User talk:Amandajm/Archives/2010/February

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

My new edits... a Christmas gift needed

Ciao Nonna! Before leaving for my Christmas holidays, I give you my best wishes and ask you help for my last, rushy additions (The Triumph of Death (Palermo), Palazzo Abatellis, Santa Maria della Catena). Thanks and merry Christmas from --'''Attilios''' (talk) 10:15, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

merry New Year to you too! Buon anno anche a te... in the meantime I've added (shame on me!!):
What to say? You entirely rewrote the article and made it FAR better... Thaaaaaaank you.... --'''Attilios''' (talk) 22:58, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
In which meaning Santa Maria in Strada is loose? --'''Attilios''' (talk) 09:43, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
Ciao Manda! As per your request...
    • "Hut-shaped" is when it has trapezoidal shape with the pointed vertex upwards, and vertical sides as usual.
    • Height of the belltower: that's what was written in the original article!

A presto!! --'''Attilios''' (talk) 14:54, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Leonardo da Vinci

I am working on this article as you are and I would like to see it become a FA very soon. It has changed a lot since it was delisted from FA and I think it is close to meeting the criteria. I will be finishing fixing all the references soon and I would like you to right a list if issues and thigs to do/fix that we can both work on. I hope we will have a good collaborationMephiston999 (talk) 11:21, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I noticed on an article in wikipedia once that when you split up the references in to references, notes and bibliography, you can create a link between the refs directly to the book in the bibliography. This way when you go on the references and you only find the author and date of pubblication, you click on it and it brings to the corresponding bibliography section with the whole book reference. it would be great to be able to do this with our article as well. can you please check to see if this is possible. Mephiston999 (talk) 19:59, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

My condolences for this terrible tragedy! Sometimes (I don't know if it's a Safari thing) when I hit the back button right after that happens to me, all the text I wrote before hitting "save page" will still be in my edit window. I quickly copy it all and paste it after reloading the page. Obviously it's too late for that, but I'm with you in spirit!—DMCer 04:22, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
check this article John Diefenbaker to see the reference thing i was talking about, it looks great doesn't it? Mephiston999 (talk) 11:59, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Manchester Cathedral

Can you explain this to me? It says in the intro that the cathedral has "flat fan-vaulted ceilings". What is mean by this? There is a fan vault under the tower. Do the aisles also have fan vaults, and can they be reasonably described as "flat"? Has the writer unknowingly confused some mention of the tower vault with the flat wooden arch-braced ceiling? Amandajm (talk) 14:03, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

the only fan vault is the one within the tower. All the other vessels have low-pitch wooden roofs, that of the nave being supported by the famous "angel orchestra". The church as we now see it was rebuilt by the Stanley's (the Earls of Derby) after they had struck rich by backing Henry VII at the Battle of Bosworth (and by Thomas Stanley marrying the Kings mother, Margert Beaufort). In effect, the Manchester college became a sort of secondary Windsor or Chapel Royal, which is how it survived the Reformation as a collegiate corporation. TomHennell (talk) 15:25, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:TomHennell"

Leon da V

Just looked in on the page - History page shows no names but yours! A housewife-art historian's work is never done?

Hope all is going good and best wishes for 2010. PiCo (talk) 00:11, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Stained glass/gemmail

Hi Amanda- Marcmaison, (another editor, I presume) has restored AzitaS' material to Stained glass. Neither of the references cited supports Picasso having created works in gemmail. Since you know this stuff better than I, would you look at it? I think it'd be better if I didn't revert the same material twice. Eric talk 14:22, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your edit there. I stumbled on this and Gemmaux at the same time. I'm proposing the latter be changed to Gemmail: Talk:Gemmaux#Article_title/Merge_to_Gemmail? Eric talk 14:39, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
Hi Amanda and thanks for fattening up baby Gemmail. FYI: Talk:Gemmail#Marcmaison.2C_aka_Antoine_delorme.2C_aka_AzitaS.3F Eric talk 22:12, 16 January 2010 (UTC)


Hello Amanda,

Actually Picasso never realized any window in traditional stained glass as you rightly point out above. The Gemmaux technique being an innovative form of stained glass, we can certainly refer to Picasso as being one of the most prolific artist in this medium. Indeed he has produced about 50 Gemmaux between 1954 and 1956 in collaboration with Roger and Roland Malherbe-Navarre who perfected this technique by creating transparent enamel. Many other famous artists such as Matisse, Van Dongen and Braque created gemmaux and the first exhibition of their work took place in Paris in 1957. Thereafter an exhibition titled 'Les Gemmaux de France' was organized to show the gemmaux in the United States. The first exhibition took place in NY at the Corning Glass Museum and then at the Metropolitan Museum. The exhibit then toured the major American Museum between 1959 and 1961. A retrospective exhibition was held at the prestigious Galerie Charpentier in 1964 in Paris. I could provide a photo of one of Picasso’s gemmail, which would greatly enhance the description. What do you think?

I hope these references will help:

Poster of the exhibition of the Gemmaux at the Galerie Charpentier in 1964

Article of the Time : A new Art

Signature of Picasso "a new art is born : Gemmaux"

Encyclopedia Britannica

--AzitaS (talk) 14:21, 21 January 2010 (UTC)


Hi Amanda. All the Gemmaux are original artworks designed and signed by Picasso, they are not reproduction. When Picasso discovered this new technique he decided to reinterpret his paintings in this medium, it was his choice. . He worked during 2 years with the gemmist to produce about 50 gemmaux, they differ in size from the oil paintings. . Although unknown, the Gemmaux are part of Picasso's life and artwork. I am sending you 2 interesting pictures.

--AzitaS (talk) 16:48, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

This statement All the Gemmaux are original artworks designed and signed by Picasso, they are not reproduction. When Picasso discovered this new technique he decided to reinterpret his paintings in this medium, it was his choice. seems like nonsense to me.
The only Picasso gemmaux that I have been able to locate are reproductions in glass of other paintings that he had already done on canvas. These include the Harlequin, the Three Musicians and the portrait of Maya. None of these are "originall creations" in glass. All of them are based closely on the parent work, and in the case of the Maya, the glass even attempts to reproduce the appearance of brushstrokes in oil paint. I do not believe that Picasso, a supremely creative, prolific artist, wasted his time directing the meticulous "reinterpretation" (reproduction) of his works.
Picasso was so creative and his style evolved so rapidly that he is most unlikely to have revisited his older works and had them "reinterpreted" almost identically in another medium. What a wate of his creative time and effort! This wasn't the way that he functioned! If Picasso actually embraced the creative possibilities of gemmaux, then what we would be seeing is original designs that exist only as gemmaux and drafts/sketches. This would be a sign that Picasso really had designed for this medium. Maybe some original Picasso Gemmaux exist, but the portrait of Maya is not one of them. It exists as an oil painting. Amandajm (talk) 11:11, 26 January 2010 (UTC)


Thank you

I answered your message on my talk page. Heracles31 (talk) 15:01, 26 January 2010 (UTC)