Talk:Caravaggio/Archive 1

Archive 1

Survey

I also nearly didn't recognize this page, because of its title. I find this choice peculiar. I would like to call a survey for discussion of this question; which I would do by approval voting between Michelangelo Merisi, Michelangelo Merisi da Caravaggio, and Caravaggio (with other nominations acceptable).

Comments? Septentrionalis 02:23, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Hearing no objection, therefore: Approval voting until 18:32, 25 July 2005 (UTC), or consensus (one sentence comments here please):

Michelangelo Merisi

Michelangelo Merisi da Caravaggio

1. Acceptable, but do not prefer Septentrionalis 18:32, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
2. Look at this title as a compromise. – AxSkov (T) 04:55, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Caravaggio

1. Normal English usage. Septentrionalis 18:32, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
2. preferred due to usage Whateley23 00:04, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
3. I don't consider myself an idiot and I'd never heard anything but "Caravaggio" until I read the article. Dismas 00:26, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
4. Most common name used in English. – AxSkov (T) 04:55, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Other (please specify)

Comments

Consensus seems to have been achieved; I've moved the page. Eugene van der Pijll 17:37, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

English Version v. French Version

I have just finished reading the French version of the article, which is currently featured on fr.wikipedia. It contains a veritable mother lode of information relative to the English version and IMHO does an altogether better job with Merisi. I suggest incoporating much of the French article into the English.

La traduction, c'est à vous la faire, hein? --Wetman 00:57, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Unless anyone is willing to translate the long French list, may I suggest an image gallery (like the one in the article for Jacques-Louis David), based on this Wikimedia Commons page? Note that Caravaggio redirects to 'Michelangelo Merisi da Caravaggio' there. –Ham 18:54, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

I have started translating and merging. will eventually get through it. also wikilinks need converting. please be patient. help welcome....PalX 22:09, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Bien, quand vous avez fini, vous pouvez faire le 'merging,' hien? PiCo 11:10, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Rewrite

I've made a complete re-write in an attempt to improve the article. I hope that I've covered all the points made in the original - sometimes I've incorporated the older material.

As I've mentioned in the intro to the new entry, the web material on Caravaggio's life is highly unreliable, and this is based primarily on Peter Robb's biography, checked against a number of other books.

If I've trodden on any toes by making such a total re-write, I apologise.

PiCo 05:06, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Kudos to PiCo. I had made a number of earlier edits ("even in a violent time"), of which one or two sentences survive. But PiCo has done the radical rewrite that the article deserved, and his acknowledgment of Robb (is giving credit where credit is due. At the same time, it also includes sources besides Robb, and it is readable and well-written. Good job! GaryDave 11/10/05

Good Job. Caravaggio is cool.
May I suggest you add back the picture of 'The Taking of Christ'. I think it's his best and adds to the article considerably. Also could somebody add a pic of 'The Denial of Saint Peter'. I went to see it in NY recently. It's an amazing piece of work. Mesmerising stuff. count the fingers. PalX 09:21, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. As for returning the 'Taking of Christ' picture, unfortunately I don't know how. Feel free to add it - I suggest the second half of the article, which is a bit heavy on text and needs some illustrations. I'd also like to see either Virgin and Serpent put in if it's possible, and the St Ursula. PiCo 11:03, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

I just had a look at the French Wiki version. It has many excellent illustrations. I'd like to see them all used if possible. Can you do this for me? PiCo 11:14, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

ok guys. we have a majority I reckon. will add some pics. PalX 12:32, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

UHM! Yes, what you wrote is interesting and well written. But I seem many of the particulars I had added about the biography had went lost. Moreover, you should put the links to the single works articles (I'm adding them slowly, if nobody checked this. And... you can help - see next section!) in the text. Format for the not already present Wiki articles should be:

• [[<Opera name> (Caravaggio)|<Opera name>]]

Good work on adding the images to this article - I particularly like the idea of putting Judith depaitating Holofernes into a section headed Death and Rebirth! (Except poor Holofernes never got reborn...).

I've added or revised some articles on individual works, including Amor Vincit, Boy with Basket, and Boy Peeling. Probably I'm still making mistakes with wikification, but learning slowly (I hope). A problem with titles is that there are so many alternatives - I've noticed that I've created an article called Boy Peeling Fruit, when the common title seems to be Boy Peeling a Fruit - if anyone can fix that I'd be grateful. PiCo 03:41, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Adding single works articles

If somebody wanna collaborate, I've got permission from www.wga.hu to use their photos and captions, so you need simply to upload the picture (if not existing) and copy-paste the caption (and improve it, if you have material) to obtain a good Wikipedia article about a single work. I'm also struggling with Botticelli, Raphael, Mantegna, Masaccio, etc.. If you can, give a glance. Art is something not so profoundly treated in Wikipedia. Thanks.

Could you sign your comments please? Yes, I'd love to collaborate - if you can provide the pictures, I can write articles, beginning probably with the images that already pasted into this article.PiCo 09:00, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Excellent work. I have been working a little with major Italians, but have tried to concentrate on "lesser Italians", the second stringers like Pontormo, Domenico Di Bartolo, Il Pordenone, etc. I have particular distaste for the vacuity of 1911 Brittanica statements. I feel like I'm being toured through a museum by a cheap guide, who name drops and shovels cute stories. In addition, while Vasari is a source, he was also a gossipmonger. I have few complaints about the article as it stands, while I agree that much in Caravaggio is unknown, undocumented, and if documented, often so by his enemies- I would have put the caveats at the end, and introduced with some lines why Caravaggio rocked the world. I wanted to lighten up on the homoerotic emphasis; clearly it is there, in the over-friendly ange in the Inspiration of Matthew I (the destroyed Berlin Canvas), as well as some others. I myself wonder what really he was thinking when he made such works as those in Cerasi and Contarelli. We will never know.

Finally for Caravaggio, I had basically abandoned the main article for fear of offending someone and concentrated on sub-articles on independent works such as the Contarelli and Cerasi canvases. Typically saying Calling of Saint Matthew (Caravaggio) and linking back to text of this main article.

Caravaggisti 06:19, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Feel free to move the caveats if you wish, and to do any other editing. Personally I'd like to see something added about Caravaggio's times - the influence of the Counter-Reformation and especially its strictures on art, and the lingering humanist tradition represented by Del Monte and other private collectors. If you want to lighten up on the hormoerticism go ahead - I think it has to be addressed, given that Amor has become a gay icon and Sacred&Profane a counter-gay one (I've seen it on an anti gay marriages website). But we in our age tend to give it far more emphasis than Caravaggio's contemporaries did (my opinion of course) - we just don't realise that in many ways the 17th century was an alien civilisation. I do want to emphasise the very real spiritual content of the religious works - I gave this a passing mention in this article, but I want to develop both aspects, the secular Caravaggio and the spiritual, in the linked articles on individual works.

Incidentally, what I've written here would of course raise the blood pressure of any true scholar of Caravaggio - Robb, my main source, is not exactly universally accepted in academic circles, and his certasinties are really hypotheses, some of them quite slenderly supported. PiCo 02:40, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Names of paintings

Given there are so many alternative names (in English at least) for Caravaggio's paintings, the best approach is probably to accept those used in the Chronology section. Anyway, I'm going to start going down that list adding individual articles. Unfortunately I already did one article called Boy Peeling Fruit, when the list gives Boy Peeling a Fruit - I'll try to fix it.

PiCo 02:45, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Calling of St Matthew caption

I don't understand what this is supposed to mean: "In the chiaroscuro of a shaft of light, Jesus' intervention lifts a genre scene to sublime theater." what's a genre scene? the link to genre doesn't mention any genre scene. if the caption is correct i think it needs some more explaining. Xrchz 05:18, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

The caption is correct. As the link explains, 'genre' is a vague term meaning generalised subjects that get treated frequently. Christ's calling of the various Apostles is one such genre from religious art. The caption is saying that what could have been a run of the mill treatment of a hackneyed subject, has instead been made exceptional by the inovative use of chiaroscuro. (At least, it was innovative at the time - inevitably it was overused by the Baroque artists who followed Caravaggio and became hackneyed anyway. But that lay in the future, and in any case Caravaggio's realism was not copied by later Baroque art). PiCo 10:59, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

I beg to differ with the comment that "genre" is a vague term; IMHO "genre" pictures are paintings representing scenes from everyday life (see for instance, "The Cardsharps"), as opposed to history paintings. "The Calling" is a history painting, term reserved for painting of scenes from the Bible or the mythology. The point is that history paintings tell a story, whereas a genre scene only shows everyday people going about their business. The nuance is important, because for 17th century painters and patrons, "history" paintings were considered a nobler art than "genre" paintings or landscape paintings. In other words C. never meant "The Calling" to be a genre painting. I propose then the following caption: "The chiaroscuro of a shaft of light, expresses in a blink of an eye the turning of St Matthew's destiny, with no artefact, flying angels, parting clouds or the like". Harol2 18:28, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

You've convinced me about the word 'genre'. I'm not suer about you proposed text - it's the 'chiaroscuro of a shaft of light' that bothers me. But I like your noting the way the scene is so naturalistic, without the usual angels and clouds - Christ couild easily be mistaken for a customer at an inn asking for a beer or whatever the local tipple was. Here's a quote from John Gash that expresses the same idea I think: "The typically Caravaggesque beam of light ...symbolizing matthew's conversion, has a further, illusionistic effect in that it enters the picture from the dierction of a real window in the chapel." No mention of chiaroscuro, but I think it reads much better. If you like you might be able to combine that with your own sentence. PiCo 21:06, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

How about this?: "The beam of light, which enters the picture from the direction of a real window, expresses in the blink of an eye the conversion of St Matthew, the hinge on which his destiny will turn, with no artifacts, flying angels, parting clouds or such like." Harol2 10:50, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Or: "The beam of light, which enters the picture from the direction of a real window, expresses in the blink of an eye the conversion of St Matthew, the hinge on which his destiny will turn, with no flying angels, parting clouds or other artifacts."? PiCo 09:02, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

OK for me. Harol2 18:00, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

I changed the caption and took the liberty of making the picture a little bigger. Harol2 19:57, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Two new Caravaggios discovered

Interesting article here on the discovery of two previously unknown Caravaggios. PiCo 13:15, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

On Caravaggio

I edited some comments on Bernini's Santa Teresa in Ecstasy which I think over-stressed the erotic content of the work. I could not envision a daily churgoing man like the Cavalieri attempting to introduce titillation by subterfuge. I agree that the mindset is difficult to comprehend. Few of us, in our ironic times, would have enough chuckle protection to steel ourselves to the mind-numbing graphic mental exercises of Santa Teresa or San Ignatius- but I assume these were daily meditation exercises for these devout artists. Unfortunately, for Caravaggio I sense that he lived a little bit less devoutly. Looking back at some of my contributions, I have failed to give them all the "(Caravaggio)" appendage. I tended to choose titles from Howard Hibbard's text.

