Talk:Giulio Clovio

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Legacy[edit]

The article affirms that Giulio Clovio stated his Croatian identity. Can I have more details about this. --Silvio1973 (talk) 10:07, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why do I have to search if everything is already in bibliography and references, aside from the talk page? It is well established fact that he signed himself mostly as Giulio Clovio Crovata.

Bradley: "his customary signature (Crovato or Crovata) (was) adopted by him as a native of Croatia." page 18 [1] His signatures and his contemporary Vasari already affirm that. Philosopher12 (talk) 19:32, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly, but other authoritative sources such as the Britannica affirms his Italian nationality. Reporting the two nationalities and the relevant sources in support is the most equitable solution to the matter. --Silvio1973 (talk) 17:28, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Such statements have already been refuted in talk page. I don't know why Britannica should be "authoritative" source for Giulio Clovio - it doesn't explain how is Giulio Clovio Italian and is contradicting itself. It affirms he was born in Croatia, does this mean he is Italian from Croatia? It is an encyclopedia, therefore one short reference on Giulio Clovio by dubious author cannot refute whole Bradley's 400 pages book analysing solely Giulio Clovio and his work. (Britannica claimed that Charlmeagne was the first Holy Roman Emperor). Not only that, but the artist which is in question claimed for himself that he is Croatian, and is therefore futile to further discuss his nationality.

It is already mentioned in the article that (because of his lifetime spent in Italy) he is proclaimed (mostly in encyclopedias and other "instant information" reference literature) as Italian which is refuted by Giulio Clovio himself when he signs himself as "Crovata." If you can find sources which claim that he is born in Italy, and that he claimed for/signed himself as "Italiano" I will gladly change the article myself. Philosopher12 (talk) 20:10, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like a few things need to be mentioned:
  • The field you're haggling about is called "Nationality". The meaning of that word in English isn't the same as nacionalnost or narodnost in Croatian; it's no less common to treat it as equivalent to državljanstvo.
  • He is described as an Italian painter by Britannica, which is not necessarily indicative of his ethnicity, rather they could have legitimately simply meant he was naturalized in Italy, which he apparently was.
  • It's not invalid to reference another encyclopedia - it's a tertiary source, which is fine. If secondary sources contradict tertiary sources, they take precedence, but it should be spelled out.
  • Infoboxes sometimes suck, horribly - trying to provide this information in the infobox here has obviously been most unhelpful.
--Joy [shallot] (talk) 08:25, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

1.) I'm well acquianted with terms "nationality" and "ethnicity" in English language, thank you. In this case I think nationality in both meanings (Citizenship, state which he comes from - Croatia; and membership to the Croatian nation) is undoubtedly Croatian.

2.) There was no official state called "Italy" in the 16th century as far as i know, therefore his nationality = citizenship cannot be "Italian". There was an idea of Italy and Italian people of course (the goal of Machiavelli's book "The Prince" is to unite "enslaved" Italian people). His nationality could be Italian in the sense of belonging to Italian people (not citizenship), but Giulio Clovio expressed his feelings during his lifetime mostly as "Crovato" and didn't affiliate himself with any of the Italian states or Italian people.

3.) I don't know how you would arrange the article - it is mentioned that (because of his lifetime spent in Italy) he is mentioned as "Italian" in encyclopedias, and Britannica is sourced in the article. If you have ideas (or anyone else) for some new edits or changes, I would gladly hear it and edit the article, but not if edits are incorrect. Philosopher12 (talk) 11:32, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's completely nonsensical to pretend that the Italian ethnonym/toponym is completely inapplicable in the 1500s. You're making exactly the same mistake as Silvio did with the Croatian toponym as described at Talk:Schiavone, except that this idea is probably insulting to the Italians, while that one was to the Croatians. Please, let's just drop this bizarre double standard. Klović affiliated practically exclusively with Italy and the Italians between the age of 28 and his death in Rome at the age of 52, so it's not unreasonable to describe him as an Italian painter. This is also not at all exclusive to Italy - Croatia does the same to Andrija Aleši. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 13:25, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If I didn't read this, I wouldn't believe you said it. How did Giulio Clovio affiliate himself with Italians? By living and working in Italy? Then Ivan Lučić (Giovanni Lucio, spent last 20 years of his life in Rome), Stjepan Gradić and other notable Slavs from Dubrovnik and Dalmatia are also Italians? Is Ivan Meštrović American (what his grandson claims) since he spent last 17 years of his life in the USA, the country that he hated to live in? I don't understand what you are trying to say. Julije Klović was born in Croatia and stated his identity, and most of his life he spent in Italy, but that doesn't make his nationality (belonging to people) Italian. Italian ethnonym is applicable to Italian people, I said it is (you can say that Leonardo da Vinci is Italian), but Klović/Clovio never affiliated himself with Italian people.

