the army in 1513, suggesting that he was born not long after 1490. Dorotea married in early 1508, again implying a date of birth not much before 1490. Orsa seems to have been somewhat younger, since her children were born around or after 1520. Titian ... was evidently the eldest of Gregorio's children and named after the family's patron saint. A date of birth in or just before 1490 would fit with the known facts of his early life, although it was widely believed in his old age that he had been born ten or fifteen years earlier."
-- in: David Jaffé (editor), Titian, London: National Gallery, 2003. Page 11. ISBN 1857099044.
In a short book Titian (Florence: Scala/Riverside, 1993; page 3. ISBN 1878351141), Filippo Pedrocco writes that "No document records the precise date of his birth which has long been the subject of much critical debate: the problem is not insignificant since it involves the piecing together of the chronology of Titian's early works". Pedrocco notes three theories: firstly, "A document in the register of deaths in the parish of San Canciano in Venice, where the painter ended his days on the 27 August 1576, states that he "died at the age of a hundred and three" ("morto de anni cento et tre") thus leading a body of critics to deduce that he was born in 1473. This theory that Titian was over one hundred years old at his death seems to find confirmation in a letter of 1 August 1571 to Philip II in which the painter laments that he was then ninety five years old." But a second theory notes that "this recollection is at odds with the written testimony of some of his contemporaries. In the second edition of the Lives of the Artists, Vasari maintains that Titian was 76 years old at the time of their meeting in Venice in 1566. Dolce, writing in 1557, states that when Titian was working on the frescoes of the Fondaco dei Tedeschi between 1508 and 1509 'he was only just twenty'. So, on the basis of these accounts, Titian was born sometime between 1488 and 1490." The third theory, according to Pedrocco, "is based on the presumed dating of an early work, the votive masterpiece, now in Antwerp, depicting Pope Alexander VI Presenting Jacopo Pesaro to Saint Peter. This was painted to celebrate the defeat of the Turks at Santa Maura on 30 August 1582 1502: the victorious papal fleet was led by Jacopo Pesaro while his cousin Benedetto commanded the allied Venetian fleet. Some critics believe the altarpiece should be dated close to the event with which it is so explicitly linked; this means fixing Titian's birth date in the 1480s since he must have been at least twenty when he painted the altarpiece."
Pedrocco considers that "Out of the three hypotheses the second one still seems the most likely". Regarding the third theory, "the proposed dating of 1503-1506 for the Antwerp altarpiece is by no means certain. In fact it should be given a later dating, placing it just before the altarpiece now in the sacristy of the church of the Salute and datable to 1510, with which it has notable stylistic similarities." The second theory reflects "information supplied by Titian's contemporaries, which certainly came from the painter himself." But regarding the first theory, "it should be pointed out that if Titian really was born in 1473 his earliest works would have been produced unusually late in life — when he was over thirty years old," and "the contemporary sources agree that Titian was a particularly precocious artist".
Jheald (talk) 10:42, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
I expect you mean "1502" for the battle of Santa Mauro - that's what the Jaffe catalogue has (p. 78), dating the painting to "1506-1511" (Caroline Campbell). Hope on p. 12 puts it "probably ... in 1506 or 1507". Johnbod (talk) 12:16, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
You're quite right, sorry for the typo! Jheald (talk) 12:35, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
For what it's worth, by 2002, in The Art of Venice (Scala/Riverside 2002, ISBN 1878351605, page 76), Pedrocco goes for "c. 1488". Jheald (talk) 16:12, 13 February 2009 (UTC)


Perhaps I'm over-zealous, but I've protected the page temporarily. --Dweller (talk) 16:38, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Wise move. Semi protection or full? Computerjoe's talk 16:41, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
I made it full protection for a week. I'll be going offline soonish, and am happy if consensus emerges for a change, for any admin to make that change. No need to consult with me. --Dweller (talk) 16:42, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I think semi-protection is good enough. I also think that by fully protecting the article, we may be barring those with more references to add. Totally understand if full protection is implemented. (talk) 16:49, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

For what it's worth, it seems to me that a week's protection is a reasonable response. Every hack and journo with an art history degree will want to edit the page for the next couple of days, but everybody will have forgotten about it in a week. (Aside: it's a tribute to the integrity of UK politics that neither party has appears to have a robust and well-informed team of secret sock-puppets.) Macguba (talk) 16:52, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
I would suggest that semi-protection should be enough after the week is out. Possibly the page needs to be referenced to hard-copy sources. Lawdroid (talk) 16:54, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