I think Bernini's problem was that he had no more idea than you or I (ok, no more than I, I won't speak for you) of what religious ecstasy might look like. So he used the only ecstasy he knew, and... Caravaggio I see existing on a much more visceral, intuitive plane. Not that he wasn't intelligent - no-one who did those paintings was lacking in IQ points - but I don't think he even cared about the more abstruse teachings of the Church. He liked boys, and he painted them. He felt no guilt - guilt of that sort remained alien to the Italian soul well into the 1950s, and I've seen it lacking in some of my Catholic friends even now - but he did feel spirituality. And through his genius, he painted that too. PiCo 04:08, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

~~== Chronology ==

Should the chronology section be put into its own article? It seems long enough for it Cfitzart 08:14, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

You mean the Chronology of Major Works, towards the end? Sure - the article is 37kb at present, and Wiki reccomends (recommends, recomends, reccommends) about 20kb. Make it a separate article and slap some thumbs on it :) Atillios and I (and others?) are going through adding good in-depth articvles on all the individual paintings. PiCo 08:35, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Ok I started it off at Caravaggio, chronology of works, wasnt sure about the title but that can always be changed Cfitzart 09:50, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

I thought about maybe adding a paragraph on how the paintings often describe moments of existential importance, the calling of st mat. is the moemnt when he is called, the resurrection of lazarus is when new life hits him; this is a typically baroque theme, as opposed to classical artwordk and can be linked to bernini, and so on. Any objections/comments, anyone? Harol2 14:54, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Put it in the section "The Birth of the Baroque", and also summarised in the introduction. PiCo 22:03, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Paragraph added. All comments welcome. I would like to insert the resurrection of lazarus, but am having problems putting it in (is uploaded in the commons). Harol2 11:34, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I've made some small edits to the style to help it read better - they're not really important. I'd suggest deleting the very first sentence as it isn't really (to my mind) necessary - the current 2nd sentence makes a good introduction to your theme here. What's your p[roblem with inserting the Resurrection of Lazarus?PiCo 12:11, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Sentence removed. I will look more in the sandbox tutorials for the picture. Harol2 13:08, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

though these following names are very delightful, they are not as appealing as the name "alicia" it is a xtremly peachy name and should be exposed to everyone out there.

Footnotes (adding citations)

I've marked all direct quotes from sources with footnotes - these are currently empty, as it will take some time to identify them all. I'll also add footnotes for other things in the text of the article, but direct quotes certainly need them. PiCo 11:07, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Let me know what I can do to help, though I don't have the books that are cited. >>sparkit|TALK<< 18:34, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I am getting some funny things with the footnotes. It seems that all notes after No30 are only repetition of earlier ones... Zefrog 11.43, 30 August 2006 (GMT)

Beheading of Holofernes

Would anyone like to comment on why the beheading of Holofernes by Judith looks so awkward, the way she holds the sword and all that? The left side of the picture has a completely different quality to the right side.--shtove 07:57, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I can only guess that as Caravaggio painted from live models, the girl found the sword rather heavy and rested it on a pillow or something, leading to this slightly unconvincing gripatherine Puglisis comments that Artemisia Gentileschi and other later artists painted the scene with more physical realism, but the thing they (scholars) do all agree on is that C. got the psychology right, especially Judith's expression, the old woman, and the writhing of H.'s body - I recall someone writing about the "language of the hands" in this painting, with special reference to H.'s hands. PiCo 21:18, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. There's a pretty good biopic film of Artemisia, in which the heroine makes reference to the clumsiness of the beheading. Judith's expression is fascinating.--shtove 23:28, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Caravaggio Rembrandt in Amsterdam until June

http://www.rembrandt-caravaggio.nl/index_en.htm check the link. very good for zooming the works. Palx 13:31, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

In Sicily

I thought there was a para on C's time in Sicily? If there was, it's gone now. Perhaps someone would like to add one. (I can't myself because I'm traveling and have no access to books). PiCo 01:54, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Date of birth (the 28th of September is wrong)

Caravaggio was most likely born of September 29th and not on the 28th. His exact birth date is not documented, but he was certainly called Michelangelo after St. Michael Archangel, whose festivity is on September 29th. About this, you can check Helen Langdon's biography Caravaggio: A life (ISBN: 071266582X). I quote from her book (my translation from the Italian version): "the date of the marriage [of Caravaggio's parents] indicates a period between the end of September and the beginning of October [for Caravaggio's birth]. The poignant conjecture that he was born on September 29th, the day of St. Michael Archangel, has been proposed by M. Calvesi, La realtà del Caravaggio (ISBN: 8806117106). This date is generally accepted today."

I made the correction, but you're welcome to do this yourself. PiCo 03:32, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Painting Order

I know little about art, so I didnt choose to change this, but I noticed in the sections about Caravaggios life, the section speaking about the period before 1600 has a picture painted in 1601. The section dealing after 1600 has a picture from 1593. Would it beneficial to switch these two? Cephyr 21:48, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Go ahead - I have no opinion one way or the other. PiCo 02:01, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Mediation still required?

This mediation request is still listed as open. Is further mediation still required or can I close this case? --Ideogram 07:48, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Closing. If it needs to be reopened, leave a note on my talkpage. --Ideogram 09:28, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

"Virtual Gallery of Fine Art" Link

i notice that this was deleted as linkspam. however, i don't see what about it is spam. it seems, to my admittedly cursory examination, to be exactly what it says: a virtual gallery, in this case of Merisi's paintings. the ip address doesn't match up with the person who placed it here, so it doesn't seem to have conflict of interest. it doesn't seem to be particularly advertising a site, so that can't be it. why is it being deleted? (though, i should add, when it is added, it should be put to the bottom of the list of links, rather than the top.) Whateley23 04:44, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Google tells me that there are 667,000 pages that match the search "Caravaggio gallery". A large percentage of those are actually galleries of Caravaggio's art. Most of them would like a link from Wikipedia. Since most of the major Caravaggio paintings have their own article in Wikipedia (see Category:Caravaggio paintings ) and the rest are easily found in Google, there's not much point in opening up the floodgates of links.

Also, see WP:NOT, especially WP:NOT#LINK. Studerby 06:29, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

i suppose that's fair enough, though i'm not entirely convinced that that policy applies. Whateley23 00:23, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Did Caravaggio really beat Shamus Vitilago to death in 1899 for his vaudervillian insults?

These accusations were made on [TV on the Radio]'s - Netti Fritti Con Volante, off their OK Calculator album. For anyone investigating, sanity resumes at exactly 2:01. I suppose frankly TVotR is a better place to ask. Given the account of Shamus Vitilago and his loose insults, I wouldnt be suprised if such a thing transpired, but I havent found any information on Caravaggio's alleged inciter anywhere, nor any account of a slaying in 1899. If you listen the the song, it explains why no charges were pressed, and is very very funny. --Rektide 01:18, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

since he lived in the late 16th century, i doubt that he would have killed anyone at the end of the 19th. Whateley23 03:00, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Good Article status

After taking a look at the article, as well as its failed FA candidacy, I think that the same issues raised in the FA review might bar the article from GA status. The main issue with the article is an almost complete lack of in-line citations. The article was promoted to GA status about a year and a half ago, but the GA criteria have changed dramatically since then (in fact I think there were no criteria at all in Jan 2006). I wanted to bring this up here to give editors and contributors a chance to work on the article and hopefully improve it based on the GA criteria. Otherwise, I'll nominate the article for GA review soon. Drewcifer3000 05:27, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

The GA criteria have since been adjusted to be a little bit more forgiving about in-line citations, so I'm happy to say this article passes as a GA after all. Drewcifer 06:38, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Pedophile?

I read at another website that Caravaggio was a pedophile. If this is true (somebody help me), then i suggest we include this in the article. The site was a sort of Norwegian wikipedia ripp-off made for high-school art students, and should not be taken too seriously. I tried to research for this a little time on the web, but could not find any other sources (though i got bored from looking pretty fast). Maybe a smart art guy could say her or his opinion? (url for the Norwegian site: http://wiki.forus.vgs.no/index.php/Barokken)

Pedophile would not appear to have been the term in use during Caravaggio's lifetime, its use here would therefore be anachronistic. Philip Cross (talk) 14:33, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

It is usual political poppycock.Galassi (talk) 15:02, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Imitating Giorgione

I requested a citation for this claim as it seems unlikely. Certainly their is an influence of the Venetian Masters of the early sixteenth century in the early work, but these paintings do not have the ambiguity and static quality associated with the authenticated work of Giorgione. Philip Cross (talk) 14:24, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

There's a footnote citing Anne Sutherland Harris, with a page number, but I don't have the book so can't check. You might like to follow up. PiCo (talk) 07:33, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Footnote re: homoerotic content

The footnote regarding possible sexual content in Caravaggio's paintings has been reverted several times recently by different editors. This contributor has no agenda re: the content itself, but finds the matter relevant, balanced, and well sourced. Presence of the word 'possibly' does not invalidate its inclusion, but merely acknowledges the differences in scholarly interpretation. There is some history regarding the matter, as can be seen in the above discussion going back several years. I suspect that the current text was arrived at after some debate, and suggest that it not be reverted lightly, or without further discussion. If this remains an item of contention, the thoughts of other contributors and administrators would be welcome. JNW (talk) 15:47, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I support JNW's view. The information is well balanced, which is what policy recommends when sources disagree. I find "the gay biographers and commentators" a rather dodgy way of putting it, though. We shouldn't assume that just because a scholar is gay that he or she will take homosexuality for granted in a subject. qp10qp (talk) 16:11, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

In complete harmony re: the gay reference. It is gratuitous, and I was going to add as much here, but figured I'd said enough for the moment. JNW (talk) 16:18, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I've made the wording more neutral, then. qp10qp (talk) 16:28, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

An improvement. Thanks, JNW (talk) 16:43, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi guys. I deleted the section on Caravaggio's sex life because it's undue emphasis - the word pentimenti doesn't get a single mention (though it should), yet we have a whole section on this? On the other hand, I've reinserted two sentences and a long footnote which actually relate the sexual content of his early paintings (if it exists - it's actually a matter of personal perception, like an ink blot - you'll see what you wish to see). PiCo (talk) 07:12, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I do not agree this is an acceptable approach to take. The article is about Caravaggio the man and so it is entirely relevant to have details of his personal relationships. This article is not restricted just to the art of Caravaggio. The text included is properly sourced and balanced and there is no reason for its removal. Can I remind contributors that this is a shared article - open to all to contribute provided that arguments are made robustly. Incidentally, no-one is preventing you from adding some lines on pentimenti should you so chose. Contaldo80 (talk) 08:42, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Taking your points one by one:

• The article is about Caravaggio the man It's not, it's about Caravaggio the artist. If Caravaggio were just a man, we wouldn't be writing about him here. Discussion of his homosexuality (and I have no doubt that he was homosexual) should be confined to the connection between that and his art - hence the sentence earlier in the article about the discussion between critics over the homoerotic content of some of the early paintings, and the quote from Robert Hughes, which I like because of the stylish way he expresses that homoerotic ambience.
• Details of his personal relationships. You don't actually have any details of his personal relationships in this section. All you have is a discussion whether the artist was or was not queer. As I've said above, I'm personally convinced he was, but opinions differ, and does it matter? (If you wanted to have a discussion of his personal relationships, you'd have to go into much greater details about Minniti, Cecco, Lena, Longhi, Del Monte, and God knows who else. You don't though, because you're not really interested in his personal relationships, just in carrying out a vendetta against gays).
• This article is not restricted to the art of Caravaggio. No, it's not - but anything else should be related to that art. He's an artist, that's why we have an article on him. But as I say, your agenda is simply to attack gays, not to write about Caravaggio.
• The text included is properly sourced and balanced. Yes to the first, no to the second. I've already explained why - we are not here to further your anti-gay agenda in the guise of an article about Caravaggio. Merely being properly sourced is not nearly enough.

