Talk:Luca Cancellari

Deletion proposal

With regards to the deletion proposal per User:Cplakidas, I propose that the article remains, as -although disputed- a reference is being made to Constantinople as the origin of the icon mentioned in the example, and as there is an independent directly accessible reference(added the German one) with regards to the person living in Byzantium in 12th century. As such I propose that the article stays, and it gets revised as to include information on why it is unlikely that this person is the one who painted the Salus Populi Romani or the Nicopeia, and in general the unusual/suspicious aspects of the available information about him. Gts-tg (talk) 20:48, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Except that this is no WP:RS, and I can find no book, scientific journal or other source that contains any mention of such a character, whether in Greek or in Latin. The only icon to be potentially attributable to someone of this name is that in Bologna, but this matches nothing of the article's other assertions of him being a Constantinopolitan master and his works having been plundered in the 4th Crusade, since this particular icon was in Bologna already in 1160. Sources dealing with this are limited, but the expert on medieval Italian art, Bruce Cole, dismisses any such connection ([1], [2]). In short, the article contains a great deal of WP:SYNTH trying to establish the credentials of someone who, on the balance of evidence, never existed. Constantine ✍ 22:04, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

The German article appears to have taken info from Commons and possibly from the current article, so it should be discounted. However, as per the deletion discussion in elwiki where it has been determined to keep the article -while updating parts of it to reflect the skepticism points raised-, there are the following Greek encyclopaedias listed as sources that allegedly mention what the article supports:

• Eleftheroudakis 1929, vol.7, page.21
• Helios 1977, vol.11, page.139
• Hari Patsi 1980, vol.18, page.579

As per WP::Quoting_non-English_sources I think that these should be counted as valid sources, although not having access to these works makes it hard to provide translations. Gts-tg (talk) 16:36, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

It is a bit unhelpful to have this discussion in parallel to the one on the Greek WP, but I will repeat what I said there: the only half-way reputable sources this guy appears in are these Greek encyclopedias, and given a) that encyclopedias are tertiary works, and that this guy appears nowhere in primary or secondary works or modern prosopographical databases; b) that these are general encyclopedias and therefore cannot be relied on to be very strong on details, especially on such obscure issues; c) the unfortunate nationalist bias of many Greek works of the period, which in my experience often resulted not only in slanted presentation of facts, but outright fabrication; the reliability of their information is very questionable. Since this figure appears nowhere in the English or international bibliography, it raises an issue of notability as well. To my mind, the issue of this person's existence is settled: he did not exist, and we ought not have an article about him as if he did. Put bluntly, if a Greek hack writer in the 1920s, through ignorance, sloppy research or intention to bolster national "achievements", ended up spinning an isolated reference into a major hagiographer, then that is no reason for us to give this any credence here. It is useful to retain the article in the Greek WP in so far as someone might legitimately look for him after having read about him in these encyclopedias, but no English-speaker is likely to ever do the same. As it is, this article is simply misinformation. Constantine ✍ 12:37, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

This article is based on reliable and published Greek sources: Three encyclopedias (published 1929, 1977 and 1980) that verify the existence of the artist, as well as a PhD thesis (published 2011) that refers to the presence of the family in post-byzantine era. Constantine who disputes the existence of the artist has not produced any reliable source verifying his allegation. It is obvious that he is not familiar with the matter as his arguments are vague, baseless and inaccurate. Thus, in my opinion, this article is unjustly labeled as "disputed" and wrongly proposed to be deleted.P.D.C. (talk) 19:41, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Sigh... The existence of a Cancellari family in the post-Byzantine period (i.e. starting three centuries later from the period claimed here) is utterly irrelevant, and, if indicative of anything, it is of poor standards of research on your behalf. As I wrote in the Greek discussion, encyclopaedias are tertiary sources and hence not reliable in and of themselves, especially when a) Greek encyclopaedias of the period tended heavily to allow nationalism to taint their objectivity (something which others who have access to the same works have attested to in the Greek discussion) and b) the only actual scholarly study of the one single work verifiably attributable to a "Luca Cancellari" opines that it refers in all likelihood to an Italian painter and has nothing to do with Byzantium. This is reinforced by the facy that any reference to such a person is completely absent in Byzantine prosopographical databases or in any single work dealing with the other icons supposedly attributed to him, which furthermore are of different time periods altogether to the timeframe suggested here. The very implausibility of the article's premise is evident to anyone with any knowledge of Byzantine history and art when it claims that a 12th-century Byzantine painter working in Constantinople might sign his work in Latin... Constantine ✍ 20:19, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Reply to Constantine's sigh: (a) If the existence of this family "starting three centuries later from the period claimed here" is according to your opinion "utterly irrelevant" and "if indicative of anything, it is of poor standards of research" on my behalf (sic), then why e.g. the existence under the heading "Descendants" of the Phokas family starting six centuries later from the claimed period (and with dubious if not imaginative genealogies) in article Nikephoros II Phokas, in which you heavily contributed, would not be of the same? (b) Your remarks on Greek encyclopedias and your allegations as of nationalist influence on their articles are indeed exceeding the seriousness of this discussion. (c) Even the "only actual scholarly study" you allude to does not confirm a possible Italian origin of the artist and the lack of reference you allege is not an excuse for reaching the conclusion that he does not exist. (d) For "anyone with knowledge of Byzantine history and arts" it is well known that most ikons of that period (and not only) were not signed by the artists and nothing excludes the possibility of having his identity added in Latin by the Italian holder in a later stage.P.D.C. (talk) 21:15, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