{{editprotected}} In the News section : "There is current debate about when he died, due to a debate between British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, who believed Titian died at 90 and David Cameron who believes he died at 86 during Prime Minister's Question Time on Wednesday 11 February 2008.[15]" should be changed to " ... on Wednesday 11 February 2009.[15]"

Done. BencherliteTalk 16:55, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

- I'd suggest a more radical change, David Cameron obviously does not believe that Titian died during Prime Minister's Question Time, which is what that sentence appears to mean. Riversider (talk) 16:56, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

This made me laugh a lot. As mentioned, the current text suggests that Titian died during PMQ. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:05, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I have reduced protection to semi-protection as there was little vandalism from registered users. Also news traffic tends to drop off very quickly so I have set the expiry to 1 day. Feel free to change up if things become unmanageable. ed g2stalk 16:57, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

It was hardly a row in the Commons - just one line used by Cameron and Brown didn't rise to it. It was afterwards on the BBC with Andrew Neil declaring what "the art editor" had messaged him to say he'd researched on Wikipedia that started this off. (And this is not the first time the BBC have done all their research here.) Timrollpickering (talk) 17:31, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
Why has an 'In the news' section been added to this article. The comment by Cameron was merely to demonstrate - as he saw it - the innacuracy of recent Gordon Brown statements. It's little more than a transient piece of trivia and has nothing to do with Titian, his life, his work. This section should be removed. Rebel Redcoat (talk) 18:27, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
No doubt so, but let's give it a week or so or people will just try to re-add it. Perasonally I favour leaving the article unprotected in the hope that some people drawn in by the controversy improve it - there is plenty of room for that. The affair is still in the UK evening news btw, now the conservatives have owned up to one of their people making the change. Johnbod (talk) 18:11, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
I'd say it should stay in the article, it is notable and sourced, but rather than have its own 'in the news' sub-heading it should be merged into the 'Present Day' section. I'd also agree that leaving the article unprotected might draw in some experts who can improve the article.Lord Cornwallis (talk) 18:16, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
I've just read the section and personally think the story about Cameron / Brown has no place in the article. It might have been interesting for a week a couple of years ago but it says far more about PMQ's than it ever does about Titian, it's a fatuous way to end the page and should be deleted. David T Tokyo (talk) 08:21, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Titiangate - Can I start my own wiki page? And we'll see if we can get that in the news..? Eddie —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:13, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Maybe we can get the Scots Nats involved, since they have invested so much in Titian? Kbthompson (talk) 18:18, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
It would take an artist of Titian's skill to do justice to those politicians' blushes.Riversider (talk) 21:34, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Is a mention of Winston Smith relevant? Jackiespeel (talk) 14:50, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Request change from non autoconfirmed user.[edit]

About two hours ago, "and then directed the BBC to the article for them to use as verification" was inserted into the article: [6]. The text was placed inside a body of text that was already cited. Looking at the source cited, I cannot see that the source verifies the new text installed. I believe the text should be removed as a result, which is something I can't do since I am not autoconfirmed. Thank you very much in advance if my request is responded to. Allventon (talk) 02:42, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I'll remove it, but if anyone knows a source, please add here. I haven't the heart to add Brown's other mistakes:"I'm reminded of the story of Titian, who's the great painter who reached the age of 90, finished the last of his nearly 100 brilliant paintings, and he said at the end of it, 'I'm finally beginning to learn how to paint," (same Telegraph link) - he did (in whole or part) way over 100 paintings (hardly surprising with a career of over 70 years) & the quote is usually (as in our article) placed as being made at the age of 70. Now no politician will venture into art history for a decade, unfortunately. Johnbod (talk) 02:52, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Thank you Johnbod. If I come across a relevant source I will add it, and I have also got in contact with the user who added the text to ask for a reliable source to verify his entry. Allventon (talk) 02:56, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Actually there is this [7] from the Daily Mail "Activists then ..." - not sure if that's enough. Johnbod (talk) 03:04, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Good find. I would like to, as I think you have suggested, find more reliable sources backing up the assertion that there was an attempt to direct the BBC to this article, just to be safe. Allventon (talk) 03:11, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
I've just mentioned about this in Year of Birth above. I think my dates may be more accurate.--Artypants (talk) 09:12, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

The story that the Conservative Party HQ directed the BBC to Wikipedia was definitely broadcast on the PM program (17:00-18:00, reference at circa 17:51 according to BBC iPlayer). Unfortunately I can't find any non-ephemeral source. --Soronlin (talk) 09:24, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