PiCo (talk) 09:04, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Is somebody promoting a cause here ? I want the article to deal with Caravaggio the artist. What's all this gay stuff about ? its irrelevant. please get rid of it PalX 10:31, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

In fact, this is clearly a case of Undue Weight. This section should be returned to footnotes.Galassi (talk) 12:52, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

When trying to weigh this with some objectivity, the rhetorical question I ask is whether so much space is generally devoted to suppositions and anecdotes about heterosexual behavior. If not, this would seem to be more appropriate for footnoting. JNW (talk) 14:24, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

PiCo - I don't get why you think I'm pursuing an anti-gay vendetta? This is very muddled thinking indeed. Nor is the article about Caravaggio the artist - otherwise it would have been called the 'art of Caravaggio'. If you want it to be simply about the art then I suggest you rename it; otherwise it's clearly a biographical article. You can't have your cake and eat it however - the article currently contains information on the paintings but includes specifically biographical information (such as personal behaviour in Rome, murder, fleeing into exile, award of knighhood etc). You would have to expunge all of that to keep to an article purely on art. If you want to improve the text by all means include more detail on Minitti, del Monte etc (or change the heading from personal relationships) but I find it disingenuous to remove it all. Some individuals will clearly feel the issue of sexuality is not relevant to the article; however, others will feel it is relevant. So we're not going to get anywhere by both camps saying I am/ am not interested. If someone wants to include details of Caravaggio's sexuality then they are permitted to under the rules of wikipedia provided that the textual addition makes sense. I'm happy to argue on the merits of phrasing/ supporting evidence; but I do not feel I need to justify inclusion of the topic. If it's dealt with by mainstream art-critics, historians and academics then it is worthy of inclusion in this article - and not to be hidden away in a footnote. Contaldo80 (talk) 14:40, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

The current version seems ok; contrary to one edit summary, C is not just a famous artist, but in recent years has become a famous gay too, in fact a gay icon, which should be linked, along with the Jarman film. No more "gay biographers" or "gay researchers" please! Unfortunately, we don't seem to have any articles on Renaissance "bravo" culture to give context on the knife-fights. Johnbod (talk) 16:37, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

This conversation is getting quite complex and I find myself responding to several peoiple at once. To Contaldo80, who thinks it's bizarre of me to accuse him of pursuing a homophobic agenda: you've titled the section "Questions of personal character" - not questions of sexuality, but of character - and then quite explicitly drawn a link between (a) Caravaggio's violence and his homosexuality, and (b) called him a pedophile (you've got Susinno wrong, he didn't mention Caravaggio sketching young men, only boys). If you're not asking the reader to draw the conclusion that homosexuals are unstable, violent pedophiles, then what re you doing? For Johnbod: yes, Caravaggio is a gay icon, you see his boys on the covers of books and magazines all the time. I think the existing mention about halfway down the section "Rome 1592-1600" covers this (especially in the footnote), but I'd have no objection to it being treated at more length in the "Modern Tradition" section - provided it were far better done than this tendentious and sub-literate section we're currently discussing. For everyone else: I explained my overall, position above, but will do so again: Caravaggio's sexuality should only be mentioned in so far as it relates to his art. Similarly, in the article on Picasso, which I haven't looked at, it would be legitmate and even necessary to talk about the women in his life as they appear in and influence his art, but it woud not be legitimate to call him a philanderer and secret misogynist, even though he was. PiCo (talk)

PiCo - you really can't be more wrong in claiming I'm pursuing a homophobic agenda. Indeed such a suggestion really does run contrary to my intention. I didn't title the section 'questions of personal character' - I called it 'personal characteristics'. Someone else changed it.

Nor have I drawn a link between his violence and homosexuality - I simply quoted Roettger whose work was seminal in exploring the sexuality of Caravaggio. To be frank I think it's likely that being homosexual (if indeed Caravaggio was homosexual) in Baroque Rome would place an unpleasant amount of pressure on any individual - noting that this was a highly repressive age, and those discovered to engage in homosexual practice would have been quickly sent to the stake (therefore I find it odd that some contributors expect to be given 'tangible' evidence of his sexuality).

The accusations made in Messina are significant because they partly explain Caravaggio's need to quickly flee to Palermo (thus hurrying his demise). I haven't made the claim that he was a paedophile - I don't think such a claim needs to be made, and indeed the description of 'boys' in Sussino's account should not lead us to assume they were necessarily pre-pubescent.

The issue of sexuality is important therefore because (i) it is a significant prism through which to understand the art of Caravaggio (and anyone who has seen the painting of st john will understand what I mean) (ii) his sexuality seems to have played a part in securing his early commissions (or at least his ability to connect to a homosexual sub-culture amongst patrons) (iii) he continues to exercise interest as a 'gay icon'. Indeed most catalogues nowadays where his work is exhibited in big shows will touch upon the issue. The impact is felt in poetry from Thom Gunn's 'Santa maria del Popolo' to Derek Jarman's biopic. It would be disappointing to relegate a fascinating issue to the dark recesses of footnotes. Finally this article is not about caravaggio's art - it is about the man - as there are separate articles on each of his paintings to be found on wikipedia. Contaldo80 (talk) 16:57, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Response to Contaldo80:

• "Sexuality...it is a significant prism through which to understand the art of Caravaggio..." Then relate it to the art.
• "anyone who has seen the painting of st john will understand what I mean." See above - if you want to understand the Baptist paintings (and the David paintings) in terms of suppressed homoeroticism, do it through references to art historians - and have you looked at the Wiki article on the paintings?
• "his sexuality seems to have played a part in securing his early commissions" Frankly I doubt it - he secured Del Monte's patronage because he was good and he was innovative, and while Del Monte may have been gay, Giustiniani certainly was not - yet he was the patron who commissioned Amor. There's far more at work than erotic preferences.
• "I haven't made the claim that he was a paedophile - I don't think such a claim needs to be made, and indeed the description of 'boys' in Sussino's account should not lead us to assume they were necessarily pre-pubescent." Of course they were boys - Sussino said so, and they had a teacher with them. Plus all, repeat all, of Caravaggio's eroticised paintings are of pubescent and adolescent boys, never young men.
• "this article is not about caravaggio's art - it is about the man - as there are separate articles on each of his paintings to be found on wikipedia." Of course there are articles on each of his paintings - I wrote most of them.

Finally, on overt homoeroticism in Caravaggio's painting, the following is an analysis of the most homoerotic of all of them, the Boy Bitten by a Lizard:

• Flower behind ear, bared shoulder: symbols identifying prostitutes
• Lizard: pun for "penis"
• Middle finger (the finger the lizard is biting): Used to insert into the rectum of the boy to ascertain whether the outer sphincter (the voluntary sphincter) is sufficiently dilated to allow the insertion of the male member. (A boy's sphincter is smaller than an adult's and the usual test was, and still is, whether at least two fingers can be inserted - only one finger is being noted in the painting, which may relate simply to the fact that a lizard can only bite one finger at a time, but might be related to the boy's professional status).

The boy looks about 15 to me. Would Caravaggio go to all this trouble, and make such a public display of his meaning, if he didn't prefer boys to men? PiCo (talk) 03:12, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Questions of personal character

Am I alone in thinking this whole section is riddled with weasel words and completely out of context with what is expected within Wikipedia. there are rules on this type of stuff. I have seen this type of prose before in Wikipedia especially with articles on religion where interested parties use the encyclopaedia in an effort to promote their belief. My own view is take the whole thing out. PalX 16:00, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree - get rid of this section. (But I like Johnbod's idea of a paragrpah about Caravaggio's modern status as a gay icon - it would be relevant). PiCo (talk) 03:14, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok - fair enough. I've cut out some of the more controversial aspects of the para and have teased out the gay icon issue. And moved the whole section to the modern perspectives section. Hope this looks better and addresses peoples' concerns. Contaldo80 (talk) 17:13, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Why all this talk about pedophile and sex. is that the main interest of the article and why the guy was famous? Why do so many people focus on that instead of what he is famous for??Bolinda (talk) 05:31, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I note that you are stalking me and the articles I have contributed to. I am referring the matter for investigation by administrators. I don't, therefore, intend to respond to any of your questions or points. Contaldo80 (talk) 16:04, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Called The Master of Light and Violence for both his canvases and his private life

This is what it says in: The+Master+of+Light+and+Violence++caravaggio&dq=The+Master+of+Light+and+Violence++caravaggio&hl=is&pgis=1. But you can see it here: [1]--88.149.124.123 (talk) 18:54, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for providing the source--I reverted this line from the article a few days ago, and I question whether this term has acquired broad enough use to be accepted as a common or well-established nickname--sounds more like the subtitle of a biography. I'm not sure that the second link you provided turned up any additional refs. This might be a good one to seek a consensus on. JNW (talk) 19:18, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree Johnbod (talk) 02:25, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Any idea where the title was first mentioned and how it has been used? Contaldo80 (talk) 16:44, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Google searches (web, scholar, books) turn up only the one linked above and another popular dictionary of names, it looks as if it has not been used much at all. Johnbod (talk) 16:51, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

lead para

The lead paragraph is a bit too long - maybe frequent editors can shorten it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.146.14.20 (talk) 22:01, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Different spelling of the name

Various printed sources name Caravaggio with alternative spelling from "Merisi"

it is found alternatively as Michelangelo Merighi Michelangelo Amerighi Michelangelo Merigi Michelangelo Amerigi

check here: http://books.google.com/books?id=VgkFAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA241&lpg=PA241&dq=michelangelo+merighi+caravaggio&source=web&ots=IaCKYsCYL9&sig=hAQQqDcW71PHtKWIcVcavLq2UJk&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=7&ct=result

Here: http://www.artboom.it/pittori-famosi-quadri-artisti.asp?artista=famosi&pittore=quadri&subcat=084&subcatname=Caravaggio

Here: http://www.comune.offida.ap.it/it/citta/chi_collegiata.asp

or just Goggle it.

One Google result I found turned up about a dozen alternative spellings. It would seem that none of the variations gained widespread acceptance, and scholarship supports the current spelling, that which the artist himself favored. JNW (talk) 00:14, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

At the very least I propose that you mention the simple fact that alternative spelling exist. It is an historical fact after all, they are widely used in Italy on official government publications and in university lectures.

Today we're used to people having surnames with fixed spellings, but in the 17th century this hadn't caught on. Caravaggio's family were important enough to have a family name, but not important enough to have a fixed spelling. The first published account of his life, written by a man who had known him, called him Amerigi. The next one called him Merigi. His father's name was recorded as both Merici and Morisi. In Roman court documents he was named as Merisio, and another document from his own lifetime called him Morigi. He himself signed his name Marisi. Friends called him by his first name, but couldn't agree - Michelangelo, Michele, Michelagnolo. Most often he was called after the name of his home town, Caravaggio (although he was born in Milan). All this is simply a characteristic of the relaxed attitude to names and spellings characteristic of his age - it was the same in England. To record it in our article would be pedantic and not really very informative. PiCo (talk) 00:54, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, PiCo, for your input. I see some of these names have been re-installed in the lede and the infobox. One source cited is a book that dates from the 1880s, and at least one of the other sources does not look very credible. I would suggest seeking consensus here before placing them in the article. JNW (talk) 01:01, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I see no harm in a note linking to the authoritative source on these matters, though actually he has far fewer variant spellings than many artists of the period. At least everyone agrees how to spell "Caravaggio". Johnbod (talk) 01:03, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I've added it as a ref to the end of the intro sentence.PiCo (talk) 12:07, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Painting Technique

I didn't want to add anything as it seems much work has been put into this page and it is quite decent as written. There has been media reporting recently concerning Caravaggio using primitive photography techniques with Mercury, salt and binders. As well as the idea that his entire studio was a camera obscura. Should it be added to the article? I mean other than just in the links section? --Anthony1999 (talk) 00:26, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Camera obscura etc

As an above editor noted, there is apparently significant controversy over the techniques Caravaggio used. For instance, this BBC slideshow states that "the technique he employed to achieve [his dramatic use of light and shade] is the subject of passionate debate in the art community". How come this isn't touched on at all in the article? -M.Nelson (talk) 18:23, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I think they're hyping that up somewhat. It just the Hockney-Falco thesis again. In fact they are covering that in next week's programme I think. Johnbod (talk) 20:20, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Johnbod, but still, the article could use a paragraph on technique, including inter alia the Hockney thesis, plus other things such as the lack of preparatory drawing and the interesting use of underpainting (unfortunately I don't have access to any books right now, but I remember reading something about his use of underpainting to give a "glow" to his colours). PiCo (talk) 03:49, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

The lack of drawings is there. Johnbod (talk) 03:51, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, serves me right for not looking. How about the under-colour? I think I read it in Puglisi. Something about creating a very thin outline in a complementary colour, sort of thing normally associated with the 19th century. PiCo (talk) 03:55, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

New to me - can't see it in Wittkower, who is good on the lack of drawings, light, and lack of realism. Johnbod (talk) 09:04, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I might be misremembering. No books for me till next month - I'm currently travelling. PiCo (talk) 10:36, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Caravaggio's Bones Found?

