Talk:Rokeby Venus

censor?

There might be something to say about Spanish prudery that didn't bring in the Inquisition... --Wetman 12:35, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

What for? The pieces [1], [2] and others mention it. -- Ham 12:46, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Vandalism and Times quote

The article currently includes the following sentence: "The Times described a 'cruel wound in the neck', as well as incisions to it's [sic] 'shoulders and back'." There is a copy of the Times article here: [3]. It includes the first phrase, but not the second, nor anything very like it. I am therefore going to delete the second half of the sentence. Grafen (talk) 16:33, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

It might not have been the same edition. The case went on for some time and was widely and closely reported. From: The Female Nude: Art, Obscenity, and Sexuality. Contributors: Lynda Nead - author. Publisher: Routledge. Place of Publication: New York. Publication Year: 1992.

"Journalists were meticulous in their descriptions of the number and extent of the cuts to the canvas; The Times referred to a cruel wound in the neck and to cuts across the shoulders and back. In other words, the attack was assessed in terms of the wounds inflicted on a female body rather than in terms of the damage caused to a valuable painted canvas. But perhaps the most interesting example of this substitution of flesh for canvas is in the description of the damage caused where the blunt end of the chopper struck the canvas, causing rough tearing and an indentation rather than a clear cut with the blade. This was apparently more difficult to repair than the places where the blade had cut straight through the canvas and caused the greatest problems for the conservationists. 15 In a press statement, Mr Hawes Turner, the Keeper and Secretary of the National Gallery, described this damage as 'a ragged bruise on the most important part of the work' and most of the papers fixed upon this notion of 'bruising' in their own accounts of the damage to the painting. To bruise is to discolour or contuse but to keep the damaged surface/skin intact; it suggests a soft, three-dimensional form, and one might think of bruising to the flesh of fruit or a human body. To refer to the damage on 'The Rokeby Venus' as a bruise is instantly to confuse the distinctions between hardness (the canvas) and softness (the signified female body). The viewers of the damaged painting could not be confined to descriptions of a flat surface but moved directly to the evocation of a three-dimensional form with surface and volume - in other words, to the account of damage to a woman's body rather than to a picture." (oh and thanks for the link). Ceoil (talk) 16:37, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that. If you think the point is worth expanding, why not quote more from Nead? I would be nervous of attributing a quote to the Times if we cannot locate it in any Times article. Grafen (talk) 16:48, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I think your probably right. The section is underdeveloped anyway as it is; I found some more sources this afternoon so I might rewrite tonight. Ceoil (talk) 16:58, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Smuggled to England

I found a brief mention that the painting was smuggled out of Spain c. 1810-1820, but I can't find out why or by whom. Anybody have anything on this. Ceoil (talk) 16:42, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Per the NG it was brought to England by William Buchanan in September 1813, having been legitimately acquired. Buchanan was a Scottish dealer who sent an agent to Spain for a number of years. Btw they describe Lopez-Rey's account of the condition of the pic as "largely misleading". Johnbod (talk) 00:08, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Clothes

"In contrast, French art of the period often depicted women with low necklines and slender corsets, while the engravings of such French artists as Wenceslaus Hollar and Jacques Callot show, according to Veliz, "an almost documentary interest in the form and detail of European costume in the second quarter of the seventeenth century" - Hollar was Bohemian, and Callot strictly a Lorrainer until the French occupied Lorraine shortly before he died. I'm not sure what the point being made is - most, certainly of Hollar's prints, are indeed documentary studies, especially of middle-class women, who are pretty well-covered up. Callot went more into high fashion, but I've not seen any very sexy ones by him either, and he did more of men than women I think. Johnbod (talk) 00:08, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I think some of this can be cut as it is a little off topic and broad. Ceoil (talk) 15:51, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Venus of Urbino

I would think that this painting Venus of Urbino by Titian 1538, and this one Sleeping Venus by Giorgione c.1510, had an enormous influence on Velázquez when he was in Italy. Given the limitations imposed by the Spanish inquisition he must have considered both of these pictures very carefully in determining to turn his model around. I added Venus of Urbino to the lead. Modernist (talk) 22:29, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Lead

