Talk:Diana and Her Companions

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Visual arts, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of visual arts on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Visual artsWikipedia:WikiProject Visual artsTemplate:WikiProject Visual artsvisual arts articles

Netherlands

This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Netherlands, an attempt to create, expand, and improve articles related to the Netherlands on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, visit the project page where you can join the project or contribute to the discussion.NetherlandsWikipedia:WikiProject NetherlandsTemplate:WikiProject NetherlandsNetherlands articles

These lines appears twice in the article, could someone rewrite one? The first should stay, in my opinion.

"neither Actaeon catching sight of Diana and her nymphs bathing nor the actual moment when Callisto's pregnancy is revealed, both popular themes in mannerist painting in the early 17th century. Nor does the artist show Diana's hot temper or her harsh reactions to those episodes. The goddess's ability as a huntress is not signalled by dead game or bows and arrows. Even the dog is depicted as a gentle animal, not like the fast hounds normally seen in paintings of Diana." Kurtdriver (talk) 01:05, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison with Jacob van Loo[edit]

Throughout the centuries, numerous references have been made comparing Vermeer's Diana and her companions with the painting Diana and her nymphs by Jacob van Loo. Since van Loo did several paintings of Diana (female figures being his strong point), it is important not to use the wrong painting for comparison, as was the case in this article. Side by side, there is clearly a relationship between van Loo's Diana (of 1648) and Vermeer's Diana of the mid 1650's. Another point to bear in mind, is that artists often shared sketches or even full cartoon drawings, typically holding them up to a window and tracing from the back, which gave the copyist a 'reverse' image. There are numerous examples throughout art history of these 'reverse' paintings, based on an earlier painting by another artist. Copying wasn't an artistic sin, as long as credit was given or the source was obvious, it was an accepted way of learning from and hopefully improving upon what went before. (Hogarthianista (talk) 15:52, 22 October 2014 (UTC))[reply]

Diana and her nymphs comparison
Jacob van Loo, 1648.
Vermeer, mid-1650's.