Just saw this article about the search for Caravaggio's remains and questions about his death, and thought it might be of interest to the editors here: Italians say they may have found Caravaggio bones Jedikaiti (talk) 19:30, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Sounds a bit early - let's wait till there's a final result. PiCo (talk) 02:12, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Bardassa

This link clarifies the sense of 'Bardassa' in the antique sense: http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=2nKiOKHrjtgC&pg=PA106&lpg=PA106&dq=bardassa&source=bl&ots=tkZgZfI8lr&sig=x9I3zG7NwcIhn2uMvaWYEG1KWyo&hl=en&ei=PjszTI_vDcnFsgbW6aXhDw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=6&ved=0CB4Q6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=bardassa&f=false

You certainly wouldn't lightly accuse someone of keeping a bardassa.PiCo (talk) 23:45, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

If there was indeed such explicit accusation. Is there an exact quote?-Galassi (talk) 00:14, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

During the Baglioni trial Mao Salini said that the offending poems came "from a bardassa of Michelangelo and Onorio". This is Robb's translation and he's pretty free with the record, so I'm not sure what it looks like in Italian. But Robb's version certainly puts C. and Onorio in some kind of possessive relationship ("a bardassa of.."). Puglisi feels that Salini is using the word in another meaning, "urchin," but she doesn't question the possessive formulation - meaning that, in some way, but we don't know what way, this bardassa was known to C. and Onorio. If it was meant as an accusation it wasn't followed up by the investigators nor pressed by the plaintiff. Again, if it was an accusation, it wasn't necessarily true - there was a lot of enmity involved, and Salini may have been simply trying to blacken (obliquely) the names of the accused (note that he involves Onorio as well as C.)PiCo (talk) 02:12, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

OK, the exact quote is in Calvesi, and it does not come from Baglioni or Salini directly - they both are making a claim against one Filippo Trasegno: che *aveva ricevuto una copia delle famose rime in cui Onorio Longhi ed il Caravaggio canzonavano il Baglione, "da una bardassa di essi Honorio et Michelangelo chiamato Giovanni Battista".* So it looks like "being shared by" is not in the source, but is another Contaldo POV coupure.-Galassi (talk) 02:55, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't think Contaldo used the phrase "being shared by." My own translation of "da una bardassa di essi Honorio et Michelangelo chiamato Giovanni Battista" is "from a bardassa of theirs, Onorio and Michelangelo, called GB". PiCo (talk) 04:10, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

A meaningless phrase by any standard, IMHO. By now it wouldn't be worth the effort to figure out who inserted 6the NNPOV words "shared by", but in must have been done by an editor who really wanted GB to be "shared" by the tutti quanti.-Galassi (talk) 09:55, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Our purpose should be to improve the article. Let us close this discussion - I think we've said all there is to say - and move on. I'm starting a new thread, at the bottom of the thread-list. PiCo (talk) 10:46, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Section "oeuvre" suggested extension

There's already a section headed "Oeuvre". I'd like to expand this to take in material on contemporary discussion of C's achievement and significance (Oeuvre and significance). I'd include:

• Portraiture and the self: C. was the first, so far as I know, to include psychological self-analysis in his paintings, through self-portraiture. There are, of course, modern critics saying this. But what it means is that he stands at the head of the tradition which was brought into the mainstream by Rembrandt, which is the artist's examination of himself as a subject. Mayeb R. isn't the one who brought this into the mainstream, more the one who put the seal on it (think Durer, who predates R.) Anyway, it should be mentioned.
• The erotic element: no artist before him, I think, put eros quite so much into his art. This is Contaldo's point. I think he distorts the significance, it should be about the erotic import of the paintings (an aspect of C's significance as the first "modern" man), not about C as gay icon, but he has a valid point.

What else? PiCo (talk) 11:13, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Caravaggio's sexuality

These two categories (Gay, Lesbian, or Bisexual people and LGBT categories )are listed at the bottom of the article but the article makes no mention of M.M.'s sexual orientation. It seems to me that we should have some sort of text relating to this especially since he was a painter of such religious work. Afterall, religion and homosexuality/bisexuality don't historically get along together very much at all. I'd add any pertinent info myself but I'm not an art scholar by any means. Dismas 07:37, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

---

I normally don't like writing about an artists' sex life as it seems essentially irrelevant to their work and the reason for their fame. But in Caravaggio's case his sexuality pervades his art. I've just done a big re-write of the article and made it clear that he was gay, without dwelling on the fact outside the relationship to his art. PiCo 11:06, 3 November 2005 (UTC) 11:06, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

---

Be careful, because there is no tangible evidence of of C. being homosexual. Legal documents only mention his female paramours. Detractors' invective is unreliable and inappropriate. In any case perceived "homoeroticism" is only noted in his works executed for DelMonte, and reflect the client's taste rather than the artist's.Galassi 19:48, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

---

What about Peter Robb's recent biography which clearly mentions homosexuality and the constent reappearance of the same young male models in C's paintings? See this article too. I think mention should at least be made of the possibility that C's had homosexual or bisexual relations and avoid taking part in that age old conspiracy conveniently erasing LGBT lives from history books. I suggest this (or something similar) should be added to the article (adapted from the link above), together with a category link to LGBT people.

Although no conclusive evidence of Caravaggio's sexuality has survived, remarks made by contemporaries, coupled with the aggressive representation of male eroticism in his paintings, suggest that Caravaggio was actively bisexual, if not primarily homosexual.

Thank you. Zefrog 00.54, 28 August 2006

---

I deleted this para from the intro:

In recent decades several scholars have made aggressive partisan claims that the eroticism in his paintings suggests that Caravaggio was actively bisexual, if not primarily homosexual (Peter Robb's biography). Although no conclusive evidence of Caravaggio's sexuality has survived (court documents only mention his female paramours), these scholars rely on remarks made by Caravaggio's detractors. See also.

My view is that the sexual orientation or practices of an artist - any artist - are irrelevat to his public life. To put that another way, if a starnger came up and asked Caravaggio what he did in the bedroom, he'd have told them to bugger off - and being Caravaggio, he might have made his point very rudely. For that matter, the private lives of Picasso, or of that man who creates stuffed puppydogs, or of the earlycaveman who decorated his rocks with bisons, are equally irrelevant to their status as artists...except when the sexuality spills into the art. When this happens, then it deserves a mention - and this Wiki article does mention Caravaggio's allegedly homoerotic art. So my view is that the sentence attached to footnote 9, and that footnote, provide all that needs to be said on this subject. PiCo 02:43, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

---

Not to mention that the deleted material was not couched in the most neutral terms imaginable. Haiduc 03:12, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

PICO's phrasing is more or less acceptable.

---

As to Hajduk, he could use some neutrality in his pederasty article that waxes poetic to high heaven.Galassi 14:01, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

---

I had added the following paragraph (which I think was acceptable and balanced) but it was changed to something biased: "Although no conclusive evidence of Caravaggio's sexuality has survived, remarks made by contemporaries, coupled with the aggressive representation of male eroticism in his paintings, suggest that Caravaggio was actively bisexual, if not primarily homosexual. Peter Robb's biography refers to the constant reappearance of the same young male models in Caravaggio's paintings; those young men being the painter's live-in apprentices. See also."

I think someone should decide once and for all what should be done with this. Also I don't think Pico's argument about what people do in their bed rooms is relevant. This is supposed to be a biography of Caravaggio: ie what happened in his life. If we follow the argument, mentions of marriages and children should be removed from all entries on the site... Zefrog 22.13 01 september 2006 (GMT)

---

I assure you that some of my own early work would be taken as homoerotic by some idiot of a scholar 300 years from now, while it was simply realism well done. Caravaggio's 2 documented paramours are women. And opinions of detractors are extremely unscholarly. The most we could hang on C. is pandering to Del Monte and Co.'s taste. He simply diligently did what was commissioned to do by a Cardinal who was a documented aberrant.Galassi 23:54, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

---

Just to set the record straight, this is not supposed to be a biography of Caravaggio (and I should know, since I was responsible for the article in its present form): it's supposed to be an assessment of his art both in itself and in the wider context of the Western tradition. The biographical element is mingled with that, but is meant to be subordinate.

As for what's actually known, and therefore sayable, about C's sexuality, the answer is: nothing. We don't know what the tastes of Del Monte and his circle were - the allegations of Del Monte's homosexual tastes were made by an enemy, and his own letters speak wistfully of memories of female courtesans. There's no evidence whatsoever that Giustiniani had eccentric tastes. As for the evidence of C's own sex life, it's even scarcer than that about Del Monte and G. One court document refers to Lena as "Caravaggio's girl", and offhand I can't recall any other reference at all. At the libel trial a witness for the prosecution referred to a certain Gian-Batiste as Caravaggio's bardassa, which is a male prostitute, but it wasn't done as an allegation, merely mentioned in passing. There's the famous reference to the model for Amor as a boy who "lay with" C, but in 17th century English "to lie with" simply meant to live with - nothing more. Plus the reference to the model for David as "il suo Caravaggino" - his own little Caravaggio - but what that means is anyone's guess. In short, the historical record is far too skimpy to allow anything at all to be said. What can be said, and should be, is that beginning with Donald Posner - and not before - C's sexuality has been a subject of debate. It should also be noted that not just Robb, but more respected scholars such as Langdon and Puglisi, accept a homoerotic content to C's art - not his life, but his art. PiCo 03:53, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

PiCo, you sound like a reasonable man. So given the scarsity of reliable scabrous detail I propose to move this into Footnotes with mentioning that POV, together with Calvesi's (see the Italian Carav. Wiki for the exact quote). Also BARDASSA may or may not mean prostitute. It also has meanings of MESS, CHAOS and WHOREHOUSE.Galassi 13:10, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

• Apparently there's a heterosexist aversion present here to even including mention in his article of the common belief/rumor that Caravaggio was/may have been homosexual or bisexual. And to say that this "isn't supposed to be a biography of Caravaggio" is perhaps the most ludicrous thing I've read on this site. This is indeed supposed to be a biography of Caravaggio, and even if the very person who created his page here contested that it wouldn't change that fact. It's what pages about individuals on this site are for. If one wants to create a page that is supposed to supposedly be solely about his art and its influence, then that page should be titled something like "The Artwork of Caravaggio". Zefrog is correct in his statement that according to the logical double-standards of certain others involved in this discussion, mention of all other heterosexual relationships between notable persons or at least artists with articles on this site should therefore be removed as well, which is ridiculous. Space in this article should absolutely be devoted to his personal life and to his (possible) sexuality, which is a subject of modern and historical social interest and relevance. Adrigon 04:37, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

• • Indeed, but only when any reliable evidence is found. To date there is none.Galassi 13:24, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

All of the talk of Caravaggio being homosexual is rubbish and just in the mind of the same scholars who spout on about this person and that person being homosexual without any proof or based on specualtion on who may have said what to whom. Usually the person is dead and cannot defend themselve as I'm sure Caravaggion would have very vigourously as he did in other matters. When you consider the facts why would a gay man kill another man over a woman and why go whoring with women and even possibly father an illegitimate child when you're gay, All of the gay theories come from academics trying to fill in gaps they can't account for eg why did he leave Malta ??? Oh it must be because he committed sodomy that will do, then the fiction snowballs. Then it turns out that it was for brawling as usual. Maybe Caravaggio wasn't gay just a artist who wanted recognition and was a drunken brawler with a quick temper as all of the historical evidence points to. In short a man who thought he was the best and couldn't believe lesser paintes got more recognition. Very upsetting for the gay lobby who seem to think everyone in history was gay. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.86.71.241 (talk) 16:16, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid you show an absolute ignorance of homosexuality in the historical context; and a simplistic understanding of Caravaggio as man and artist. And sadly you are letting prejudice mar your contribution. Let's leave the politics out of this shall we, and focus on improving the article. Talk about a "gay lobby" is infantile and irrelevant. Contaldo80 (talk) 08:43, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

add link ?

