Talk:Rokeby Venus

message: There might be something to say about Spanish prudery that didn't bring in the Inquisition... --Wetman 12:35, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: What for? The pieces ,  and others mention it. -- Ham 12:46, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: censor?

message: 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)
thread_title: Smuggled to England

message: "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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Clothes

message: 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)
thread_title: Venus of Urbino

message: The third para no longer makes sence. Can somebody clarify. Ceoil (talk) 18:05, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Has been fixed by Johnbod. Ceoil (talk) 18:15, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Lead

message: Anybody know anything about the controversy(?) highlighted by Clive Bell in Art that this could be by Juan del Mazo rather than Velázquez? Yomanganitalk 13:35, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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. Yomanganitalk 15:36, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Clive Bell

message: 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)
replies: text: 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) Yomanganitalk 20:28, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Done; may god have mercy on my soul. Ceoil (talk) 20:39, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Goya

message: 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)
replies: text: Its being pushed out by the Borghese Hermaphrodite image, but thats a small price? Ceoil sláinte 00:37, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: resolved by putting image directly under infobox - I hope. Johnbod (talk) 00:59, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  White space 

message: 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)
thread_title: Value

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Mirror Reflection 

message: 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)
thread_title:  [[:File:RokebyVenus.jpg]] to appear as POTD 

message: 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.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:37, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:56, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:49, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 11:09, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: What ref is Serraller, pp. 237–60. ??? --Svajcr (talk) 11:41, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I would guess one of these.  do you remember adding the reference in 2007? jnestorius(talk) 15:53, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  ref Serraller, pp. 237–60. 

message: FWIW the full list of contributors to the 1632 pamphlet is:
;Imprimatur: 
;Introduction: Cristóbal de Torres
;Essay: unsigned 
;Salamanca opinions: 
Francisco Cornejo de la Vega,
Félix de Guzman,
,
Bernardino Rodríguez de Arriaga,
Francisco Dominguez,
Gaspar de los Reyes,
Antonio Calderon,
Hernando de Leon,
 Benito de la Serna,
José Valle de la Cerda
;Alcala opinions:
,
Juan Sanchez Duque,
,
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)
thread_title: 1632 pamphlet