Talk:Crucifix (Cimabue, Santa Croce)

Elevated

Isenheim. Not many art history repros show it like this.

Re the end of the 2nd lead paragraph re 3 dimentional, I'm not sure how to write it, but look at the photograph, its a very very different thing to the flat (pre-1969 or imagined) lead image. Related compare this to the photo on the right. Ceoil (talk) 02:51, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

I see what you are saying... I've never had the chance to see this painting in real life, and the few sources I currently have access to don't show the work in situ. I think we may need the help of Superman here. Kafka Liz (talk) 04:24, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Note the 60% loss of paint refers to the existing paint at the time. But the lead image is fully intact. Wondering if the lead image is a photograph. I'd be inclined to swap it with File:Museo di santa croce, crocifisso di cimabue.jpg which is more representational, but not recognisable to the avg punter. Ceoil (talk) 04:45, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

How 3-D is it actually? I think the photo with the workman shows the only part of the image of the body which is not actually flat, the raised head on the halo piece, apart from where the lower body overlaps the moulding at points - not sure if those bits are flat, but I think they are. But it's fair to say it is illusionistic in a way a Byzantine work would not be, and probably draws on a sculptural tradition in works like the Gero Cross for which there was no Byzantine equivalent. I'll look at some books later today I hope. Johnbod (talk) 04:52, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

3-D is opviously rubbish, but there are far more colours in the pic than in the lead repro, and the for sure the cross is far less flat than the lead image suggests. I dont have an openion yet to be honest, just noting the dispartiy as it seems. Ceoil (talk) 05:19, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Lead

Can we tighten the lead on this? I think there's a bunch of info in it that belongs in other sections. It seems to me that the lead should really be about the work proper, and that damage and restoration details belong in the appropriate sections. Just a thought. - I'm open to argument on this.. Kafka Liz (talk) 08:59, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

I agree, will take a look; it needs a bit more coheriance. Ceoil (talk) 10:58, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

TFAR

Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/Crucifix (Cimabue, Santa Croce) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:20, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 14 April 2017

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: We now have Crucifix (Cimabue, Arezzo), so the basis for the RM no longer applies. SarahSV ^(talk) 17:15, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

---

Crucifix (Cimabue, Santa Croce) → Crucifix (Cimabue) – There is no need for two disambiguators because there is no existing article about any other Cimabue's Crucifix. According to WP:ATDAB, we use parenthetical disambiguators to disambiguate existing Wikipedia articles. There is no other article about Cimabue's Crucifix, so proposed title is WP:precise enough. Vanjagenije (talk) 10:25, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose: The other crucifix is important enough to deserve it's own article. The article passed FAC as it is, many eyes have looked into it in the process. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:44, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
  • There are many things that deserve articles, but do not have them. That doesn't mean that we should disambiguate existing articles from non-existing topics that potentially deserve articles. WP:ATDAB is clear: [...] a more detailed title is necessary to distinguish an article topic from another [...]. So, it is used to distinguish one article topic from another article topic, not to distinguish one article topic from a topic of another non-existing potential article. Vanjagenije (talk) 18:16, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
• Can we defer the move request, or at least remove the unsightly tag, until tonight, when the article is off the main page? I've no objection to the discussion, but I don't want to see a big tag at the top of a featured article on its day on the main page. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:27, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

• I agree. Vanjagenije nothing will be lost if this is deferred or the tag removed until tomorrow Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:10, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

  Feel free to remove the tag. Vanjagenije (talk) 12:11, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

  • • Commented it out, for now. - Dank (push to talk) 12:28, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose per Gerda. People should really be discouraged from tagging articles on the main page. I've just removed another, claiming unspecified neutrality concerns! Johnbod (talk) 14:31, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Is there any consensus against proposing main page articles for moving? I thought the whole point of having main page articles is to facilitate improvements of those articles. Vanjagenije (talk) 18:19, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

There is certainly a consensus against slapping big templates on articles while they are on the main page, as the above shows. This article would have had two if they had not been removed. I hope you can see why this is wrong. Johnbod (talk) 19:14, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