The third para no longer makes sence. Can somebody clarify. Ceoil (talk) 18:05, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Has been fixed by Johnbod. Ceoil (talk) 18:15, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Clive Bell

Anybody know anything about the controversy(?) highlighted by Clive Bell in Art that this could be by Juan del Mazo rather than Velázquez? Yomangani^talk 13:35, 14 March 2008 (UTC) Art at Project Gutenberg for reference. Yomangani^talk 13:52, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Old hat, I think, though i was interested to learn] of Venus Velazquez in a search! MacLaren says: "The supposed signatures of ...Mazo and Anton Raphael Mengs in the bottom left corner are purely accidental marks." Johnbod (talk) 14:26, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

You're always on dangerous ground searching for nudes however lofty your aspirations might be - you're lucky you only got a drunken city councillor! (or is that just the cleanest result you felt you could share?) The disputed provenance might be worth mentioning as an historical aside, but its difficult to know where to lever it in. Yomangani^talk 15:36, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Goya

The legacy section sorely needs a word on the most famous and significant painting to borrow from the venus. Also why is the thumb for La maja desnuda showing in such a reduced size? Ceoil (talk) 20:20, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

During your revels, the thumbs have been made to have unforced sizes per the MOS. Put your thumbnail size preference up if you don't like it (a minimum size parameter would be a good addition to the image tag though, I have to agree) Yomangani^talk 20:28, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Done; may god have mercy on my soul. Ceoil (talk) 20:39, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

White space

Borghese Hermaphroditus, Louvre Museum

There's a gap of white space between the end of the lead and the contents table. 209.34.168.36 (talk) 00:24, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Its being pushed out by the Borghese Hermaphrodite image, but thats a small price? Ceoil ^sláinte 00:37, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

resolved by putting image directly under infobox - I hope. Johnbod (talk) 00:59, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Move?

If the artwork is called "The Rokeby Venus" throughout the text, shouldn't it be moved to The Rokeby Venus? Or is the "the" an incorrect part of the (unofficial) title and should be formatted as "the Rokey Venus"?--Remurmur (talk) 13:12, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

This as an extremely minor issue, but I've edited the text to read "the Rokeby Venus" throughout. Usually definite articles are avoided in this type of article title, e.g. Wilton Diptych and Mond Crucifixion so the proposed move wouldn't have been desirable.

I've also changed The Rokeby Venus in the infobox heading to The Toilet of Venus, which I think needs explaining. It's one of the formatting quirks of articles on paintings that a work's title appears in boldface three times at the beginning of an article. I find this silly, especially with a work like this which has several variant titles, none of which is wrong per se. So to avoid the monotony of Rokeby Venus being announced three times, I've changed the infobox heading to that more descriptive, possibly more art-historical title. You can also see this principle at work at Manchester Madonna; I think it works rather well. I'm aware that this, too, is an "extremely minor issue", but I just thought I'd explain myself! Ham 17:44, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

That's right - see Wikipedia:WikiProject_Visual_arts/Art_Manual_of_Style#Article_titles; it might be different if the title was given by the artist, like The Persistence of Memory. Johnbod (talk) 22:47, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Value

An ip added It is interesting to note that after the attack, the market value of the piece rose sharply. Interesting indeed, but not something I came across in the sources. Is it true? Ceoil (talk) 11:41, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Mirror Reflection

The main body states

"In this work, Velázquez combined two established poses for Venus: recumbent on a couch or a bed, and gazing at her reflection in a mirror."

However, since the 'viewer' can see Venus' face it must be the 'viewer' that Venus is looking at and not her self.