a) Before accusing others of something, you might want to check whether what you accuse them of holds water. Unlike you, I am not the main author of the Nikephoros II Phokas article (I certainly haven't touched the "Descendants" section), and therefore not responsible for whatever inaccuracy there is there and I have not seen. I am however the main author of the Phokas (Byzantine family), Doukas and other Byzantine biographical articles, where you are welcome to check whether my methodology is consistent and, above all, whether I use reliable sources. And if I have included mistakes, I would feel obliged to anyone who pointed them out to me so that I could correct them, not call them out for having missed other people's mistakes elsewhere ;).

b) unfortunately, what is both very serious and not serious enough is an encyclopedia having "Greece as the forefront of humanity", without qualifications and ifs and whens, in the year 1977. Let me remind you that the comment on this statement's existence, and other disparaging remarks as to the encyclopedia's general tone, are not mine, but another user's in the Greek WP. No source is holy and infallible, but I doubt we can expect much objectivity from a source which states things like that.

c) well, to anyone who can read English (and you obviously can) it dismisses the legend of a Byzantine origin, tentatively identifies the painter with an Italian painter and a family of Tuscan origin (which, unlike the Greek Cancellaris, has the enormous advantage of being contemporary to the painting), so your entire statement is wrong

d) yes, the possibility can not be excluded. But the balance of probability is that it is very (very) unlikely, and there is no evidence for any such act. And if the signature postdates the creation, it again raises questions as to its authenticity. It is yet another in a long chain of tenuous hypotheses in this article, which is what makes it so implausible. Constantine ✍ 21:35, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

I fully agree with you Constantine that our objective is to produce reliable information. That is why we are having this discussion after all! Further research helped me improve the article and clarify your doubts because of professor Cole's paragraph. I hope that the following remarks will help in putting an end to this dispute and cancel your request for deletion of this article: (1) Professor Cole has indeed written extensively on Italian art of the 13-16th (especially 14-15th) centuries, but not on Byzantine art of the 12th century. His paragraph you refer to is a verbatim repetition of what is stated in Pietro Zani's (1748-1821) "Enciclopedia Metodica Critico-Ragionata delle Belle Arte" (28 volumes, published in Parma between 1817-1828) on Giovanni Lami's (1697-1770) thoughts about the icon of "Madonna di San Luca" in Bologna (vol.XII, annotation 36, p.169-170). (2) In fact, Lami strongly opposed that Saint Luke the Evangelist was a painter and thought that this icon was executed by a certain "Luca Santo" from Florence, a son of a nominated "Cancelliere". (3) There is no connection between "Luca Santo" son of a "Cancelliere" and the influential Tuscan Cancellieri family whatsoever. Neither, I would say, to the noble Roman Cancellari family as well. (4) Lami disputes the then (18th century) established position that the icon was transfered to Bologna from Constantinople in 1160, and this in conjunction to its attribution to Saint Luke the Evangelist. That means that more than two centuries before the publication of the Greek encyclopedias it was common knowledge in Italy that the icon was Byzantine. (5) Finally, Miklós Boskovits (1935-2011) one of the most important art historian specialists of medieval Italian and particularly Tuscan art of our time, in his work "A Corpus of Florentine Painting - The Origins of Florentine Painting 1100-1270" (ed. Giunti 1994), refers in a note (p.203) to Lami's position that the icon was "executed not by Saint Luke, but by a certain Luca Santo, a Florentin painter of the fourteenth century", that is two centuries after its creation.P.D.C. (talk) 16:11, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

I am aware of all that, but you don't have it quite correct: "That means that more than two centuries before the publication of the Greek encyclopedias it was common knowledge in Italy that the icon was Byzantine" derives from the "common knowledge" of traditional accounts of the icon's origin. So yes, tradition ascribed the icon a Byzantine origin; that is known, as is that it is ascribed to St. Luke; that does not mean that either of these views is true. Lami, who if nothing else knew a thing or two about art, did not agree, on stylistic grounds, which to me carries more weight. Cole even explicitly gives points to Lami for his view that the icon was not Byzantine, in so far as Lami's opinion was based on his own expertise, rather than simply blindly following what tradition said about it. Cole also adds in a footnote that he knows of no other artist of this name. Furthermore, this article and this dispute is not about the specifics of this particular icon; that the Bologna icon was painted by a "Luca Cancellari" is not in dispute, as he signed it; rather, it is the identification of this person, who is otherwise totally unknown, as a 12th-century painter in Constantinople named Loukas Kankellaris, who signed in Latin and whose works included the Nicopeia and the Salus Populi Romani, etc. that is in question, and nothing in any source, including those you cite now, seems to contribute any shred of evidence that such a person existed. Constantine ✍ 18:13, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

