Talk:Amor Vincit Omnia (Caravaggio)
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
|This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 21 January 2019 and 24 May 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Bckyfern.|
The perceived English name is Amor Victorious where the name is more literally translated as Love Victorious Over All. How should we deal with this in the article? --Oldak Quill 18:33, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I've re-written this entry to make it more complete - part of a personal project to write articles on all of Caravaggio's work. I've tried to include the information already in the original where appropriate, but there were some errors in the first version, especially in the last paragraph, that I had to fix. (For example, it wasn't a 'local bishop' who commissioned Baglione's painting, it was Vincezo Giustiniani's own brother, Cardinal B. Giustiniani, and he wasn't at all displeased with the Caravaggio piece).
There's obviously a problem with the name of this painting - I believe it's commonly called Amor Vincit, which translates as 'Love Conquers' or possibly 'Love the Conqueror'; in English this seems to turn into a whole train of possible titles. The real problem is simply how to ensure that anyone searching for it in Wiki, can find it.
There are some red links to other Caravaggio paintings - they'll turn blue as I get other articles up.
PiCo 02:15, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
Edited the following mistakes:
The quote does not come from the Aeneid, but from Virgil's Eclogues. The second half of the translation has also been added. Also, latin quotes should always appear in italics rather than between quotation marks. CaveatLector 08:18, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
Excellent article, question about modelEdit
I have trouble conceiving how a boy could have a muscular body like that depicted in the painting. I assumed that maybe a child's face was used, and an adult or near-adult used for the body. Then again I'm a lesbian so I can't say I know much about the male body. - Cyborg Ninja 03:30, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
- it is perfectly possible for a boy of 11-12 to display the level of musculature that is shown, provided the boy exercises or engages in manual labor fairly regularly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 04:11, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
- As someone who has observed the male form quite a bit, I must agree with the original comment. A 12 year old can indeed be muscular but the shape of those muscles, and more noticeably his frame, looks more like someone 17 or 18. The pubic hair was left out as was the custom in classical art. I can't help noticing the face is one of a mischievious child. It reminds me of the boy on Two and a Half Men. I would imagine, this child could have been known to Caravaggio, and his face was put in this picture either as a form of admiration of a favorite or to embarrass a troublemaker. If indeed we can tell anything from his facial expression, he doesn't look like someone who would pose for a painting, something I personally found difficult to do for even a few minutes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 15:31, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
- It's an intriguing idea - an adult torso with a child's head put on top. When I look at the painting it seems quite plausible. Caravaggio was apparently making a guesture of some kind to the Michelangelo statue in Florence, and the adult-ness of the torso might be part of that. The face definitely belongs to a real boy, Caravaggio's assistant - he's recognisable in a number of other paintings. So you might have made a major breakthrough here. Write it up and submit it to the Burlington :). PiCo (talk) 16:34, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
i cannot agree with the text at this paintingEdit
the objects shown are tipycal vanitas symbols, and I doubt they refere to the comissioner - that was only rarely the case at that time and not in this way. Historically the objects shown had a fixed meaning, accessible to the knowing observer. It is all very rhetorically oriented. All objects shown refer to vain actions, conquests, etc. Also love is vain, youth is vain etc. Paintings are not personal at that time. The boys face, name etc are unknown. Many times a painter used someone´s eyes, somebody elses cheeks, a third one´s body etc to compose a being meaningfull to the paintings commonplaces (or topoi, or canones). I am not an expert, but the interpretation seems to be obviously wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 18:56, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
While I enjoyed reading this article, I can't help but feel it possesses more distinct/idiosyncratic of an authorial voice than your typical Wikipedia entry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:D390:AE00:2D2A:7AFF:103F:C72A (talk) 10:26, 26 September 2018 (UTC)