---

Indeed she cannot be "gazing at her reflection in a mirror," as written in the article.  For she and the viewer to share a similar view of what the mirror shows they need to share a similar, if not common, viewpoint; since the viewer is not looking at the mirror behind her (but to her side), there is no similar viewpoint.  This is a common mistake.  Bertamini, Latto & Spooner (Perception 2003 32:593-599) have studied this perceptual mis-understanding of mirror reflections in paintings, including the Rokeby Venus, calling it the "Venus effect" -- see < http://www.liv.ac.uk/vp/Publications/BertaminiLattoSpooner2003.pdf and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venus_effect >.  BbBrox (talk) 23:13, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

That may be true in strict optical terms, but as their paper demonstrates, that is how most viewers perceive her, & no doubt always have done. The paper avoids all questions as to what the various artists intended, & does not contain the term "artistic convention". Oh well, send three psychologists to do an art-historian's job .... We should mention the issue, if we don't already. Johnbod (talk) 01:45, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

File:RokebyVenus.jpg to appear as POTD

Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:RokebyVenus.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on July 13, 2013. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2013-07-13. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. Thanks! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:07, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Picture of the day

The Rokeby Venus is a painting by Diego Velázquez which was completed between 1647 and 1651. It depicts the Roman goddess Venus in a sensual pose, lying on a bed and looking into a mirror held by her son Cupid. The painting is the only surviving female nude by Velázquez. Since 1906 it has been in the National Gallery in London.Painting: Diego Velázquez

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Rokeby Venus. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120218221514/http://www.hastingspress.co.uk/history/mary.htm to http://www.hastingspress.co.uk/history/mary.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• 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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:37, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Rokeby Venus. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050408232640/http://gallery.euroweb.hu/html/v/velazque/1651-60/01venus.html to http://gallery.euroweb.hu/html/v/velazque/1651-60/01venus.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• 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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:56, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Rokeby Venus. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110204020650/http://www.nationalgallery.org.uk/paintings/focus-painting-february to http://www.nationalgallery.org.uk/paintings/focus-painting-february

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• 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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:49, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Titian - Venus with a Mirror - Google Art Project.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 11:09, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

ref Serraller, pp. 237–60.

What ref is Serraller, pp. 237–60. ??? --Svajcr (talk) 11:41, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

I would guess one of these. @Ceoil: do you remember adding the reference in 2007? jnestorius^(talk) 15:53, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

I worked it out and updated. The reference seems superfluous for the particular statement it follows, but might be relevant for the whole section, in which case perhaps add it to the Sources and use more widely. jnestorius^(talk) 16:47, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

1632 pamphlet

FWIW the full list of contributors to the 1632 pamphlet is:

Imprimatur

Juan Baños de Velasco

Introduction

Cristóbal de Torres

Essay

unsigned

Salamanca opinions

Francisco Cornejo de la Vega, Félix de Guzman, Ángel Manrique, Bernardino Rodríguez de Arriaga, Francisco Dominguez, Gaspar de los Reyes, Antonio Calderon, Hernando de Leon, [Alonso] Benito de la Serna, José Valle de la Cerda

Alcala opinions

Juan de Santo Tomás, Juan Sanchez Duque, Pedro de Tapia, Pedro Salas Mansilla, Diego Fernandez, Rodrigo Gutierrez, Diego de Alarcón, Juan Antonio Uson, Juan de Jesus María, Juan de San José, Manuel García, and five Jesuits co-signing: Pedro Gonçalez de Mendoça, Gaspar Hurtado, Hernando de Mendoça, Agustin de Castro, and Luis de Torres.

jnestorius^(talk) 16:58, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Rokeby Venus

Please, important grammatical correction in this otherwise very good article: figure is LYING (reclining) on a bed, NOT laying. (placing something on) Getting this distinction correct separates the sheep from the goats! 👏😆 Susmarywills (talk) 20:14, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Done Susmarywills. Ceoil (talk) 20:54, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Well done both of you. It's a dialect thing; laying is correct in US English, lying is UK. John (talk) 19:49, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

"Laying" (place, or put: takes an object) for "lying" (recline, lie down: no object, intransitive) is NOT correct in America, any more than in England, just a widespread mistake, like so many others since the 1970's – owing to poor educational standards here. Susmarywills (talk) 21:13, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

That's getting into prescriptive versus descriptive grammar. An interesting topic, but not germane here. John (talk) 23:12, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

I've just checked and it is written in British English, quite rightly. John (talk) 19:56, 24 September 2024 (UTC)