Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/File:Portrait de Jeanne d'Aragon, by Raffaello Sanzio, from C2RMF retouched.jpg

< Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates

Portrait of Jeanne d'Aragon by Raphael edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 28 Jul 2014 at 02:22:44 (UTC)

 
Original – Jeanne d'Aragon or Dona Isabel de Requesens is depicted circa 1518, wears a rich dark red robe and the wide, open sleeves are gathered in front with ornamented bands, and the texture of the gold and velvet is almost touchable. Every trade has its master, and Raphael is one of the great portrait painters of the Renaissance.
Reason
Portrait of Dona Isabel de Requesens, Lady Viceroy of Naples, formerly known as Portrait of Jeanne d’Aragon. This work is now attributed to Raphael (Raffaello Santi), and even Giulio Romano a pupil of Raphael. Raphael was an Italian painter and architect of the High Renaissance. Together with Michelangelo and Leonardo da Vinci, Raphael was considered as the best of great masters of the Renaissance.[1] It was not unusual that great masters had a workshop, when they became famous - usually the master painted the face and hands and the more elaborate details, while the pupil will paint the background, and less important parts of the peainting. The portrait is showing skill depicting the portrait, textile and textures.[1]
(Warning -some browsers may have trouble displaying this image at full resolution: This image has a large number of pixels and may either not load properly or cause your browser to freeze. Just click on the last resolution at 810 × 1,024 pixels.)
  1. ^ See, for example Honour, Hugh; Fleming, John (1982). A World History of Art. London: Macmillan Reference Books. p. 357. ISBN 9780333235836. OCLC 8828368.
Articles in which this image appears
Giovanna d'Aragona; Duchy of Alvito; Ramón de Cardona;
FP category for this image
Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Artwork/Paintings
Creator
Raphaello Sanzio or Raphael Santi or simply Raphael
  • Support as nominator – Hafspajen (talk) 02:22, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - No way. I don't have enough computer memory to process these enormous images, but I did manage to get the retouching editor's last effort at FPC into Nikon X2 long enough to see that basically what's he's doing is "equalizing" the histogram (essentially pushing the "auto-level" button). That may be appropriate for a digital image, but it won't do for an art image. These images have simply aged, and they darken for a variety of complex reasons. Only expert restoration can bring them back to an approximation of their original appearance. This kind of processing is just silly, inauthentic, and derisory. The original still beautiful: " ... thy eternal summer shall not fade / Nor lose possession of that fair thou ow'st": but this is just horrible, a kind of art botox. Not on my account, sorry. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 05:18, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Whatever. But please don't start changing the file. And if you think that your van Gogh you nominated or any other artwork has not been restaurated at the museums you are in error. Art botox, eh? All artworks are regularly restaurated, cleaned and messed with at all museums, all over the world, addressing problems of chemical and physical deterioration, and performing corrective treatment based on an evaluation of the aesthetic, historic, and scientific characteristics of the object. Latest and probably not so good example is Michelangelo's works at the Sistine chapel. Hafspajen (talk) 06:20, 18 July 2014(UTC)
 
Daniel, before and after restoration.
  • Or maybe you prefer THIS or maybe THIS??? Here you can use your epitets: just silly, inauthentic, and derisory... Hafspajen (talk) 07:06, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not talking about museum restorations such as the 2007 restoration of the Frans Hals I nominated at FPC. I'm talking about digitally processing an art image as if that could emulate such restoration.It can't. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 11:19, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believe that Adobe handles up to 30k pixels in each direction (at least, natively). Now how well one's computer can cope... that's a different story. My laptop (8gb RAM, Intel Core i5-3210M, NVIDIA GeForce GT630M) starts bogging up around 200 mp, like the scan of a banknote I made the other day. (Gets even worse once we add new layers, but then you weren't doing that). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:50, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Coat, you'd need to use the large image viewer and/or download the image to see it. Browsers crash at this resolution, not owing to a lack of computing power, but owing to their own limitations. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:38, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - I trust Dcoetzee when it comes to this, although I agree that he should probably document his edits a bit better. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:38, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP?#8 is fairly clear on the subject. We know from other examples that images like these are likely to be picked up and sold commercially as posters. Wikipedia shouldn't be placing a seal of approval on such images. They are inauthentic. Of course I have no objection to Dcoetzee uploading derivative files such as these, but I really can't see how they satisfy WP?#8, the basis of my objection. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 11:19, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
 