The television clip saying that the Conservatives pointed the BBC at Wikipedia is embedded in the BBC article [8] --Rumping (talk) 21:40, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
So it is - I'll add it back. Thanks Johnbod (talk) 23:34, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Louvre and National Gallery[edit]

The Louvre website gives Titian's birth as 1488/1490, the National Gallery's website as c.1487. Why are these excluded whereas the Met. Museum and Getty Inst. are deemed fit for inclusion?(both c.1488). The National Gallery ref was present yesterday, but has since been deleted.Catiline63 (talk) 09:52, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

The actual Titian page on the National Gallery website doesn't give a date, and the relevant NG catalogue ("Gould" - which doesn't either; despite a long discussion, it just says "active before 1511") is now referenced in full. The more recent summary NG catalogue just says "active about 1506". What was there before was just a caption on a summary page of the website, not really a suitable reference. There are no doubt dozens of different ways of expressing what is essentially the same view. The Getty summarizes information from a large number of specialist sources (listed at the bottom of the page) and that is cwhy is the preferred reference on issues of names and dates. Johnbod (talk) 11:38, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, a reference from a reputable source is a reference from a reputable source, regardless of its obscurity. Also, as said, the Louvre website repeatedly gives 88/90 - i.e. on just about any page where Titian is mentioned. Repeated citations such as that of the Louvre should be included, at least. Incidentally, art historian/dealer Philip Mould on today's "Daily Politics" (BBC2, 1200-30) gave as a birth date "anywhere between '86 and '91". Yesterday's "Channel 4 News" (1900-50), citing a unnamed source from the National Gallery, gave "about 1490". Such sources, albeit mediated through news sources, are valid. All are corroborative of the sources already given, but I feel the Louvre especially (and possibly NG) should be cited if only to illustrate the scope of the modern consensus. Catiline63 (talk) 12:43, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

The range is extended by the Hope quote already there. I think with 2 online sources already we should stick to the best print sources thereafter, since we have no shortage of these; websites, even of major museums, are usually put together by seperate teams from the curators and often contain strange mistakes, though 1490 is no doubt the Louvre's actual view. The Prado catalogue says "after 1485", the Wallace Collection one (Ingamells) says "c.1472/83", referring to Gould, who doesn't I think support that range, though he comes to no conclusion. I see Charles Hope, one of the major Titian scholars, has changed his mind in recent years; the London Venice exhibition catalogue of 1983 (p. 218) has him arguing for a date "in the first half of the 1480s". Given the very variable quality of the rest of the article, I think we have enough on this issue. Johnbod (talk) 13:22, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

The National Gallery of Art in Washington, DC. says around 1490 I think the article currently covers this ambiguity fairly well....Modernist (talk) 14:28, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I forgot to look at the new NG catalogue (Penny, Nicholas, National Gallery Catalogues (new series): The Sixteenth Century Italian Paintings, Volume II, Venice 1540-1600, 2008), which says "probably in 1490 or a little earlier" without a discussion. Since we now have the Louvre, NG, NGA & Hope going for this sort of formula, i think we should go to "probably c. 1488/90" in the article. Any objections? Johnbod (talk) 13:12, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

A wise move, and illustrative of the modern consensus view. Thought for the sake of completeness (and to limit arguements), I'd retain the wider range. Thus "born 1473/1490 (probably c.1488/1490)". Catiline63 (talk) 13:31, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
Yes, that's what I meant. I'll do it then. Johnbod (talk) 13:43, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Repair this article to 6th February 2009[edit]

This article should be fully reverted to 6th February 2009 and protected, before the recent spate of mindless vandalism made it unreadable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:47, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

You mean before references and footnotes were added supporting c.1488, as opposed to your preferred (and unreferenced) 1485? Welcome to the world of the encyclopaedia.
True, the tory editor yesterday made an obvious and clumsy blunder, easily detected. However, it appears that Cameron's point - that Titian was dead at 90 - was essentially correct. Catiline63 (talk) 13:11, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
The article is now certainly better than 2 days ago. Johnbod (talk) 13:25, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

This article seems to be becoming more and more complicated. Surely we can just decide on one date, and not present a whole lot of options. Anyway, the article must be consistent, and what is in the intro must also be in the infobox. Thank goodness his date of death is known - or is someone going to find some obscure reference disputing this too. I hope not. Wallie (talk) 14:07, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