http://english.scuderiequirinale.it/Mediacenter/FE/CategoriaMedia.aspx?idc=19&explicit=SI 199.166.15.229 (talk) 11:29, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

The link is to an exhibition at the Quirinale, running from Feb to June this year. I don't support adding it as a link, as in July it's going to be out of date. But if you feel it's useful, go ahead. Edit boldly :) PiCo (talk) 11:03, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Please add the following to the list of External Links Caravaggio Gallery Caravaggio’s biography and paintings --AuctoriCMS (talk) 19:44, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, this looks like a commercial link. Carptrash (talk) 19:55, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Year of birth

The first line of this entry reads 1573, though if you look 3-4 lines down when M.M. is compared to Shakespeare, his year of birth is listed as 1571. Which is correct? Unless I missed it there is nothing in the entry about there being confusion about his y.o.b. Dismas 05:29, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

i agree. this needs to be resolved, at least for this article. Whateley23 06:39, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

and, to be fair, i've done some research: i find 1573, c.1572, 1571, 1573, 1571, 1571, 1573, and 1571, with the date ranging from September 28-29, on 8 websites. that's 4 for 1571, 3 for 1573, and 1 for c.1572. who wants to make the decision? Whateley23 06:46, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

The question has to be settled by scholarship, not Googleship :). It was 1571, according to the most recent research - this is pretty universally accpeted now by scholars. PiCo 11:08, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

The September 28 page had him born in 1573. I changed that to 1571 but want to note that any changes here should be reflected there for congruence. - Quartermaster 23:29, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Infobox dates

The infobox still says he was born "September 28, 1573," while the first paragraph says he was born "29 September 1571." At least they agree on the month! 108.246.205.134 (talk) 02:39, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Since http://www.italica.rai.it/scheda.php?scheda=caravaggio_prima_parte says Septeber 29, 1571, and the other sources seem to agree with 1571, I have put that date in the infobox. Jc3s5h (talk) 21:16, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

122 Caravaggio's Artworks translated in 3 languages: romanian, german and russian.

There are 122 Artworks of Caravaggio on ArtGalleryEnc.com translated in 3 languages: romanian, german and russian with information about the year, material, dimensions, museums added for each Artwork. Vv.Grecu —Preceding undated comment added 16:17, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Please don't continue adding spamlinks...Modernist (talk) 21:35, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Caravaggio Update

For reasons of my own, I needed a quick Caravaggio update and this served splendidly. Thanks to you and thanks to Wikipedia for providing this tremendous resource. I taught Art History in a Middle East nation to a mature student who gravitated toward a rich appreciation of Caravaggio's images. My student happened to be a crime scene supervisor with the local police. The examining council was blown away by Majed's profound empathy and understanding in his five minute critique. D'Arcy Drury — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.232.200.49 (talk) 05:26, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

BBC news on Caravaggio: Caravaggio was early 'photographer'

I'm not a specialist in Arts, but a lover of Caravaggio's painting. I found that the following BBC's article is a very interesting opinion. I would like the main editors of the Wikipedia article on Caravaggio to consider including a sentence, or a brief paragraph, regarding the claim of the researcher Roberta Lapucci, "who is a teacher at the prestigious Studio Art Centers International in Florence". Pmronchi (talk) 00:38, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this up. We do need to strengthen the section about his techniques. PiCo (talk) 10:39, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Dr. Lapucci released some of her publications online at robertalapucci.com maybe that could be a good starting point to integrate — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.1.30.22 (talk) 14:57, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Mannerism being inadequate

What the article says about Mannerism being considered inadequate for the purposes of the Church is incorrect. In fact, many mannerist artists such as Cavalier d'Arpino were still very sought after even after 1600, that is after Caravaggio's success with the Contarelli Chapel. Not to mention that such an arguable statement re Mannerism is not footnoted and/or bibliographed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ricercatrice81 (talk • contribs) 19:27, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Sexuality

Can we please be a bit more mature about this issue. It is not sufficient to argue that something is "unencyclopaedic". And if neutrality is disputed then we need to be absolutely clear why. I'm aware that we've gone round and round with the issue but I think we need to be content that we are making decisions soundly and in a balanced manner. Contaldo80 (talk) 11:01, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

"What emerges from the bodies" is a subjective, unencyclopedic POV. The previous version is terse, to the point and all-inclusive.Galassi (talk) 12:49, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't object to a well-written para on the sexual liminality (ok, I made that word up) of Caravaggio, but it would have to be better written than the current suggestion. I think it would have to concentrate not on the question of C's own sexuality - which is unanswerable on the current evidence available to us - but on points some critics have made since the 70s. Frankly I don't see the point of claiming C, or anyone else, for gaydom - he was a great artist, and that's enough. PiCo (talk) 03:54, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I've taken out the offending passage on "what emerges from the bodies". Is that the only bit which you view as not neutral? If it was then it would have made more sense to take it out rather than revert the whole section. I actually think this passage captures the issues well. I agree (talk) that he was a great artist and is of interest for all, but don't see a problem with setting out briefly the homoerotic aspect. Contaldo80 (talk) 13:15, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I think we should stick to objective information from scholarly sources, by scholarly i mean respectable, reputable, mainstream art historians, not the first random view of an obscure person or a controversial minority idea proposed by someone random. the scholarly literature on Caravaggio overwhelmingly makes it clear that this is a minority position. Please do not rewrite history. We must stick to the facts and what the scholarly records show. Otherwise wikipedia will never be taken seriously by academicsBaroqianbliss (talk)

It's not random and obscure to mention the homoerotic ambience of Caravaggio's early paintings - it's been mentioned/discussed by important scholars since the 1970s. My concern is rather with the way it's handled. We shouldn't be just making a case that Caravaggio was gay - nor that he was not. The correct thing to do is to simply note the scholarly interest in this aspect of his work. PiCo (talk) 10:39, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Contaldo, you have repeatedly deleted documented evidence of his heterosexual liaisons. That increasingly looks like POVpushing.-Galassi (talk) 11:18, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

No you are mistaken. The problem is that each time you take out the section that I wrote, I revert to what I originally wrote, but it then misses out your inclusion of Lena. I absolutely agree this should go in - it's one of the few documented relationships as you say. But that said, we really shouldn't see this as was Caravaggio "homosexual" or "heterosexual". These are modern terms, and a bit simplistic. We should probably regard issues of sexuality as relatively fluid at that time - sleeping with or having attraction for men or women as the situation presented itself (and indeed in a framework proscribed by cultural patterns and secular penalties). It's clear though that today nearly every work written about Caravaggio refers in some way to the sexuality issue - interest has gradually grown over time and we need to reflect this; and I feel it's not actually covered particularly well in the rest of the article yet I'm afraid. It's also unfair to say this is of minority interest (although I appreciate it may sit awkwardly with those that approach his art purely from a religious or devotional perspective). It is of importance for 4 reasons: (i) it tells us about Caravaggio the man; (ii) tells us about his art, what drove him to paint the pictures and why they were painted; (iii) tells us about the historical trends of a homosexual sub-culture for those interested in LGBT history; and (iv) tells us about how such themes in the art has influenced those up to the modern day - ie poetry and cinema. I'm happy to have a constructive discussion about how we phrase this but am absolutely convinced that we must say something. Contaldo80 (talk) 14:09, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Lazy destructive reverts like that are clearly disruptive, and seriously undermine your case. Johnbod (talk) 14:20, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Contaldo does not engage in POV pushing? Let's take a look here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Herman_Melville&diff=331648961&oldid=331142151. Note both the first edit as well as his. This needs no explanation. Editors who engage in this type of editing are likely to or should be banned. I noticed a few more examples, but one should suffice. --Baroqianbliss (talk) 03:02, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Contaldo is right, practically every modern work on Caravaggio mentions the homoeroticism of his work. This is rather different from the issue of the sexuality of the man himself, which I think is unknowable and irrelevant, but it's notable. PiCo (talk) 04:16, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

No, he is not. Caravaggio's work in no more homoerotic than the work of any of his contemporaries. It was just better executed. Calvesi, among others, said so.Galassi (talk) 11:38, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I can sense there is a bit of a clique here but I think the point still worth pursuing. Johnbod - you accuse me of "lazy destructive reverts". I haven't been lazy. I have repeatedly drawn on evidence to make the case, but have not been able to have a rationale debate with some contributors. Galassi - you say there is no homo-eroticism in the works. Are you serious - what is your understanding of homo-eroticism? PiCo has made a sensible and knowledgable intervention on this issue, and I think you should take serious note of what PiCo says. Baroqianbliss- you make a serious accusation against me. I do not push any POV. My edits are based on reasoned argument and evidence. If you believe this isn't the case then I would like you to cite specific examples as to where you think I have shown bias or misused evidence. You may do so on my talk page should you so wish. The example you draw from Melville demonstrates I think that I was calling for sensible debate based on evidence and discussion and not personal prejudices. I do not expect everyone to agree with the edits I make, but I take offence at accusations that I have acted in bad faith.

In consideration of this article I have carried out some further work to see what is written on the issue. I looked at 4 works - Robb, Langdon, Puglise, and Wilson-Smith. (1) Wilson-Smith accepts that C. "early works has led to discussion about his sexuality". He mentions the libel trial of 1603 where he was said to have had a boy-lover but charges were not pressed. But argues that this should be disregarded as a late source. He considers the influence of Del Monte in commissioning the pictures but argues that homo-eroticism was present before Del Monte became patron (eg Bacchus); and suggests that this was a period in which classical revival had led to a deliberate interest in bisexuality, reflected in contemporary artwork. Although the penitent magdalen shows C. appreciation for the female form. He mentions Lena as C. woman which led to a fight.

(2) Langdon mentions the accusation by Richard Symons of 1649 of the model for cupid lying with C. She notes that sodomy was punishable by death, but was perceived as an Italian vice by many foreigners. Notes that C. mixed with whores. Argues that it was unlikely that a cardinal of the church would have flaunted a gay artist's lover on his wall (thus problematic for the cupid).

(3) Robb considers again Del Monte's influence and notes that suggestions of Del Monte's sexuality are based on a count who in 1620s noted that he displayed more than a paternal care for the boys in his charge. But also sets out that Del Monte reminisced of women he had courted when young.

(4) Pugliese notes only conflicting evidence on C. can be called on the painter's sexuality from early sources. He did not marry and had no children. He also sets out the story in Messina when C. was chased by a teacher for following some youths.

All this suggests that the issue of sexuality is not marginal or fringe but rather an issue considered by mainstream and reputable commentators. But also demonstrates that it is not easy to draw clear conclusions either way. I would argue that the text I had in place set out the nuances of this position without going into too much depth. Yet I would be happy to have a proper discussion about how we sharpen (and let's avoid making it personal shall we). But to leave out completely is simply baffling and I have yet to hear a convincing argument as to why it should be. What we have at the moment is simplistic and frankly insulting to anyone's intelligence. The suggestion that this is all in the mind of "1970s gender study" writers is misleading if it were not so laughable. Contaldo80 (talk) 13:21, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I posted this discussion 10 days and want to try and build some consensus before making changes. What we have at the moment is wrong. I can only imagine that "gender studies" was put there by someone who thinks that homosexuality is about those confused about their gender. And I have no idea where the 1970s figure was plucked from. Contaldo80 (talk) 14:03, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I only noticed yr addition to this thread today. Just a few quick comments and explanations: (1) Be vary careful using Robb, his reputation among scholars isn't all that high; (2) the 1970s date is based on the appearance of Donald Posner's "Caravaggio's Early Homo-erotic Works" in Art Quarterly in 1971 - this is frequently cited as the beginning of the study of Caravaggio's sexuality; (3) I agree with your saying that many modern critics mention the homoerotic content of Caravaggio's work, and I feel that in the article it's our duty to reflect any major currents in scholarship - but I don't agree that we should be discussing Caravaggio's own sexuality; (4) "Boy Bitten by a Lizard" is filled with homoerotic symbols that would have been obvious to educated audiences in Caravaggio's day, although today things such as lizards and flowers are simply lizards and flowers - in fact Caravaggio painted in a language of symbols and allusions that have largely been lost to modern audiences. I'll be away for a week and won't take any further part in this discussion. PiCo (talk) 04:31, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

That's a shame as you're the only editor on this article who seems to know what they're talking about. Please come back soon to inject a bit of common sense to this debate. Baroqianbliss's latest intervention seems to be to cut out a huge chunk of text on homo-eroticism in art for no apparent rhyme or reason? Which Galassi has supported on the grounds that it is "tendentious". Whatever that might mean?!