ALT - But right, that has a FRAME. AND, I think that the original is probably much more like the one painting Raphael once painted, to be sincere. If Raphael would come back to look, he would recognize his work more when looking at original - and not Alt.
  • That is your objection. I trust Dcoetzee when it comes to this, also. It looks to me like any other regular old Renaissance portrait made by Raphael. And you couldn't even look at it. There is no real difference beteewen this and the one presented at La Petite larousse or here att the www.larousse.encyclopedie. And the gown was probably clear strong red - much much more reddish than this one - when it was painted. And Dcoetzee is a trusted editor. Hafspajen (talk) 16:35, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why your passion? Gnothi seauton. And your example is about the Madonna of the Goldfinch by Raphael. Not nominated here. Hafspajen (talk) 17:42, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Boje moy! Chto xudshee sanskrtiskee akkcentee ya kagdee-libo slishal. Hope that's right, French was never my strong point. I'll try to beg, borrow, or steal a high resolution image of theMadonna with the Goldfinch, failing which (likely the Uffizi being what it is) I'll just upload a photoshopped version of what I would have done if I had painted this great masterpiece myself. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 18:16, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your French is not French. And I wan't to remind you that once upon a time when Raphael made it this picture looked like this kind of strong colours - like HERE - just you know. Hafspajen (talk) 18:21, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Play fair Hafs. Reverting my upload of the Raphael wasn't a poke in the chest and it wasn't nice. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 22:17, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could you please remove that oversized picture, File:Raphael - Saint John the Baptist Preaching.JPG that is visually disturbing or I am going to do it. It has nothing to do with this and it is the same size as the nominations. I don't want that picture in my nomination. You can link to it but you don't need to post it right here. Hafspajen (talk) 22:37, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Alt (but not original) - Alt is lovely. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 22:27, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've removed the two images that were not being discussed for FPC (left Coat's as a link). Ladies, gentlemen, art lovers, and bystanders (choose your own category): let's please try to be civil, and try to avoid overpowering the page with images.. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:14, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The point about the image of the Raphael restoration I uploaded was its subtlety, quite unlike the chocolate botox kitsch of trusty old DCoetzee's restoration nominated here. I've told Hafs that in future I will oppose these kind of nominations as "inauthentic WP?#8". If he can't handle an editor opposing his nomination stating a valid reason citing the guidelines and makes an issue of it, then he must expect a response. If he tries his hand at wit and subtlety, then he must expect me to respond in kind. No lady, no gent moi BTW. Got that quite wrong. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 00:43, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
 
This is the kind of colour revival that should be avoided
 
And this is the kind of reference standard we should be aiming for
  • And I told you I don't agree. The WP?#8 say - Digital manipulation for the purpose of correcting flaws in a photographic image is generally acceptable provided it is limited, well-done, and not deceptive - a picture should:
  1. Avoid inappropriate digital manipulation.
    • Digital manipulation for the purpose of correcting flaws in a photographic image is generally acceptable provided it is limited, well-done, and not deceptive.
    • Typical acceptable manipulation includes cropping, perspective correction, sharpening/blurring, and colour/exposure correction.
    • More extensive manipulation should be clearly described in the image text.
    • Any manipulation which causes the main subject to be misrepresented is unacceptable.
    • Note that this criterion is not relevant to vector-based SVG images, as the entire image is a digital construction.
  • None of the above criteria forbidden applies on the Original, no manipulation that caused the main subject to be misrepresented. You made your point - and it is now enough. Let other editors have some space too. Hafspajen (talk) 01:14, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have no opinion on the nomination. The only changes I made to the image were to adjust levels (manually using the Curves function in Photoshop), and solely because some parts of the original were dark and difficult to see when surrounded by whitespace in the context of an article. I don't think it's more authentic or better - C2RMF's images are very authentic professional works - and when viewed fullscreen or surrounded by black space, I think C2RMF's images look better as well. Again, this image was really just intended for use at thumbnail size in articles, not for any other use. I am not a professional in restoration or art history and no special trust should be placed in me. Dcoetzee 14:44, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hints on this appreciated by the way. I can't make any of the JPEG 2000 viewers I see on Google work for me. Email me if you like. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 22:23, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you Dcoetzee for passing by. I was now checking around in all kinds of screens - for a while; and Alt1 is simply too dark on most small screens. The picture is going to be displayed on all sorts of screens - and unfortunately not Alt1 is not very visible, too dark. It is a quite valid reason for Dcoetzee edits, since we use this on Wikipedia.
    Also I think this kind of language used in this nomination like: horrible, a kind of art botox, just silly, inauthentic, and derisory, and you're wilfully not going to get the point , Chto xudshee sanskrtiskee akkcentee ya kagdee-libo slishal and the rest of similar expressions as: chocolate botox kitsch of trusty old DCoetzee's restoration and other personal attacs like he tries his hand at wit and subtlety, then he must expect me to respond in kind - should not be alowed to be used more in any nominations, not here, not anywhere. It is framed in with red: Please remember to be civil, ...+ to comment on the image, not the person. Which is why we have "All objections should be accompanied by a specific rationale that, if addressed, would make you support the image." right at the top of this page. If civil comments would have been used, I doubt there would have been any comments regarding said oppose. But no, we've gotten this kind of expressions five or six times. It's just plain disrespectful; and this kind of behaviour is seriously wrong. Hafspajen (talk) 16:57, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
 
