Talk:Saturn Devouring His Son

message: "the new owner of the house had them transferred to canvas under the direction of Salvador Martinez Cubells, the curator of the Museo del Prado."
As an artist I think the use of 'transfer' is likely misleading as to my knowledge paintings can not just be transferred, as is pealed off like a sticker or carbon copied.  I presume that conservators actually 'copied' the work onto a canvas. If anyone can get more info and clarify the process that would be quite informative!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.172.16.195 (talk) 13:05, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Transfer" 

message: It was shown and discussed in the movie Wall Street II.  It was also mentioned that there are/were 15 copies r variations. Not sure if there is any validity to that second part.   —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.172.16.195 (talk) 13:08, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Popular Reference 

message: I was surprised to see this as one of the "Wikipedia's newest articles" listed on the main page on 3 March 2007.  I remember going to the Prado and seeing this painting and being struck by it.  It stayed in my memory more than any others I saw that day.
It turns out that there are still significant things to write Wikipedia articles on! Spebudmak 01:30, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Articles 

message: Come on, I can't find anywhere else that mentions this and the fact that this famous painting would have a section of it lost that would contain something fairly rare in fine art needs a bit of backing up from a scholarly source. A lot of the rest of this article needs citing but this bit in particular needs addressing. I'm very tempted to write this off as a textbook example of made up rubbish on wikipedia. --130.88.161.173 (talk) 14:53, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Erection 

message: I added in the Cronus part to make it clear that the original Greek myth was that of Cronus devouring Zeus and his children, and Saturn was a Roman equivalent often identified as the same deity. ArdClose (talk) 15:53, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Saturn 

message: From the current content of the article, it sounds to me like the actual subject is in doubt.  Why do we know this is Saturn, if Goya never bothered to name or explain the work?  I must assume that he discussed it one day with someone and this conversation was recorded, but the article doesn't say so.  Tempshill (talk) 03:16, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added a few cites. According to Licht, the black paintings were made on the walls of his home for purely private motives, and all titles were added subsequently by critics 'long after Goya's death.' JNW (talk) 04:17, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  How do we know this is Saturn? 

message: I notice that this page is a verbatim copy of an article published here: http://getdagoss.com/blog/2009/07/francisco-de-goya-y-lucientes-saturn-devouring-his-son-saturno-devorando-a-sus-hijos/    It's credited to Adrian Twist, July 20, 2009, some time after this article was created.  So what is the rule here, re: copyright?  People write these articles under aliases, so who owns them?  I'm a professional editor and am asking because I'M not absolutely certain.  However, it seems clear that one or the other is a copyright violation...  thoughts?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.146.192.74 (talk) 14:35, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It (gone now) was scraped from here. Ceoil sláinte 20:27, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright? 

message: As is mentioned within the page itself, the gender of the child is in question. Although I have no supporting evidence, I would assume this is why I've run across this work titled as "Saturn Devouring His Children" more often than using the word 'Son'. If anyone has any thoughts, or information as to how this is traditionally titled by Art Historians, etc. I might propose a change to the title of the page.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.175.63.127 (talk) 15:52, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Title 

message: Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that :File:Francisco de Goya, Saturno devorando a su hijo (1819-1823).jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on August 25, 2013. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2013-08-25. 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) 22:38, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:File:Francisco de Goya, Saturno devorando a su hijo (1819-1823).jpg]] to appear as POTD soon 

message: Agreeing with comments above, I feel that there should certainly be a "Popular culture" section for this artwork, as it is so recognizable. 
One could begin with the great controversy in 2003 or so in the UK with Dave Brown. See here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dave_Brown_%28cartoonist%29
As this episode has recently been mentioned as evidence of growing anti-Semitism in Europe, I feel the wiki community should explicitly make the connection to de Goya here.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.59.153.210 (talk) 22:13, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please add a "de Goya's Saturn in Popular Culture" section 

message: The article currently states: "After various changes of ownership, the house came into the possession of the Belgian Baron Emile d'Erlanger in 1874." However the article on Baron Emile d'Erlanger (1832-1911), to which a link is made, does not mention him being Belgian or living in Belgium.  Cf.   It describes him as German-born, and a German consul who lived much of his life in France, where he was a banker. The Prado maintains a page, however, here, https://www.museodelprado.es/aprende/enciclopedia/voz/erlanger-baron-frederic-emile-d/27f24b8e-d9f1-4d4b-a210-5142e353bbe8 that does describe his family as Belgian. Can a connection between Erlanger and Belgium be established through an independent, authoritative source?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.17.178.22 (talk) 21:29, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Belgian? 

message: Is it worth including somewhere that although Goya's and Rubens' paintings depict 'Saturn' taking bites of his child, in the Greek myth the children were swallowed whole? The chewing aspect is clearly an artistic choice, and one I even approve of in its grotesqueness, but people with no familiarity with the myth might go away believing the children were bitten and chewed, when it's important to the story that they were eaten whole, because children who have been eaten can hardly burst from their father with nary an injury, and if Cronus had attempted to chew the rock that replaced Zeus, the story would have ended differently, indeed. It may even be worth including so that budding art historians might analyse why the choice to have Saturn taking a bite was made. Poorly educated (talk) 06:56, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Eaten whole vs. chewing 

message: Fries with that? I added the category 'Food and drink paintings' because, obviously, food. It was reverted. As mentioned in the section above the painting is an inaccurate representation of the tale, and shows Saturn biting and chewing human meat, but meat it is, and being eaten. I'd ask that the category be returned per obvious topic (or does 'food' only count if it's on a plate?). Randy Kryn (talk) 13:13, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Would you really expect to find a painting of an insane mythical Titan cannibal eating his son in the "Food and Drink" section? Is food only anything being eaten? Otherwise we'd need to add things like Leda and the Swan (Zeus as a swan, but swans can be eaten); The Abduction of Europa (Zeus again, as a bull this time; mmmm, bull); Harvesters (no Zeus as far as we know, but lots of wheat; mmmm, wheat) and The Monarch of the Glen (mmmm, venison) or is it only things being eaten by humanlike figures (because, of course, neither the "meat" nor Saturn are human even if they look vaguely like them in this picture)? If not Watson and the Shark needs to be added as that shark is about to enjoy some human meat ([as a shark] mmmm, Watson's leg) as well as any depictions of Ouroboros ([as a snake] mmmm, my own tail). Yomanganitalk 14:28, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I have to agree. I don't think paintings of Holy Communion should be included either, nor the Death of Actaeon & similar animal scenes. Johnbod (talk) 16:37, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: None of those paintings show anyone eating anything, except Watson and the Shark, where the sharks are about to feast but their food is not on plates (and I'd personally add it to the "food and drink" category). But I can also see the points you both make, and agree for the sake of Wikipedia definition style. I had also added the category to the Cannibals (painting) page, and think it's applicable there. You are what you eat. Randy Kryn (talk) 18:15, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Category:Food and drink paintings

message: The article mentions a piece of art by Goya dated circa 1797, made with red chalk on laid paper. Where does the name of THAT artwork come from? Is the name of that one also made by people other than Goya? Mateussf (talk) 23:46, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. Johnbod (talk) 00:42, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  1797 red chalk on laid paper 

message: One of the quoted experts references a penis in the painting-- correctly, as there is reason to believe one was painted originally. But it is not clearly visible in the painting as it stands today, and as this is not explained in the body, the quote may seem confusing or erroneous to a casual reader. 128.114.255.86 (talk) 08:29, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Penis