Modern citizenships didn't exist then, so when the article states "nationality" it is in the sense of where the artists comes from, and which people does he view as his own. Philosopher12 (talk) 14:41, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Philosopher12, from my perspective the concept of nationality (either Italian or Croatian) is totally inapplicable in this case. It exists (yes, unfortunately this does exist) a tendency in modern Croatian historiography to extend the concept of Croatian nationality and ethnicity to areas of Romance culture and to periods well before the beginning of the modern concept of nationality. Whatever is the approach this does not apply to Giulio Clovio. I believe the actual reference to the nationality should be removed or alternatively both nationality should be reported (this would be however just an horrible compromise). Joy, concerning Talk:Schiavone I do not contest that those people were ethnically Slavs. But they were from Dalmatia, not from Croatia. There is a cultural specificity in the area of Romance culture from that part of Europe that from some reasons some contributors tend to forget --Silvio1973 (talk) 19:24, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I feel we're all making a set of monologues, but let's continue for a bit more... Klović apparenly permanently emigrated out of the Kingdom of Hungary and spent the rest of his life in Italy, blending in the way many other Schiavone like him, and made his best work there. To say that it's completely unacceptable to describe him as an "Italian painter" because you want to restrict the meaning of the adjective "affiliate" to a meaning of "renounce former nationality" which doesn't actually exist (to affiliate means simply to keep company with or to join in an affiliation) - is silly. On the other hand, it's also silly to avoid calling the Dalmatian Slavic subjects of Venice Croatian or Slavic just because they were Dalmatians - their cultural specificity is explained by linking to the article that explains the history of the Venetian Republic in Dalmatia, but that doesn't in any way override the simple fact that the Italians of that time had explicated their Slavic origin, often even in their names. Anyway, as I said before, the "nationality" field in the infobox only serves to muddle the water - let's just drop it. The lead section already nicely describes everything. If we don't have to put "Thracian" in Spartacus' infobox, there's no need to do anything like that here, either. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 07:31, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Right. Just remember that under our biographical guidelines, if Clovio had emigrated to the USA at the same age we would be unable to describe him as Croatian in the lead first sentence in any way. I absolutely agree about the nationality bit in the infobox - I would say drop the whole box. For those joining recently, there is tons more on what sources say in various languages in the archives for this page, in fact there is almost nothing else. The only thing most editors here, now and in the past, are interested in is the few words describing his nationality/origins/ethnicity. Hardly anyone takes any interest in the actual man or his work. Johnbod (talk) 11:24, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Since you are experts on this question, feel free to delete nationality from the infobox.Philosopher12 (talk) 14:28, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is also wrong "Legacy" chapter. Vasari wrote he was born in "Crovazia" into a family from "Macedonia": http://it.wikisource.org/wiki/Le_vite_de'_pi%C3%B9_eccellenti_pittori,_scultori_e_architettori_(1568)/Don_Giulio_Clovio

--Grifter72 (talk) 13:58, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also Bradley (falsely used in the article) reports "Macedonian": http://books.google.it/books?id=xADJ2x45iJAC&pg=PA20&lpg=PA20&dq=%22Giulio+Clovio%22+macedonian&source=bl&ots=FBvv46aY8Y&sig=5phPUuMX71PlfY-Vp5tu0kpOsxA&hl=it&sa=X&ei=vWwRULroIcb1sgaRxoG4DQ&ved=0CF0Q6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=%22Giulio%20Clovio%22%20macedonian&f=false --Grifter72 (talk) 16:24, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Same for Visani: http://books.google.it/books?ei=Xm8RUKK-BcfOswa6y4FY&hl=it&id=XAPWAAAAMAAJ&dq=visani+maria+clovio&q=macedonia#search_anchor --Grifter72 (talk) 16:26, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Giulio Clovio. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 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) 01:50, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]