No we can't decide on one date! I really think the infobox should go - it is a net negative to the article at present, as is often the case with artist's bios. Johnbod (talk) 14:22, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
This article is far better now than it was a few days ago so its a bad idea to revert back. We can not decide on a single date the guy was born thats how this whole thing started in the first place. The fact the persons year of birth is unknown has to be clear in both the info box (if there is one) and in the introduction. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:25, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
I see the info box has been removed, thats probably the best solution so people look at the intro and get the full information. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:27, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Much better without the infobox.Catiline63 (talk) 14:29, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks - that was certainly getting too complicated, and if kept simple was misleading. The portrait looks better now too. Johnbod (talk) 14:30, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
I was probably contravening WP:POINT by doing that. However, it is often the only way is to make a point to get things done around here. I like simple approaches myself. However, in life the complicators generally win. Wallie (talk) 15:07, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

  • Catiline63 states "However, it appears that Cameron's point - that Titian was dead at 90 - was essentially correct." - Not according to The Guardian. And if you read the comments you will see that my year 1477 might be right.--Artypants (talk) 16:27, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Your mistake. The clue's in the title, "Nobody... knows Titian's age". Be that as it may, Brown was foolish to assume that it as fact Titian was still alive at 90. As can be seen from the references in the article, while birth dates as early as 1473 have been argued, the modern historical consensus is that he was born c.1488 and thus dead by 90. Cameron, in stating that Titian was dead before 90, followed this consensus. Only his statement that it was a "fact that Titian died at 86" was wrong. Strictly he should have said something like "most historians agree that Titian died in his late 80s". Not as memorable a quote, but the point's moot: in light of the evidence here, Brown was still wrong.
Any further discussion can be directed to my talk page.Catiline63 (talk) 16:49, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
But Artypants, why do you think it might be 1477? The weblink arguing that is clearly pretty old - a book of 1937 is described as "recent" - and the trend has clearly been to go for later dates in recent years (which the 1983 Venice catalogue already notes). You only seem to mention an "old encyclopedia" above. The question in fact gets a lot of scholarly attention because it is important for the issues of the relationship, and of paintings disputed, between Titian and Giorgione, who died in 1510. Johnbod (talk) 17:46, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
True, I say an old encyclopaedia (very tatty and I can find no dates in it over 1905). I'm not saying I'm right 100%, reason why I've not changed the date as I feel this is for a collective decision of editors. But it feels to be right. Painters can be vain, so he may have been coy with his age. On that website I show, a reader "Plinyme" says: "In Roger de Piles "Short Account of the Most Eminent Painters, both Ancient and Modern" (1695 edition), under the section entitled 'modern masters' (!) he confidently asserts that Titian was born in 1477. It's worth pointing out that Roger de Piles spent several years in Venice as a French diplomat and did most of his research on Venetian painters while he was there, so he might well have found definitive proof of his birth date - who knows." Also modern scholars (and I know some old ones) constantly keep tweaking dates. But that aside, 1477 would surely still be a credible date? But I do realise the issues of the relationship, and of paintings disputed, between Titian and Giorgione. --Artypants (talk) 18:26, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
There is indeed evidence he & his family tweaked his age, but upwards not downwards. All the earliest birth dates come from the family, or probably via them. The c. 1488 figure agrees with Vasari & Dolce, and Titian's early contemporaries said he became famous at a young age, which does not match the early dates. But we have to stick with the WP:RS, and the broad (and rather vague) modern concensus is clear. Johnbod (talk) 18:35, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
What is the point of this discussion? to prove the Mr. Brown is stupid and Mr. Cameron is clever? I doubt any person will change their minds based on this discussion. Wallie (talk) 22:00, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
[out] can we all take a deep breath and concentrate on what matters in wiki terms - which our best guess at a cited 'truth' and express the uncertainty in the article. This article, it's contents, and what we say is nothing to do with Brown, Cameron, or whether there is a consensus that the moon is made of green cheese. It's only ever about taking the best guess on what the authorities on the subject (dis)agree is the 'truth'. I, for one, would quake at the thought that the future of western civilisation was determined by a straw poll of (a few) wikipedia editors. HTH Kbthompson (talk) 00:02, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
Both Brown and cameron were wrong as was the person from the conservative party who edited this article to try and make it look like titian died years earlier. What matters is this article is now more clear and has better references. Lets archive all this debate and all just move on with our lives, thanks. BritishWatcher (talk) 00:19, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