This is a first time in years of me looking daily. I was simply offended by the ugly looks of the template when readers should look at an outstanding piece of art. - In former times, when you only added an infobox to an article on Main date, that was regarded as "disruptive". Readers who think the title should be improved will go to the talk page without such a tag box. The main contributors to the article typically edit only on weekends, so please wait for tomorrow anyway, for politeness. - I often place an extra disambiguation, to avoid later moves, such as Nachtlied (Reger), - there's no other Nachtlied yet, but it's a very common name. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:19, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose. The title has two disambiguators as the title is generic, *and* Cimabue painted more than one (as above). Will try and do something with Crucifix (Cimabue, Arezzo) this weekend, but the premise for this move is based on flawed logic and should be rejected out of hand, new article or no. Re: "There are many things that deserve articles, but do not have them"; this is a poor basis for precedence/legislation, and creates a mess for the person adding the missing article(s), not to mention the admin who will inevitably have to clean it all up afterwards. Planning for the future is always a good approach. I would encourage the nominator to do some basic research on google, and spend more than 5 seconds reflecting, before templating with nonsense arguments like this. Ceoil (talk) 10:42, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose per Gerda and Ceoil. Awien (talk) 19:16, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

  There is a bot going mental with a banner, edit warring with myself and Gerda, on an article still linked on main page; can someone please close. Ceoil (talk) 01:52, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Neutrality

Please do not remove the template message. There is an issue with the tone and expression in the physical description of the crucifix. Some may come across as propagative or persuasive on a religious bias. It reads more like a story or a magazine article rather than an encyclopedia entry. Nikolaiblakovich (talk) 14:34, 14 April 2017 (UTC) Also, please understand that the lack of neutrality in an article can hurt wikipedia, and having that sort of issue displayed on the main page is not very good. Nikolaiblakovich (talk) 14:38, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Bullshit! This has only just passed WP:FAC. You are giving no specific details whatsoever. If you have actual concerns, please specify them in detail here. In as far as you have, I don't agree at all. I suspect you are not used to art history. Tagging articles when they are actually on the main page should be avoided where possible, and edit-warring over it will be regarded as disruptive. Johnbod (talk) 14:42, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

There is no reason to be disrespectful. The issue is the expression of religious meaning in the entire article.. It is not objectively described, as it should be. For example, "A graphic portrayal of human suffering"?. It is a graphic portrayal of human suffering, but only to those of the faith of which it belongs. That is a subjective expression, as someone views it in that regard. Nikolaiblakovich (talk) 14:48, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

I disagree and agree with Johnbod that your points are not very well supported. Without any knowledge of the religious context, the image still clearly portrays human suffering. Brutannica (talk) 14:52, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

The statement as I showed before is not the only example. "Christ is shown nearly naked: his eyes are closed, his face lifeless and defeated. His body slumps in a position contorted by prolonged agony. A graphic portrayal of human suffering, the painting is of seminal importance in art history and has influenced painters from Michelangelo, Caravaggio and Velázquez to Francis Bacon." This particular section is written subjectively. It is an opinionated description of the item in question, not a neutral observation. Nikolaiblakovich (talk) 14:53, 14 April 2017 (UTC) This section describes the item, yes, but also gives the item an emotional or expressive meaning, something it should not do. That is the issue. Nikolaiblakovich (talk) 14:55, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Agree with Brutannica. You are disregarding that the article is referenced, to a wide variety of works by very solid art historians. The bit you quote is from the lead, where only the specific point about Francis Bacon is referenced. The wider points are covered and referenced in lower sections. If you have an issue with the adequacy of referencing there, you need to spell it out in detail. Having read a lot of literature on the art of the period, I find nothing surprising about the statements at all. The only opinions I can see are yours. Johnbod (talk) 15:00, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

The references are not in question. The words written in the article are. An encyclopedia is not intended to explain meaning, it is to explain fact. Religious meaning and emotion in the description of an artwork is NOT factual information, it is an opinion of the religious community who prizes the item. "Lifeless" and "defeated" is interpretation of the artwork from a single person or group, not a solid description of what it simply is, (a face of distress). Nikolaiblakovich (talk) 15:08, 14 April 2017 (UTC) Also, the section I am speaking about has no citations of any kind, so references are out of the question from the beginning. Nikolaiblakovich (talk) 15:10, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