Thanks for clarifying the 1970s point - makes sense now, although the reference to "gender studies" remains baffling. The only issue on which you and I diverge is whether we should be more explicit about his own sexuality. While I accept we cannot give a definitive answer, I think it is fair to put up a clear marker. Not least as I open the Observer newspaper this weekend and read this article: http://www.guardian.co.uk/artanddesign/2010/apr/10/james-hall-caravaggio-rome

One of the first paras is "Several were commissioned by a cardinal who, like the artist, may have been a pederast, while others were acquired by another cardinal (the pope's nephew) who was probably homosexual". I accept it doesn't bring more proof to the debate but demonstrates that the issue of his sexuality is fairly commonplace and in the mainstream debate. I'm also surprised that we can't agree to include a reference to Derek Jarman - who directed the only biopic film I know of the subject in English. Extraordinary.Contaldo80 (talk) 11:09, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I am staggered that someone can claim that changing "homo-erotic" to "homoerotic" is a misrepresentation. Have I missed something - are they two different things?! Contaldo80 (talk) 10:25, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

The hiphen is not part of the issue. The problem is in your inserting modifiers that were not in original referenced textsm such as CONCLUSIVE. This is simply dishonest and tendentious it isclearly designed to give undue weight to your "homoerotic" agenda. - Galassi (talk) 10:45, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I do fear that you're being a little disruptive on this - perhaps there is an issue around your use of the English language, but I want to give you the benefit of the doubt. However, if you want to revert the edits I've made then I suggest you provide a convincing argument to do so: (i) that linking to the article on homoerotic is substantially different from including the word homo-erotic (with no link) and is directed towards bias; (ii) that "conclusive documented evidence" is substantially different in meaning from "clear documented evidence". and (iii) that the insertion of "may refer to Del Monte's tastes" rather than "refers to Del Monte's tastes" is misleading, particularly where the same source talks about Del Monte pursuing women in his youth (and thus allows for a measure of doubt). Can I also suggest you refrain from calling my actions "dishonest" and talking about an "agenda" unless you can back that up.Contaldo80 (talk) 13:00, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Agreement with Galassi. This is a busy time for me with grading and other paperwork, but if I had the time I would systematically go through Contaldo80's past edits and bring up a case for having him banned from Wikipedia. From my brief perusal a few months ago, I quickly saw enough to warrant more thorough investigation. Previous editors have been banned for similar offences. It's not that he is writing on themes of homosexuality which is a worthy cause in itself. It's his consistent attempts to skew the evidence and placing undue weight that seriously compromises the integrity of Wikipedia. Not only does this undermine Wikipedia, it undermines the attempts of editors of integrity who bring greater awareness and understanding to topics of sexuality as those familiar with the issue at hand, in seeing stuff such as this on the Caravaggio article, may be inclined to treat all other text of a similar nature on Wikipedia with a grain of salt. If this does not resolve itself naturally or if someone else does not take action, I may be motivated to reserve some time in middle to late summer to collect evidence for Arbcom or another appropriate body. That is something I would much prefer not do so I ask Contaldo80 politely to please desist from this type of editing. You have so much to contribute but this is not the best way to go about it. --Baroqianbliss (talk) 02:05, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Alternatively, I could write a nice long entry of, oh, five or six paragraphs, based entirely on scholarly works, just to discuss the debate over homoeroticism in C's work. I'd take into account, for example, the overtly sexual symbolism in the early paintings, the identity of the model/assistent Cecco and his relationship with C, the evidence from the Baglione court documents (the bardassa named there is rather more substantial a reference than Lena), and, Oh, I don't know, I could go on and on, a whole article really. OR, alternatively to THAT, you could kindly put back the two sentences you took out from the main body of the article. PiCo (talk) 10:35, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

According to Calvesi - BARDASSA=CASINO=WHOREHOUSE=MESS/MESSY PERSON, not a catamite. So substantial it is not.-Galassi (talk) 11:18, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

This particular whorehouse, casino and mess was named Giovanni Batista. Why not put my two sentences back and save us all a lot of trouble? PiCo (talk) 11:43, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Because claiming that GB had any role in C's life would violate WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. -Galassi (talk) 13:13, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

You need to read what it says about those two policies. WP:OR means you can't carry out original research - getting something from a secondary, scholarly source isn't OR; and WP:SYNTH means you can't put two unrelated pieces of information together and derive from them a meaning which neither contains (doesn't apply here because there's only one source). Why don't you just put those two sentences back? PiCo (talk) 22:47, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Good work on the Lena/Pasqualone affair, just a few minor points to clarify: notably, the court documents don't allege that Caravaggio was living with Lena - it's well established that Lena at this point was lodging over a certain greengrocer with whom Caravaggio was having a quarrel, while he himself was living elsewhere. While Calvesi is of course a reliable source in the most general sense, he makes some mistakes regarding this incident - better to go to Puglisi.PiCo (talk) 23:57, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I think we've just about covered the documentary evidence for C's sexuality, so let's move on to the paintings. Are you sure you wouldn't rather put those two sentences back?PiCo (talk) 04:13, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry I have been away from this for so long but returning to the issue I have a couple of things to say. Firstly, thank goodness for (PiCo). PiCo's comments are always meticulously researched, arguments well reasoned and edits sensible. That is more than I can say for others. Wikipedia asks that we assume good faith in terms of editors and their edits. But I'm afraid that I have little confidence that many of the editors on this page actually know anything at all about the subject of Caravaggio; and give the distinct impression of knowing very little of what they are talking. Even the latest biography on Caravaggio in English concludes that it is most likely he was "omnivorous" in his sexual tastes. My final comment is reserved for Baroqianbliss and his commendable exercise for the summer on exploring whether I might be banned from editing. I hope this work is progressing well and have three words: Bring it on. Contaldo80 (talk) 16:11, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Contaldo, your misrepresentation of the Puglisi citation just might do that.-Galassi (talk) 14:44, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I'll check the Puglisi again but I doubt your inference of deliberate misrepresentation would stand up. I am, however, completely baffled by your continued desire to edit out huge chunks of sourced text giving no justification at all - other than that you believe it to be conjectural. If you want to believe that Caravaggio was 100% heterosexual then please go ahead and believe that - it doesn't seem to be that anything will change your own mind, but you cannot let that interfere with ensuring objectivity and balance in the article. The case is simply not clear cut. I have not said that he was homosexual - that is an achronistic term in this historical context - but the majority of writers today do discuss homoeroticism in his paintings and look to see if that is reflected in some way in his own life. To leave that out and imply that Lena was his "girlfriend" is actually to risk drifting into deliberate misrepresentation. Let's engage on this like adults and discuss the evidence.Contaldo80 (talk) 16:04, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I believe half of what I see, per M.Twain's dictum. Therefore the only reliable sources apropos are the Pasqualone deposition and the Maddalena di Paolo testinony. The rest are speculations, if not outright poppycock.-Galassi (talk) 16:50, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Pasqualone calls Lena "Michelangel's woman"; but what's this deposition by Lena herself? I can't find anything. PiCo (talk) 00:06, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

It is mentioned in the Puglisi monograph. But is is uncertain whether Lena and Maddalena are the same individual. The latter is an unequivocal "intimate friend" of C. -Galassi (talk) 00:12, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

But I can't see anything in that book about Lena/Maddalena saying anything during the Pasqualone affair. What statement are you referring to? PiCo (talk) 00:34, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

It is an entirely separate matter~, dated 1604. Nothing to do with Pasqialone.-Galassi (talk) 03:00, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

There's very little evidence for any sexuality on Caravaggio's part. There are the references to Lena as his "girl" or "woman", and he certainly kept very questionable company (Fillide and other high-class prostitutes). There is equally circumstantial evidence that he had sexual relations with boys - the "bardassa" reference (and bardassa did mean boy prostitute, although it had other meanings as well), and the reports of his relationship with Cecco, and the incident in Sicily, and of course the "battle of the artists", the paintings Baglione made in which Caravaggio features as a satyr in the company of a boy, which is a clear accusation. None of this is conclusive. My belief is that Caravaggio himself would tell us to go mind our own business, and that's certainly my own attitude - this discussion is the equivalent of sniffing bicycle seats. But it IS valid to talk about the sexual/erotic dimension of Caravaggio's art - not his own sexuality, that of his art. This is what I would support. PiCo (talk) 11:19, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Here we'd be on an even flimsier, and very VP:COATRACKish (that is really about a particular reviewer, not C.) ground, decidedly unencyclopedic. And besides - this would limit our consideration to a rather minute percentage of his works.-Galassi (talk) 13:11, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

PiCo - I respect your views on C's private life but we have to accept that this is of some significance and of interest, particularly to those trying to understand the history of sexuality. C.'s sexuality is a matter for discussion by mainstream historians, and has been for many years. We may find it distasteful perhaps but it is valid. MeanwhileGalassi's assertion that the homoeroticism of the art is of minute significance really reinforces my view that Galassi does not understand the period, the person or the issue. I notice from the edits to the Donatello article that there is a dislike of any talk of homosexuality full stop (and I really hope this isn't evidence of stalking). Contaldo80 (talk) 11:02, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I found 2 further biographies yesterday to add to this. The first by Gilles Lambert writing for Taschen (Germany) says "the evidence suggests he [C] was sentenced in Malta for what we would now term paedophilia" {p7); he discusses the taste of Cardinal Pucci (C.s patron) for young boys, and argues that the bare shoulder and flower behind the ear in the Boy Bitten by a Lizard identifies the sitter as a prostitute (p32); he argues that the winged cupid in The Musicians "emphasises the homo-erotic character of the painting"; he also believes that the Victorious Cupid was designed to parody the sculpture of Victory by Michelangelo thus trying to "out him" (p69); he talks about hostile historians that imagined C. had attempted to seduce the young son of a local magistrate and thus was imprisoned in Malta (p85). A separate biography by Timothy Wilson-Smith (Phaedon) explicitly refers to discussion by historians of C.'s sexuality whereby they have looked to the paintings as evidence. Enough please of arguments that the paintings cannot be seen as homo-erotic, and that this is overall a fringe issue. Contaldo80 (talk) 09:30, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

According to Sgarbi - the Malta arrest was for "insulting the Knight of Justice". You'd need a primary source for the Lambert claim.-Galassi (talk) 15:30, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I corrected 2 errors of fact in the "private life" section, because they demonstrably are errors of fact. But I don't like the section at all. Private lives are private. I cold support something on homoerotic strands in his art, but even that would be putting an emphasis where one does not belong - he didn't spend all his time painting sexual cyber-works. PiCo (talk) 10:15, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

PiCo, this is what Puglisi says on line 3, p.199 of my edition: "In fact, she may be one and the same as the courtesan Maddalena di Paolo Antognetti, who by her own testimony named Caravaggio as an intimate friend in 1604."-Galassi (talk) 11:15, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't say that on p.199 of my edition. In mine, the top of p.199 is a continuation of a paragraph that begins on the previous page, and is discussing the Pasqualone episode. It's talking about Passeri's version of the story, and says that Passeri says that Caravaggio was talking revenge on Pasqualone for impugning his (C's) behaviour with Lena. It notes that Passeri defends Lena's honour ("poor but honourable") and then notes that Passeri was probably wrong, as she was usually to be found standing around the Piazza Navona in the evenings. It concludes by saying of this Lena that "she may be one and the same as as the courtesan Maddalena di Paolo Antognetti." Since the index lists only one entry for Lena/Maddalena I don't think it's on some other page. It's a 2005 paperback reprint of the Phaidon edition of 1998. So mine is similar to yours, but different enough to look like a different edition.PiCo (talk) 11:43, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Mine is a hardcover, 448pp.-Galassi (talk) 11:51, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Same number of pages. But is yours a 2nd edition? Mine is apparently a 1st, and I can't find any sign on the internet that there's been a second. It's odd that the texts should be so close yet different.PiCo (talk) 12:18, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

It says "First published in 1998". No actual date, but it does look like a second edition. Maddalena+C is also cited elsewhere.-Galassi (talk) 12:27, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

The fact that this article doesn't once mention the homoeroticism of his paintings is ridiculous. (I guess that's what happens when a Wikipedia article is simultaneously of gay interest and religious interest.) Caravaggio's male figures are usually scantily clad and sensuous, but his female figures never are. That's an objectively observable fact, and it's one of the many notable things about his paintings. 99.255.30.114 (talk) 02:07, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Hello,

As far as Caravaggio's sexuality is concerned, I would like to point out two things.