The recent dispute[edit]

Does the recent argument about Titian's age really deserve its own mention on the article, especially including the bit about wikipedia itself? I dont mind if everyone else supports its mention, but i think it should have some agreement before putting something thats only been "big" news for 24 hours and only for people in the UK on the main article. Does William Shakespeares article get edited every time someone misquotes one of his famous lines when trying to appear smart? i doubt it. BritishWatcher (talk) 01:26, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

There is precedent for including eg current exhibitions in an artist's article. I think the fact that the article itrself was brought in makes it more relevant. If we took it out now people would only re-insert it, but in a few months it may seem less worth keeping. I see it has been mentioned in the media in several other countries, if briefly, and the weekend is still to come. Johnbod (talk) 02:00, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
I'd say it does merit mentioning, it wasn't just "someone" but the British PM and the Leader of the Opposition who were involved in the argument. I would, however, advocate taking away the Davos qoute and just having the single ininital paragraph. I'd also lose the mention of the fact that the year of Titian's birth was unceirtain, as that is already covered sufficently earlier in the article. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 02:07, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
It is, but we know many won't look at that. There was actually a flat statement that he died at 90 in the final years section, that nobody referred to or altered while the whole thing was going on (now amended). Johnbod (talk) 03:04, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
BritishWatcher. I thought we were moving on with our lives. :) Wallie (talk) 19:26, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
So did i until i saw the whole incident added to the main article. Like i say i dont mind if everyone is ok with it being included, just seemed not important enough to be included in my opinion. It was hardly big news in the UK let alone the rest of the world. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:45, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
It is amusing and self-referential, but not notable. Leave it to WP:Signpost tomorrow --Rumping (talk) 00:13, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
I also think it a minor dispute over the age of the painter between two politicians is hardly significant enough to be mentioned in the painter's biography; it's 'recentism' and it's a self-reference, both of which are mistakes. Sam Blacketer (talk) 14:11, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
[Outdent] I'd agree with most of these observations - if we remove it, while the topic remains in the news (e.g. today's repeat of Any Questions, and Any Answers - both of which mentioned this article) it will be readded in a form that is 'unencylopaedic'. However, once out of the news I think it should be excised - in the end it is just trivia. I'd say give it a couple of weeks, and the world will have moved on. Kbthompson (talk) 14:52, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
wha...! an MP editted the article! which one of you is the MP responsible? seriously i believe this should just be added to the flagged revisions thread, this will be another reason why Jimbo wants flagged revisions.--Lerdthenerd (talk) 08:57, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism and Restoration Of Titian Paintings[edit]

It would be interesting to have information that would clarify the vandalism and restoration of Titian paintings that is described by the 1849 book "Original Treatises, Dating from the XIIth to the XVIIIth Centuries on the Arts of Painting, Volume II", by Mary Philadelphia Merrifield (available online). The book translates part of the work "On The Restoration Of The Royal Paintings Under The Venetian Government" by Pietro Edwards. On p862-863, Edwards mentions a robbery of part of a Titian painting. He says a square of canvas abut 5 by 5 inches that contained the head in the painting called (by Edwards) "Faith" was cut out and stolen in 1777. There is some unclear language about the painting being restored. I interpret it to mean that someone painted a new head and put it in the picture. It also says that the same restorer( who may have been Edwards himself) "filled up the empty space remaining in the Adoration of Bonifazio, by inserting the head of one of the Magi", which may have been stolen by the same robber.

I can't find any modern information about these events. Does the painting "Faith" still exist? Does it still have the restored head?

Tashiro (talk) 22:45, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Someone on the Bad Astronomy And Universe Today web forum pointed out that "The Faith" may refer to the painting "Doge Grimani adoring Faith", mentioned in the article. It should be a reasonably objective question whether this painting has a restored head on the Faith or not. Unfortunately, searching on the name of the painting on the web produces page after page of advertisements for companies selling reproductions of paintings. I don't know what organization now has custody of this painting.

Tashiro (talk) 02:39, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

La Bella[edit]

This article names Eleanora of Gonzaga, duchess of Urbino, as subject of the portrait La Bella (as named by the Catholic Encyclopedia). But the identity of the sitter is not conclusively known. Her features do not correspond to other portraits of Eleanora, but closely resemble those of the Venus of Urbino, painted in Urbino the following year.

