Rokeby Venus is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | ||||||||||
This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on November 20, 2008. | ||||||||||
|
This article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
There might be something to say about Spanish prudery that didn't bring in the Inquisition... --Wetman 12:35, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
The article currently includes the following sentence: "The Times described a 'cruel wound in the neck', as well as incisions to it's [sic] 'shoulders and back'." There is a copy of the Times article here: [3]. It includes the first phrase, but not the second, nor anything very like it. I am therefore going to delete the second half of the sentence. Grafen (talk) 16:33, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
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)
Per the NG it was brought to England by William Buchanan in September 1813, having been legitimately acquired. Buchanan was a Scottish dealer who sent an agent to Spain for a number of years. Btw they describe Lopez-Rey's account of the condition of the pic as "largely misleading". Johnbod (talk) 00:08, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
"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)
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)
The third para no longer makes sence. Can somebody clarify. Ceoil (talk) 18:05, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
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) Art at Project Gutenberg for reference. Yomanganitalk 13:52, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
If the artwork is called "The Rokeby Venus" throughout the text, shouldn't it be moved to The Rokeby Venus? Or is the "the" an incorrect part of the (unofficial) title and should be formatted as "the Rokey Venus"?--Remurmur (talk) 13:12, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template ((source check))
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:37, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template ((source check))
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:56, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template ((source check))
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:49, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
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 nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 11:09, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
What ref is Serraller, pp. 237–60. ??? --Svajcr (talk) 11:41, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
FWIW the full list of contributors to the 1632 pamphlet is:
Francisco Cornejo de la Vega, Félix de Guzman, Ángel Manrique , Bernardino Rodríguez de Arriaga, Francisco Dominguez, Gaspar de los Reyes, Antonio Calderon, Hernando de Leon, [Alonso] Benito de la Serna, José Valle de la Cerda
Juan de Santo Tomás , Juan Sanchez Duque, Pedro de Tapia , 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.