1) Sources mention Caravaggio having a relationship with Lena, a prostitute "che sta in piedi a piazza navona" (i.e. "who stands in Piazza Navona") (see Prof. Stefania Macioce's book Michelangelo Merisi da Caravaggio: fonti e documenti, 1532 - 1724, Rome: Bozzi, 2003, p.167.);

2) From the minutes of the 1603 libel trial we know that this is what Tommaso Salini stated: He told me that [the poem] was by the aforementioned Michelangelo and Onorio and that he got it from one of Onorio and Michelangelo's bum boys whose name is Giovanni Battista and who lives behind the [Via dei] Banchi [Vecchi]. The translation is my own.

As specified in an academic article I published a couple of years ago, 'bum boys' is a modern English approximation of the original bardassa, a synonym of bagascione (a pejorative of whore) which was used to label boys who adopted passive roles in homosexual encounters (see the Vocabolano degli Accademici della Crusca, Venice, 1612, ad vocem "bardassa"). The minutes of the 1603 trial are at the Archivio di Stato di Roma, Tribunale criminale del Governatore, Processi del XVII secolo, vol. 28bis, ff. 398-401r.

In conclusion, and if any of this really matters, according to documentary evidence I think we can state with reasonable certainty that Caravaggio was not homosexual, but bisexual. Regards, --Ricercatrice81 (talk) 13:14, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

HOMOSEXUAL

Caravaggio was a gay homosexual - this should be mentioned in the article about him or at least add 'homosexual artists' category--24.203.108.54 (talk) 20:28, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

While we can't be certain of Caravaggio's sexuality, it is odd (on the verge of embarassing) that this article says nothing at all. A conspiracy of silence? I propose to work something in, and I think we should base it around the art historian Andrew Graham-Dixon's recent biography. This makes a couple of observations:

• "A lot has been made of C. presumed homosexuality, which has in more than one previous account of his life been presented as the single key that explains everything, both the power of his art and the misfortunes of his life. There is no absolute proof of it, only strong circumstantial eviddnce and much rumour. The balance of probability suggests that C. did indeed have sexual relations with men. But certainly had female lovers. Throughout the years that he spent in Rome he kept close company with a number of prostitutes. The truth is that C. was as uneasy in his relationships as he was in most other aspcets of life. He likely slept with men. He did sleep with women. He settled with no one... [but] The idea that he was an early martyr to the drives of an unconventional sexuality is an anachronistic fiction" (p4).
• "The sensual and sexual appeal of such youthful, smooth-skinned figures as the coquettish, music-playing angel in The Rest on the Flight, or the angelic ministrant to St Francis, has been taken as evidence of the painter's homosexuality. The truth is not straightfroward. C. was capable of being aroused by the physical presence of other men. He could not have painted such figures in the way that he did if that were not so. But he was equally attracted to women, as certain other paintings from the late 1590s such as St catherine of Alexandria plainly demonstrate" (p150).
• "C. painting suggests an ambiguous sexual personality. On the evidence of his paintings he was neither heterosxual nor homosexual, terms that are in any case anachronistic when applied to his workd. He was omnisexual".
• "...he is unmistakably a portrait in caricature of C, caught in flagrants with a flushed and furtive cupid. Baglione's Divine Love went beyond satire. It was a visual accusation of sodomy. Baglione repeated that charge verbally, and in public. He and his friends talked openly about C keeping company with a bardassa - vulgar Italian slang.. for a young man who took the female part in sexual encounters with other men. Rome's artists gossiped so people may have begun to look at C Omnia vincit amor in a different light. The identity of the boy who had modelled for Cupid with known. He was Cecco di Caravaggio, who prepared the artists' paint and his canvases. If Baglione was to be believed, not only was he C. assistant and model he was also his catamite."
• "He was known to be an impetuous man who followed his passions. he kept company with whores and courtesans such as Filide menlandroni and on the evidence of his paintings he was equally alive to the charms of men. C. and Francesco Boneri, alias Cecco, were close; Cecco stayed with him even after he was obliged to leave Rome in 1606. There is a good chance that the runours were true and that C did indeed have a sexual as well as a working relationship with 'his owne boy or servant'. Whatever the reality, baglion'es accusations were damaging and dangerous. Sodomy was a capital crime in Clement VIII's Rome and though the authorities were unlikely to investigate the well-conneced C sexual behavious, as long as he was reasonably discreet, the potential harm to his name and prospects were immense. Once an artists had been smeared as a pederast, his work was smeared too."
• "Having seemingly implied that the schoolteacher was accusing C of an indecent interest in his pupils, Susino himself assets that the painter's real motive for following the boys was artistic...It is no means inconceivable that he should have sought companionship even sexual solace, in the company of young men. Susinno's anecdote might even help to explain one of the most enigmatic and homoerotic paintings.. his last depiction of St John the Baptist". p412
• The Cerriglio [wher C stayed] was especially popular with men seeking sex with other men".

Contaldo80 (talk) 08:34, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

1. Seems like an awful lot of conjecture based on rumors. Maurizio Calvesi is of the opposite opinion. Calvesi, a native Italian speaker, gives BARDASSA the translation of a MESS, or UNCOUTH, not a sodomite.--Galassi (talk) 00:19, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Let's be a bit more mature shall we Galassi. Only in your world is the sexuality of Caravaggio a controversial issue - it is raised in almost every single biography, biographical article, biographical programme/ film, and public exhibition guide. If you want to bring an administrator to arbitrate this then fine, but I'm fed up of playing a games which potentially have a political aspect. I'm acting in good faith and I'm assuming good faith in your edits. But it would help if I had some reassurance from you that you are comfortable with the issue of homosexuality and are able to deal with material relating to the issue objectively and with neutrality ( - perhaps you can point to some previous edits, for example, that you have made covering the issue of homosexuality?) Andrew Graham-Dixon offers one of the best recent biographies of Caravaggio in English and is by no means fringe or at the radical end of the art-history spectrum; and yet to dismiss his balanced and considered opinion at the click of a mouse based purely on your opinion that the matter is of no significance. And taking the Calvesi point (as if being Italian is of any relevance for interpreting the language of 16th century documents!) are you seriously taking the position that Baglione was reporting Caravaggio for keeping company with an "untidy young man"?! It may surprise you but I can also read Italian. I would suggest taking a look at this web article which gives umpteen examples of where bardassa was used in the early modern age to describe the passive partner in a homosexual sexual act: http://www.giovannidallorto.com/cultura/checcabolario/bardassa.html In any case, the point is irrelevant. Strong consistent sources make the point in support of bardassa as a male prostitute. I'm not interested in interpreting the sources ourselves. If you want to add a line that adds Calvesi contrary opinion then I can live with that - weak though it seems to me. Can I also point out that Calvesi published his work on Caravaggio 25 years ago. I like to think academic debate has moved on somewhat since then. Contaldo80 (talk) 09:39, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Restored second reversion. If you want to argue WP:WEIGHT then please do so. But seeing as a number of biographers have indicated that sexuality was the prime motivator for his art and is of supreme importance when discussing his life, I'm not hopeful for you. Andrew Graham-Dixon deals with issue at good lenghth in his biography and starts by saying "A lot has been made of Caravaggio's presumed homosexuality" - not that you'd know if you just read this article as some editors don't like discussion of homosexuality. Regarding WP:CONSENSUS - the guidelines that consensus should be sought where possible but should not take precedence over good quality material (WP:BE BOLD). In any case, this thread suggests that at least one other editor agrees with me - that sounds like majority consensus (not that that is something that should really drive out edits).Contaldo80 (talk) 08:53, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

3O Response: Declined due to lack of thorough discussion between both parties per instructions on the main page. It seems the one side has not yet fully presented their arguments and will be thus hard to provide a 3rd Opinion. Feel free to repost this later. Sincerely, Ugog Nizdast (talk) 10:21, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Ok - thanks Ugog Nizdast. I understand where you're coming from. Looks like there's little we can do until we have engagement from individual editors disputing the material. Contaldo80 (talk) 11:35, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Sexuality again

I can't go to an exhibition of Carvaggio's works, or read a book or article about him without hearing mention of his sexuality. And yet here on wikipedia, nothing - not a whisper. It is incredibly bizarre. Can we not agree some form of words to reflect the academic discourse. It seems intellectually dishonest not to. Contaldo80 (talk) 12:54, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Possibly because we're not trying to sell anything? Equally I never read a comment of yours that isn't about somebody's sexuality. Johnbod (talk) 01:35, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, "not trying to sell anything"? What is meant by that? Are you suggesting that including material relating to Caravaggio's sexuality is purely aimed at "selling" a particular form of sexuality? Or that you think I am showing bias by "selling" a particular form of sexuality? And why exactly do you think the best approach to respond to a perfectly reasonable discussion point by me is to complain that you "never read a comment that isn't about someone's sexuality"? In what way is this relevant? To what extent is personally abusing me a mature way to carry out a discussion? I don't just make edits relating to issues of sexuality and homosexuality. But do you know what, even if I did, who cares? What possible business is it of yours to tell me what edits or issues I should show an interest in? Provided I observe the guidelines and rules and strive to show balance and objectivity then I am doing nothing wrong. Or perhaps you're making an accusation that I do not show objectivity or balance? If I want to improve coverage of issues relating to sexuality and homosexuality then that is my prerogative. If you are uncomfortable with talking about issues relating to sexuality or homosexuality, then don't expect others to share your personal hang ups. I am frankly surprised that an editor who claims to have made so many edits to articles over so many years would respond in such a way as you just have. "Assume good faith" - have you? Contaldo80 (talk) 09:07, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Please limit yourselves to talking about how to improve the article, and not about other editors - as that is never fruitful. If you have a WP:RELIABLE source which discusses Caravaggio's sexuality, then it may be worth including in the article with deference to due WP:WEIGHT. (Hohum ^@) 18:00, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

There are plenty of sources. I agree it isn't productive to spend time attacking other editors, and my intention above was to start an honest debate about a particular issue which I feel will enhance the article if tackled properly. But if I am insulted by another editor for no apparent reason, then I will respond. Contaldo80 (talk) 08:19, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

I meant that the emphasis on his sexuality and criminality in popular marketing for books & exhibitions on Caravaggio is largely commercially driven. You can edit how you like, but risk being seen by others as a one-issue editor. Johnbod (talk) 20:30, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

