Talk:The Wedding at Cana

message: A general request: could people who remove  and  templates from articles make sure that all the necessary work has been done first?  Thanks. --Mel Etitis  (Μελ Ετητης) 23:05, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copy-editing & wikifying 

message: I won't edit myself (not a native English speaker) but I have an interest for the Italian Renaissance art and would like to contribute.
Trivia: the moment shown here seems to be the dessert, as the food on the table is sugar, fruits and (according to at least one art professor at the Louvre) quince jam. Which is logical, the miracle having been performed at the end of the meal. Of course, the fact meat is represented above is a bit strange! 
Jesus is placed at the centre of the table, and significantly, on his right is a woman who, like Jesus, is also depicted with a halo.
This seems a bit obvious to say, but that woman is his mother, the Virgin Mary, who was present at the wedding - hence the halo above her. The fact Jesus and Mary are seated in the place of honor (while the bride and groom are on the left) is probably to symbolize the sacred marriage, the New Alliance. 
Mary was the one who asked her son to do something about the lack of wine (note the hand gesture). She's also wearing a black veil, which is interpreted by some as a prefiguration of the Passion of Christ.
For this reason, many suggest that the wedding at Cana may in fact have been Jesus' own wedding.
I don't know who those "many" are, but I've never read any serious expert recognized in the field  who said such a thing. To put it bluntly: maybe Dan Brown said so, but if he's a reliable art expert, than I'm Mickey Mouse. 
Above Jesus, on an elevated walkway, several men butcher the meat of an unidentified animal.
Art critics generally think it's lamb. Jesus is the sacrificed Lamb of God, the Agnus Dei. The butchered lamb is therefore symbolical of his future sacrifice. Christ is exactly under the blade.
Towards the bottom left part of the picture, there is a man pouring wine from a huge, ornate jug.
You can add this is the exact moment of the miracle of Cana: the water is being transformed into wine. Also, if you count, there are 6 jugs in the painting, just like in the Bible.
It should be noted that, though the majority of the characters in the painting are holding wine glasses, nobody appears to be intoxicated, but are healthily enjoying the feast.
It should also be noted that no one is actually talking. The painting was made for a Benedectine monastery, to be hanged in their refectory - and silence was a strict rule. 
At the centre of the courtyard sits a group of musicians playing late Renaissance instruments (lutes and early strings). (...) Above Jesus, on an elevated walkway, several men butcher the meat of an unidentified animal.
This vertical axis is highly symbolical. Above Christ, the Agnus Dei, a lamb is being butchered. Beneath Christ, musicians. Note that in front of the musicians there is a hourglass. In art, this is called a "vanity": showing earthly pleasures such as music, but also with a reminder of death (the hourglass, the butchering). 
Hope this helps,
--Avari 00:12, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A few precisions 

message: "The feast is well attended; over 39,395,927 figures crowd the painting".
Umm... I know it's a big painting, but there aren't nearly 40 million people depicted in it. Is this a joke, or vandalism, or what? EuroSong talk 11:20, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Vandalism of course, plus the wedding did not take place in St Louis. Johnbod (talk) 13:16, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Exaggeration? 

message: That prominent figure in the left foreground is no longer red, but green See http://www.factum-arte.com/pag/537/Returning--quot-Les-Noces-de-Cana-quot--by-Paolo-Caliari William Avery (talk) 07:40, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed with up-to-date illustration from Commons. William Avery (talk) 08:10, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Illustration is from before 1989 

message: Chas. Caltrop altered the text of the article, changing "before them is an hourglass, a reference to Jesus' statement to his mother in this Biblical scene that "his hour has not yet come".  The hour is a theme in John's Gospel account pointing to the hour of his death" to "before them is an hourglass, a reference to Jesus telling his mother that his "hour has not yet come", which is a theme in the Gospel of John, indicating the hour of his death". I reverted the change, and Chas. Caltrop has reverted me in turn a couple more times, unfortunately doing so while logged out, which is disruptive, as I noted on his talk page. I am quite prepared to discuss his change, and indeed leave it in place if other users agree that it is an improvement. This editor does have to stop logging out to edit war, however. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:34, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disputed text 

message: I've no idea about this, but how many pieces of canvas is it made from, and what sort of frame was it on originally? That seems like a very large painting..  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.253.87.130 (talk) 15:18, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Construction of Canvas 

message: Wikipedia text under "Religious Purpose" says that "No one is speaking." And in "A few precisions above," the contributor says no one is actually speaking.
In fact, numerous conversations seem to be going on in the painting.  I think it's a very noisy painting.  Just going around the table, starting on the left, the man in the green turban is leaning back and talking to one of the servants.  At the corner of the table the bearded man in red is talking to the person in the green hood.  On their left the man in light blue is busy explaining something to the person in the striped hat.  Etc.  You can go around the painting and identify all the figures who are engaged with each other in conversation--not just people talking, but people who are clearly listening to someone else.
Jimhale821 (talk) 10:42, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  No one is speaking? 

message: The article states (under "Religious Purpose") that the painting was scandalous.  The footnote is a dead link to a Louvre page that doesn't exist. Can anyone provide a source for this statement?  Anyone?  Anyone?  Jimhale821 (talk) 17:48, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Source for statement about the painting's scandalous nature? 

message: We can't say that he's the only one looking at the viewer of the painting, because the fellow in green to Jesus' left is also looking at the viewer.  And to say that Jesus is wearing soft Biblical colors misleadingly suggests that Jesus' garb is colored differently than the dress of others at the feast, which is clearly not true.  And I'd like to know the source in the Bible for identifying some colors as "biblical" and others as not.Jimhale821 (talk) 10:21, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jesus 

message: Hi User:Chas. Caltrop, thanks working on improving this page. However, I am concerned that some of the changes are not improving the text. In particular, here are some examples from your edit 
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Wedding_at_Cana&oldid=825045316
* changing “the guests” to the “awaiting guests” does not add clarity
* adding “to the celebrate the bride and bridegroom at their wedding feast” does not add any useful information, and introduced a grammatical error
* regarding contrast of light and shadow, pluralising to “contrasts” is not correct (and introduced a grammatical error)
* it is not clear to me what adding “old” to “architectural elements” is meant to convey
* adding “and above” regarding seating relative to the musicians is not required (already states they are behind, which is accurate) and may be misleading, suggesting that the floor behind is on a higher plane (but it is the same as the musicians).
* you have narrowed “earthly pleasures” to those “of vanity”; and changed “vanity” to “ambition” later. These change the meaning of the sentence, and it is not obvious why such changes should be made, so it would be useful to add a reference that justifies these significant changes.
Now there were a few other changes in this edit that were actual real improvements. But they were small; and this is just one edit out of a long sequence of changes you’ve made to this page. Hence my concerns that the page is undergoing lots of change, but maybe little progress overall - or potentially degrading a little. I don’t want to put you off contributing here (or elsewhere on Wikipedia), but I wanted to explain why some of your changes may get reverted, or further altered.
Thanks
Mozzy66 (talk) 08:36, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, and thanks I saw what you just did with the earthly pleasures / vanity issue, that is now well improved! Thanks Mozzy66 (talk) 11:38, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent Edit Concerns