Portrait of Aodh Ó Néill/Hugh O Neill?[edit]

Can anybody confirm if Titian is the artist responsible for the portrait of Aodh Ó Néill (1550-1616), the man who is arguably the most significant figure in Ireland's history in the past 500 years, which was in the Vatican until a couple of centuries ago when it was brought back to Ireland and is now in a private collection here? This is the portrait in question. (talk) 20:38, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't seem at all likely if you look at their dates - Titian died when O'neill was about 26 & (?) had never left Ireland. Johnbod (talk) 20:55, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

The artist in question is clearly influenced by Titian - see [9] - but as the user above pointed out, the dates don't work at all. Would be interesting if anyone knew more. Elphit (talk) 10:43, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Titian was born in the year of 1477, but the exact date is unknown. He was born into a family of four and his father was a distinguished councilman. He moved to Venice when he was ten years old and studied art with a mosaicist by the name of Sebastian Zuccato. Five years later, he worked in Giovanni Bellini's studio, who was one of the most popular artists of the time. In the studio, he meant many other artists around his age, whos names where Giovanni Palma da Serinalta, Lorenzo Lotto, Sebastiano Luciani, and Giorgio da Castelfranco. Titian's early work included the pieces: "Ecce Homo", "A Child Testifying to Its Mother's Innocence", and "The Saint Healing the Young Man with a Broken Limb", which he created while in a partnership with Giorgione. There works while partners were said to be indistinguishable, as they had extremely similar styles of painting at that time. Later in life, after Giorgione died, Titians work became more dramatic, with pieces like "The Death of St. Peter of Verona", and "Martyrdom of St. Peter". During Titian's last 20 years, he dedicated his time to painting portraits, and as the eternal perfectionist, he only finished a few great works. Some paintings he would continue working on for ten years, constantly adding new details. Titian kept painting until he died from the black plauge, which was very common ant that time. When Titian died, he was nearly one hundred years old. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drydenbrown (talkcontribs) 20:33, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Nationality, not Italian.[edit]

Surely Titian was Venetian and not Italian?

It was the Republic of Venice, and not Italy, until 1796. And had a different flag, currency, language, government and military until then.

Some consistency would be good -- I note Colombus[[10]] is listed as Genoese and not Italian, though likewise born in what is now part of Italy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tonypercy (talkcontribs) 00:50, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Bacchus and Ariadne[edit]

My favourite Titian painting is not here! Where's Bacchus and Ariadne, one of Titian's greatest works? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:21, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

I will try now to add some works that are famous and some that are less known, just to be informative. Also try to incorporate the long captions in text, and put the picture beside, thus making place for more pictures in the body of the article. Hafspajen (talk) 10:41, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Please be restrained, and drop the 2nd bit. The long captions here are pretty good - most of our captions are far too short. Many more people read the captions than the text alongside. The selection here is also pretty good. Johnbod (talk) 22:15, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
OK, leave captions, but about the works - well, a better presentation can be done. Hafspajen (talk) 22:42, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

It can be a MUCH better selection[edit]

Not all this needs to be added but indeed many of his great works are not shown, and the gallery is compared to other artists is quite poor. Hafspajen (talk) 22:41, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

About images and galleries[edit]

Images in the gallery collectively do have encyclopedic value and add to the reader's understanding of the subject. Galleries are not discuraged. Please see also this discussion here, Talk:Charles Marion Russell.

Per WP:IG:

Images are typically interspersed individually throughout an article near the relevant text (see WP:MOSIMAGES). However, the use of a gallery section may be appropriate in some Wikipedia articles if a collection of images can illustrate aspects of a subject that cannot be easily or adequately described by text or individual images. The images in the gallery collectively must have encyclopedic value and add to the reader's understanding of the subject.

  • Image use policy say: Sometimes a picture may benefit from a size other than the default; see the Manual of Style for guidance.

  • Manual of style: **As a general rule, images should not be set to a larger fixed size than the 220px default (users can adjust this in their preferences). 'If an exception to the general rule is warranted', forcing an image size to be either larger or smaller than the 220px default is done by placing a parameter in the image coding.

  • The exception from the general rule is most art and art related articles that they do fall into this cathegory, and they are this exception to the general rule .

Hafspajen (talk) 06:59, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Date of birth[edit]

Before making significant changes to referenced sourced historical data; please reference those changes with reliable sources...Modernist (talk) 23:02, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. We need to see a good deal more in secondary sources before "updating" this. Johnbod (talk) 03:46, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Titian. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:02, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Titian. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:32, 14 September 2016 (UTC)