Portrait of Dona Isabel de Requesens, marked both Giulio Romano and Raphael
  • Don't you make comments in the MIDDLE OF THE nomination text, like you did HERE, got that? And what you added is old news, and there is a file Portrait of Dona Isabel de Requesens, marked both Giulio Romano and Raphael, since 28 May 2008. Not exactly unusual that pictures are attributed several artists. I would be thankful if you would really stop now editing this nomination, you made enought damage already, thank you. You don't know as much about art as you try to give the impression of. Hafspajen Wade Retro (talk) 03:03, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The point is the nomination no longer has EV. It doesn't have EV because the painting is not by Raphael (not listed by the Louvre as such) and it doesn't have EV as a portrait of the Duchess of Malfi otherwise. That surely was worth highlighting at the outset once discovered. I'm not trying to 'destroy' your nomination. That's your take. I'm simply pointing out that the image sucks. Get over it and move on. Stop caring so much. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 20:10, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have to seriously ask you stop editing this nomination, stop posting more pictures here ( I removed some new ones added here again) and stop adding comments like this image sucks and now I am asking for administrators intervention agains Wikipedia:Harassment on this nomination, Drmies.
    And also ask for stop telling Fylbecatulous not to vote here, above in the nomination The Scream. Raphael lived 1483-1520 and Jeanne d'Aragon lived 1502–1575, it is not impossible for him to paint it. I care because it is my nomination, because it is a beautiful picture, it has character, grace and it is lovely. If it is attributed to several painters - this kind of doubt happens in the world of art history. Why do you care som much, that is on the other hand a mystery. Hafspajen (talk) 22:55, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Raphael retouched the face because he was worried about the comparison his patron Francis I would make with the Mona Lisa, which he also owned. It was not a portrait of the Duchess of Malfi, but rather the wife of the viceroy of Naples, a very celebrated beauty of the time. Raphael couldn't undertake the commission, so he sent his pupil Giulio Romano instead. It couldn't possibly be a portrait of Jeanne d'Aragon (Duchess of Malfi) because she was no older than sixteen at the time and the painting is clearly sensuous (erotic) in accordance with Francis 1's avowed taste in portraiture. Even an image of her with her hair tumbling down would have quite unthinkable for a sixteen year unmarried girl, not to mention its other features that would not have escaped the attention of a medieval masturbator. HTH. And yes, it's a beautiful painting. What a shame the image you propose to feature is so completely hideous. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 00:27, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • What a shame that you are using such words as completely hideous and medieval masturbator, that you are still editing the nomination after being asked several times not to, and what a shame that you are a truly disruptive editor, but nobody dares tell you that. Hafspajen (talk) 00:34, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • And - you are assuming above a great deal. People in the Middle Ages and Renaissance were getting married when 14 - 15 and cetainly a painting of a girl at the of 16 in the Renaissance should be clearly sensuous because it was an age when girls were about to marry. Not American standards. Could have been a portrait to show for a rich bachelor - no snapshots at the time. Hafspajen (talk) 04:50, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hafs, that's nonsense. The painting is not by Raphael. He may have intervened on the face and the painting may have been have been based on a design by him, but the only source for that is Vasari. We have in Raphael's own handwriting documentation testifying that he depatched his ablest student Giulio Romano to execute the painting. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 05:08, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The painting is The workshop and school of Rafael - and the master always took care that the paintings coming out of his workshop were well done. And what - we don't even know for sure who exacly Mona Lisa is - that doesn't mean that the painting is not one of the greatest Renaissance portraits. And have you seen what kind of paintings Giulio Romano cames up with? No good quality - but this one is marvelous. He could not have done this alone... Hafspajen (talk) 05:30, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is the image held in the Louvre database. Its title is "Giulio Romano, peut-être avec l’intervention de Raphaël, Portrait de Doña Isabel de Requesens y Enríquez de Cardona-Anglesola, 1518" ("Giulio Romano, possibly with the intervention of Raphaël, Portrait of Doña Isabel de Requesens y Enríquez de Cardona-Anglesola, 1518"). As I say you won't find this painting searching under "Raphael" in the museum catalogue. Romano was a master draughtsman, given important commissions in his lifetime. His was perfectly capable of painting this work and that he did do is attested by Raphael himself. The Mona Lisa is iconic in its own right, but this painting on the face of it has no EV, not by a great master and of only minor historic importance. It shouldn't be a Featured Picture. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 17:33, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust The Homunculus 06:03, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/File:Portrait_de_Jeanne_d%27Aragon,_by_Raffaello_Sanzio,_from_C2RMF_retouched.jpg&oldid=1090403241"