As I thought, you are evidently not at all used to art history, which cannot proceed as you suggest, and does not. You are indeed questioning the references. As explained above, in the WP:LEAD points referenced below need not be referenced, which is why only the specific, non-repeated, Bacon point is. "An encyclopedia is not intended to explain meaning" is just wrong - it is! Johnbod (talk) 15:18, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry, friend, but you simply are missing the point. I do not mean to be cliche, but the truth is as follows. en·cy·clo·pe·di·a

noun a book or set of books giving information on many subjects or on many aspects of one subject and typically arranged alphabetically. You are missing the point by kilometers at this point. I will not argue with someone who does not understand the concept of expression. Wikipedia is not a piece of literature, this is an conduit of facts. Nikolaiblakovich (talk) 15:23, 14 April 2017 (UTC) The issue is NOT in referencing, or even the mere understanding of Art History. This is about expression and bias. Nikolaiblakovich (talk) 15:26, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

No! But let's see what others think (especially perhaps those with more than 3 weeks experience editing WP). Johnbod (talk) 15:50, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

I think that we don't only have to cover facts that everbody can see, but also the facts of the points of view of respected art historians, - which the article does, afaik. - Many other people had their eyes on this article recently, during the review process, so I seem not alone. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:14, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

This excellent article is classic art criticism: it describes the form of the piece, elucidates the content, notes its importance as an influence on successors, all of which is fully referenced. Explaining the religious content of a work of religious art is in no way proselytising for that religion, it's improving the reader's understanding of the work. Awien (talk) 19:56, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

The point is that the object was made within a religious context. It cannot be understood or explained without it. The "religious meaning" and the "opinion of the religious community" are thus highly relevant aspects. The art historians tried to describe this context. I get the feeling that you confuse their respect for the art object, the careful analysis of the pictorial aspects and the culture causing them, with a personal respect for the subject matter. However, even if a certain critic was deeply religiously moved by the crucifix, it would still be correct to mention his reaction in the article, if only he is important enough. Neutral Point Of View does not mean No Point Of View.--MWAK (talk) 19:38, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes, and to me Brutannica exactly hits the nail on the head. The article explains that the work is of the Christus patiens ("Suffering Christ") type: presenting "a saviour who shared the burden and pain of humanity". This is in contrast to Christus triumphans ("Triumphant Christ"). In this context, the article, and vast literature reads as it does, to describe the innovation and impact it would have had, or indeed still has. Note, main author here, and not at all religious. The words were chosen carefully; to see how far this development went see Man of Sorrows, or Geertgen tot Sint Jans. Ceoil (talk) 09:13, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

References to Jesus as "Christ"

The artist who created this work may have believed Jesus to be the savior of humanity but I think referring to Jesus of Nazareth as "Christ" imparts an impartial tone to the article. Christ is a title for the messiah after all and the character depicted in this piece of art has a name and that name is used in the title of his article Jesus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.90.213.186 (talk) 19:15, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

I am rather sure the creator of the painting thought of Jesus also as Christ. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:23, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

You're probably right. My point is that fact should not compromise the impartial tone of the article. By referring to a depiction of a historical figure as a messiah the article implies that he was the messiah not that the artist viewed him that way. 208.90.213.186 (talk) 19:45, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

The article has to convey the religious context of this object. Within this context, Jesus functions as the Christ, so it's better to use this term. This does not logically imply that he was the Christ, any more than referring to Clark Kent as Superman when he's wearing his outfit implies that the superhero is real.--MWAK (talk) 19:57, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Christ is the normal term in art history for Jesus in at least medieval & Renaissance contexts. Note that there is a difference between the terms, with Jesus only referring to his life on earth. To talk of Jesus Pantocrator would be just wrong - it is Christ Pantocrator. We follow WP:RS on this and other matters. Johnbod (talk) 20:24, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes. The style of this work is commonly referred to by art historians as Christus patiens ("Suffering Christ"). That OP 208.90 raised the issue indicates that some clarification is needed...thinking. Ceoil (talk) 08:30, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Missing/removed text

In the part with the heading "Crucifixion", some text seems to be missing. It may have been a description of the small painting at the top of the Arezzo crucifix, or a reference to the earlier/Byzantine style. Because of this omission, the following sentence doesn’t make sense anymore. I paste it here in context:

"His eyes are open, and his skin is unblemished. The cross is painted with deep blue paint, perhaps evoking an eternal or timeless sky.[14] This evocation, not present in the main crucified figure,"

The last sentence may also present a hint to what has been there earlier.

Not being proficient in scouring article histories, I wanted to at least point this out here, so someone (maybe I, at a later point in time) can take a look at what happened here.Geke (talk) 07:04, 11 November 2023 (UTC)