I couldn't care less if I'm seen as a one issue editor - what's it got to do with you and the debate on this article? Perhaps I should save myself trouble and stick to editing unthreatening content around porcelain shepherdesses, and tapestries with unicorns chasing antelopes? I don't doubt that stories of sex and murder capture the public imagination, but that doesn't mean that we have to leave them out of the article! The fact that Caravaggio killed a man and went on the run is pretty central to the themes and execution of his later art. The fact that he saw beauty in men as well as women is likewise noticeable and significant. Contaldo80 (talk) 08:19, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

I will find and add a source. Bearian (talk) 20:42, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. There are loads of sources. I'd start with Andrew Graham-Dixon's recent biography on Caravaggio - which gives good consideration to the issue. There is also Jonathan Jones's new book, "The loves of the artists" with a chapter on Caravaggio. If you want to go back a couple of years then there are obviously Helen Langdon and Peter Robb. There are also academic journals which could be referenced, aside from frequent discussion in exhibition catalogues. I think the consensus was that Caravaggio had female and male lovers. There is not total agreement on whether homo-erotic elements are evident in his art - some believe strongly it is, others than he was responding to what patrons wanted, and Graham-Dixon believes some of it deliberately refers to Michelangelo and needs to be seen in the context of counter-reformation spirituality.Contaldo80 (talk) 08:19, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Might I suggest that you rely on reliable biographers / historians for Caravaggio's own sexuality, art historians for how sexuality is expressed in his art art, being careful not to synthesize the two. Commentary in exhibition catalogues doesn't seem valuable to me, compared to high quality sources. (Hohum ^@) 13:52, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Taking that line, the biographers will provide little to go on as, unlike his criminal escapades, whatever sex life he had is almost entirely undocumented, so you are left with inferences from the paintings. Johnbod (talk) 14:46, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

That is simply not true - research has moved on in this area a fair deal since the 1960s. Nor do I take the point about art exhibition catalogues being low quality. You'll often in fact find that they offer some of the best written stuff with essays by leading academics in both history and art history (although here I'm thinking only of the leading art galleries). Contaldo80 (talk) 08:20, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Bring the sources, suggest the edits based on them. I doubt you will get an auction catalog past vetting at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. (Hohum ^@) 15:04, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, tolarify again. I am talking about exhibition catalogues, and not auction catalogues. I agree the latter are not suitable. Contaldo80 (talk) 08:45, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Contaldo here, & I think you would (you certainly ought to), but he is talking about fat collection or exhibition catalogues from top museums here, which as he says are certainly RS. Caravaggios hardly ever appear at auction anyway. I have no objection to a brief summary of scholarly views, but given the article is pretty short for an artist of this significance, and, despite what Contaldo says, the actual evidence for anything pretty thin, WP:UNDUE needs always to be kept in mind. The precedent of Leonardo da Vinci and others here is not encouraging. Johnbod (talk) 15:24, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Johnbod, I agree with you I think we can keep it short. There's no definitive answer to his sexual orientation, and I accept that the surviving documents can be interpreted in different ways. Nevertheless my original point was that it's odd that the issue of sexuality is dealt with in practically every other article/biography about Caravaggio, yet we maintain a stony silence here. Readers will expect to see at least a reference; otherwise I fear we're being intellectually dishonet in not wanting to recognise something which is pretty standard fare.Contaldo80 (talk) 08:39, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

I object to the inclusion of the dodgy sexuality para, as it is all based on rumors, and admits to the inconclusiveness. It is also utterly useless in understanding of Caravaggio as an artist. I own several monographs on Caravaggio and all of them agree that the accusations of sodomy are baseless. this cherrypicked POVpushing is totally inappropriate here.--Galassi (talk) 13:47, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Unless you can present a mature argument as to why the material should not be included then it stays in. I don't know what "monographs" you have but I'm guessing that the majority of them must be from before the 1930s in the way that you claim that all this stuff is "dodgy". It's also your view that it is useless in revealing anything about Caravaggio the artist. There are more distinguished academics than yourself who would disagree. And even if it tells us nothing about his art, the information still relates to his biography. Try and be a bit more grown-up will you Galassi. The material is relatively short, focused, well-sourced and not-fringe. If you want to make a complaint then I suggest you take it to the relevant arbitration board.Contaldo80 (talk) 07:56, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Removal of material

Galassi if you revert the material on sexuality again then I will make a formal complaint to an administrator. You have done nothing to argue that the material is POV. It is taken from mainstream and respected academic sources. Be clear EXACTLY what in your opinion violates NPOV. Your argument about consensus is spurious also - it is not required for all edits but I have not seen a "consensus" supporting your arguments either. Your suggestion that it is not notable or given UNDUE weight is simply laughable. And I do have to question whether you actually know anything about the article you are editing? I have read about 10 works on Caravaggio and attended countless gallery exhibitions and read articles in journals and magazines. Ever since Sussino Caravaggio's sexuality has been a point of discussion. If you want to bury your head in the sand then please do; but don't expect the rest of us to do it. Contaldo80 (talk) 07:34, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

You must seek consensus, which is not a vote, but a mutually agreeable version. You POVpushing is not helpful to the article. You've been doing it for years, and it wouldnt wash.--Galassi (talk) 14:08, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

With whom - Galassi - am I to seek consensus? With you? You're not interested in any discussion at all. For you the issue of Caravagio's homosexuality is out of bounds. Fine if that is your personal opinion. But you have to demonstrate that wikipedia rules have been broken by including this material. You have failed consistently to do that. If you think arbitration is needed then please go and seek it - I have already made the offer. Wikipedia is an open platform - we are all allowed to contribute to articles if those edits meet the guidelines. Contaldo80 (talk) 14:15, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Third opinion

Galassi I don't think we've getting anywhere with this. I add material on sexuality and you just remove it, I restore etc. I have already suggested that we try and seek mediation for this - to see if we can find a middle way. Earlier I suggested that we seek an impartial third opinion, to advise us on what might be sensible. Are you prepared to accept that mediation? Or are you just going to take out the material again? In which case I'm afraid there are probably good grounds to indicate that you are being deliberately disruptive. Thanks. Contaldo80 (talk) 09:26, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Sexuality

Boy with a Basket of Fruit, 1593–1594. Oil on canvas, 67 cm × 53 cm (26 in × 21 in). Galleria Borghese, Rome.

Caravaggio never married and had no known children, and Howard Hibbard notes the absence of erotic female figures from the artist's oeuvre: "In his entire career he did not paint a single female nude." On the other hand, the cabinet-pieces from the Del Monte period are replete with "full-lipped, languorous boys ... who seem to solicit the onlooker with their offers of fruit, wine, flowers - and themselves." Nevertheless, a connection with a certain Lena is mentioned in a 1605 court deposition by Pasqualone, where she is described as "Michelangelo's girl". According to G.B.Passeri this 'Lena' was Caravaggio's model for the Madonna di Loreto. According to Catherine Puglisi 'Lena' may have been the same as the courtesan Maddalena di Paolo Antognetti, who named Caravaggio as an intimate friend by her own testimony in 1604. Caravaggio also probably enjoyed close relationships with other "whores and courtesans" such as Fillide Melandroni, of whom he painted a portrait.

Since the 1970s art scholars and historians have debated the inferences of homoeroticism in Caravaggio's works. The model of "Omnia vincit amor" is known as Cecco di Caravaggio. Cecco stayed with him even after he was obliged to leave Rome in 1606, and the two may have been lovers."

Aside from the paintings, evidence also comes from the libel trial brought against Caravaggio by Giovanni Baglione in 1603. Baglione accused Caravaggio and his friends of writing and distributing scurrilous doggerel attacking him; the pamphlets, according to Baglione's friend and witness Mao Salini, had been distributed by a certain Giovanni Battista, a bardassa, or boy prostitute, shared by Caravaggio and his friend Onorio Longhi. Caravaggio denied knowing any young boy of that name, and the allegation was not followed up. Baglione's painting of "Divine Love" has also been seen as a visual accusation of sodomy against Caravaggio. Such accusations were damaging and dangerous as sodomy was a capital crime at the time. Even though the authorities were unlikely to investigate such a well-connected person as Caravaggio: "Once an artist had been smeared as a pederast, his work was smeared too." Francesco Susinoo in his later biography relates the story of how the artist was chased by a school-master in Sicily for spending too long gazing at the boys in his care. Susino presents it as a misunderstanding, but Caravaggio may indeed have been seeking sexual solace; and the incident could explain one of his most homoerotic paintings: his last depiction of St John the Baptist.

The art historian, Andrew Graham-Dixon has summarised the debate:

A lot has been made of Caravaggio's presumed homosexuality, which has in more than one previous account of his life been presented as the single key that explains everything, both the power of his art and the misfortunes of his life. There is no absolute proof of it, only strong circumstantial evidence and much rumour. The balance of probability suggests that Caravaggio did indeed have sexual relations with men. But he certainly had female lovers. Throughout the years that he spent in Rome he kept close company with a number of prostitutes. The truth is that Caravaggio was as uneasy in his relationships as he was in most other aspects of life. He likely slept with men. He did sleep with women. He settled with no one... [but] the idea that he was an early martyr to the drives of an unconventional sexuality is an anachronistic fiction.

• I'd support the text above (added here by Contaldo I presume). We should certainly say something. You could ask for more opinions at the Visual Arts project. Johnbod (talk) 14:03, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
• IMO we should include the above...Modernist (talk) 13:31, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Not in the current cherry-picked shape, ignoring opinions to the contrary. Per WP:NPOV, WP:WEIGHT a number of other things. For starters it completely ignores Maurizio Calvesi's research. And the section is disprortionately large for NPOV.--Galassi (talk) 14:23, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure "research" is the right word for Calvesi's opinions. This remains a sensitive issue in Italy, like the Greeks with 300 (film). No, it isn't too large. Though if we could stop arguing about this eternally, and improve the rest of the article, things would be better. Just deleting all mention puts you in a weak position, frankly. Johnbod (talk) 13:52, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Galassi can you perhaps deal with your personal hang-ups about homosexuality, rather than to repeatedly project them onto this article. The text is not "cherry picked" nor does it contravene NPOV nor is it excessive. The sexuality of Caravaggio is dealt with again and again and again by authors, frequently at great length. I don't understand what is to be gained by trying to pretend there is no discussion or that the matter is irrelevant?! The sources quoted are mainstream, the information balanced and to the point. That even Calvesi talks about it suggests that its a subject worth talking about!! And Calvesi is hardly recent in any case.Contaldo80 (talk) 10:30, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

References

google-mapped the where all known Caravaggio paintings are situated globally

Hi Ive google-mapped the where all known Caravaggio paintings are situated globally https://www.google.com/maps/d/edit?mid=z24asHdRfrvA.k11-JXzdDn6s Shouldnt this be on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caravaggio ? Have a GREAT day! John — Preceding unsigned comment added by John bau 123456 (talk • contribs) 06:20, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Caravaggio. 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/20090416123558/http://www.italica.rai.it:80/index.php?categoria=bio&scheda=caravaggio_prima_parte to http://www.italica.rai.it/index.php?categoria=bio&scheda=caravaggio_prima_parte
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121020071907/https://www.fbi.gov:80/about-us/investigate/vc_majorthefts/arttheft/caravaggio to https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/investigate/vc_majorthefts/arttheft/caravaggio
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100316185329/http://www.fbi.gov:80/hq/cid/arttheft/europe/italy/italyart.htm to https://www.fbi.gov/hq/cid/arttheft/europe/italy/italyart.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131203001449/http://vecchiaforma.com/uploads/3/3/3/5/3335127/e21-passion-cvgg.pdf to http://vecchiaforma.com/uploads/3/3/3/5/3335127/e21-passion-cvgg.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131203002442/http://vecchiaforma.com/uploads/3/3/3/5/3335127/e4-cvgg-velz.pdf to http://vecchiaforma.com/uploads/3/3/3/5/3335127/e4-cvgg-velz.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060413211634/http://www.rijksmuseum.nl:80/formats/container_remcar_en.html to http://www.rijksmuseum.nl/formats/container_remcar_en.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:36, 14 November 2016 (UTC)