To put it as bluntly as I can: the only thing one could write with any certainty is that "Luca Cancellari was the painter of the Bologna icon of the Virgin, which he signed. He lived in the 12th century." That is not enough for an encyclopaedic article. Now if the suppositions made in the Greek encyclopedias at least had some weighty name behind them, of a researcher or historian, there would be something to flesh this out. As it is, the article cannot stand because it is simply unscientific and plain wrong: it brings together three icons of different chronologies, two of which were in Italy long before the 4th Crusade, fails to explain why a Byzantine author would sign in Latin (I repeat, this alone is a major red flag), and produces a mashup that lacks any credibility. Constantine ✍ 18:20, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

It is a basic principle in scientific research (including the historical one, of course) that any published information is credible unless a newer one, specifically disputing it, is presented. No source whatsoever may be discredited by vaguely spoken point of views like the ones presented here by you (and others in the Greek WP). Especially when it concerns respectable encyclopedias like Eleftheroudakis, compiled by the most renown intellectual and academic personalities of its time. In this article we have a source (the Eleftheroudakis encyclopedia) stating the existence of this Byzantine painter. This is a fact that was not disputed, per se, in the known bibliography. Furthermore, this source is attributing to him the creation, with most probability, of these three icons. On the other hand, we have yet another source (Giovanni Lami) that considers improbable the byzantine origin of one of these icons, because the author disputes its creation by Saint Luke and not because of "stylistic" or "signature" (the icon is inscribed and not signed) reasons, as you argue. He does not dispute the existence of Luca Cancellari, but he tries to identify him with another artist (Luca Santo). All other sources presented here from both sides are repetitions of these two original ones. Thus, according to the generally accepted scientific principles, the arguments you presented so far may have helped in improving the text of this article, but do not excuse a dispute on the artist's existence or, even worse, the deletion of the article. It is obvious to me that, unless fresh material appears, any further discussion on this matter is but a loss of time. Thank you!P.D.C. (talk) 10:50, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

"...that any published information is credible unless a newer one, specifically disputing it, is presented". Great, then how do you explain any of the issues I raised above re the dating of the icons, and the Latin signature, being compatible with a 12th-century Byzantine artist. You don't, and no source does, because outside Eleftheroudakis, no-one with a scientific background (or even plain common sense) would connect three icons from three totally different periods with the same artist. And let me repeat it, once more: the other two icons are not from the 12th century, the Salus Populi in particular has been in Italy from before the 10th century. So much for the scientific approach, or even elementary fact-checking, by the author of the article in Eleftheroudakis.

As for "because the author disputes its creation by Saint Luke and not because of "stylistic"", no, you did not read what Cole writes: Lami's objection to the icon being Byzantine derives from stylistic grounds, not the attribution to St. Luke (which is obviously just legend). To quote verbatim: "A Madonna in Bologna signed 'Opus Lucae Cancellari' was brought to that city in II60.11 Lami suggests that this Luca might be the same artist as the Florentine Il Santo whom he cited earlier, and he refuses to accept the theory that the panel was brought to Bologna from Constantinople. This disbelief, although Lami does not say it, seems to be based solely on the stylistic characteristics of the work. If so, it is an early example of connoisseurship triumphing over legend". So we have an art expert like Lami who refuses to consider the work Byzantine, but of an Italian workshop, on stylistic grounds. Cole does not contradict him, and limits himself to stating (note 11) that he knows of no other mention of this artist (Luca Cancellari). Don't you find it in the least odd that another major art historian has never heard of the great Luca Cancellari? Surely, if somebody else besides a couple of Greek encyclopedias (which, I repeat, are tertiary sources and not inherently reliable just because of that, even without taking into account their biased POV) ever thought of ascribing him the Nicopeia or the Salus Populi, then Cole, or someone else, would have noted it somewhere, somehow? The silence, I repeat, is deafening.

Again, neither I nor anyone disputes that one (1) icon, the one in Bologna, was painted by a guy named Luca Cancellari. What is in dispute is all the rest of the pieces of information provided on him by the Greek encyclopedias, which if examined one by one are completely preposterous. Shorn of all this additional dubious info, there is not enough for an article; the relevant info should be merged either with the Bologna church article, or, if someone wants to, with an article on the icon in particular. Constantine ✍ 11:15, 6 April 2015 (UTC)