Talk:Conversion on the Way to Damascus

message: Just made a few changes - most important is the date, which I changed from 1600 to 1601: Cerasi died on 3 May 1601, and the erjection of the first version seems to have been made by his heirs, rather than by him, which places this painting post-May 1601. The 1601 date is in John Gash's Caravaggio, 2003 (revised) edition, which is a catalogue of all known Caravaggios. Helen Langdon (Caravaggio, 1998) has a little on the confusion over the reasons for the rejection. 
Otherwise I haven't changed anything important. I've Wikified the words Cerasi Chapel, but there isn't an article yet - it would be good if someone could write one, particluarly if there are photos of the chapel.PiCo 23:44, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

message: Just a small edit.
I changed "prostrate and supine" to simply "supine".
"Prostrate" means "lying stretched out on the ground with one's FACE DOWNWARD" and therefore "prostrate AND supine" is a contradiction in terms (besides which Saul is lying supine—that is, "lying face upward"). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 124.62.212.69 (talk) 13:58, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Prostrate and supine" to "supine". 

message: "This is not a pallid faith, Caravaggio has exterminated all the cherubim that infest the Virgin like flies in Carracci's adjacent Assumption."  Pompuos and verbose to the extreme.  It's supposed to be an encyclopedia entry, not a scene from 'Frasier'.  Get over yourselves.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.69.81.2 (talk) 15:58, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I have to agree, this is not encyclopedic tone.75.84.184.44 (talk) 05:08, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  I just added the NPOV banner to the page.  I know this article's style might be common in art criticism, but it needs to be toned down for wikipedia.75.84.184.44 (talk) 05:15, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added a clean-up tag again. The two sources do not compare (or mention) Caravaggio's painting, therefore the comparison has been made by the author of this article. Wikipedia should simply synthesise the published observations of experts, not write sound-bites about polo accidents. Sionk (talk) 17:16, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Sheesh

message: Hmmm, well speaking as an art lover and a Christian (I'm not afraid to use the "C" word), I enjoyed the author's description of the painting, and if he/she/they would like to point me towards other things they have written, i would appreciate it.
It's always easier to be cool if you don't stand for anything or show passion, so I think the editor(s) showed guts and
integrity. Sonofskagit (talk) 02:57, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know who is responsible for the bulk of the article, but you can get some idea of the more active editors from the history page. It seems to have been started in 2005, and has expanded a lot since then. It also seems to me to be quoting some art book - prose like this is pretty typical of art writers, tho not normally of encyclopedias. PiCo (talk) 03:36, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: I Liked the article

message: A well-known poem by Thom Gunn, "In Santa Maria Del Popolo", is about this painting. I don't have a secondary source for this, though the poem, from Gunn's My Sad Captains, is in front of me as I write this. Maybe something to work in at some stage. Metamagician3000 (talk) 13:25, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Thom Gunn

message: An IP tagged the article, after that a large part of the description was removed as POV, -THIS PART:
On this canvas, Saul is an epileptic and fractured figure, flattened by the divine flash, flinging his arms upward in a funnel. There are three figures in the painting. The commanding muscular horse dominates the canvas, yet it is oblivious to the divine light that defeated his rider's gravity. The aged groom is human, but gazes earthward, also ignorant of the moment of where God intervenes in human traffic. Only Saul, whose gravity and world have been overturned, lies supine on the ground, but facing heaven, arms supplicating rescue. The groom can see his shuffling feet, and the horse can plod its hooves, measuring its steps; but both are blind to the miracle and way. They inhabit the un-illuminated gloom of the upper canvas. Saul, physically blinded by the event for three days, suddenly sees the Christian message. For once, his soul can hear the voice of Jesus, asking, "Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?" His sword and his youthful sinews are powerless against this illuminating bolt of faith. This is not a pallid faith. Caravaggio has exterminated all the cherubim that infest the Virgin like flies in Carracci's adjacent Assumption. Carracci's altarpiece is a world of an ascendant and joyous faith, bathed in refulgent daylight colors. Caravaggio's world has fallen into dusk. This is not a myth with multitudes of demigods, but a stark life-sized world of one horse and two men. One man has crashed with and now feels crushed by the lit universe. Caravaggio is painting at his peak of control and in his most enduring style. (See the immediately preceding paintings for the Contarelli chapel in San Luigi dei Francesi regarding St. Matthew, including The Calling of St. Matthew and the Martyrdom of St. Matthew.)
Actually I don't think that was POV, but flowery language. An other editor mentioned it in the same way, here. After this in a couple month later the article is tagged again, this VERSION, 17:13, 11 April 2012 . Now the article we have today is far from this version, i think the multiple issue tagg can be removed, also the  written like a personal reflection or opinion essay.   Hafspajen (talk) 02:45, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Can't see any discussion