Talk:Martino Rota

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

Date of birth and work?[edit]

Where is this information coming from that he was born in 1540 and was only an engraver? I am finding lots of information he was born in 1520 and was a painter, see [1], [2]? Gryffindor 12:00, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You've got a point! Oxford's Concise Grove Dictionary of Art (an even better source) gives: "(b Sebenico [Sibenik], Dalmatia, c. 1520; d Vienna, 1583)" He worked in Venice only as a reproductive engraver, notably of Titian, but in Vienna as a painter and sculptor, Groves says. (Says Wetman)
Yes, I have updated & moved to the modern name. Getty is the authoritative online source for these matters, but I have added from a modern short bio. Johnbod (talk) 15:06, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Gryffindor asks "Where is this information coming from that he was born in 1540...?" I put in the date "c. 1540" (which means "about 1540") when I began the article, and it's from Michael Bryan's Dictionary of Painters and Engravers, Biographical and Critical: "born... about the year 1540". If Bryan has it wrong, then no doubt he isn't the first. "...and was only an engraver?" The article didn't say that, it referred to him as an engraver, which he was. Now that we have sources for other graphic work, so much the better. Xn4 (talk) 21:02, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Mid-19th century sources, if used at all, should be checked where possible against more modern ones, and for artists Getty is always available. Bryan may not have been the first, but he could have been the last in 1849 or whenever it was. Same with the name - Getty is normally exhaustive with variants but doesn't even mention "Martin". Johnbod (talk) 01:00, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's fair comment, but unfortunately I don't have Getty to hand. I put in a citation to Bryan, and I'm happy for that source to be found wrong on the date. If Getty doesn't have the name 'Martin Rota' at all, then it seems to me a future edition should include it. 'Martin Rota' is or was the standard name in England, and it still produces a great many Google hits - indeed, slightly more than 'Martino Rota'. Xn4 (talk) 15:57, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, Getty is online. Martin was perhaps the standard name in English until say about 1880, but eg Hind uses Martino, presumably from his 1st edn of 1908. Most of the ghits seem to be wiki dependent or in Spanish, Croatian etc. There are hardly any relevant ones on G Scholar. Johnbod (talk) 16:45, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, you mean the getty.edu web site. The page on him here doesn't strike me as very impressive, and I don't think I'd want to treat an online database as a pre-eminent authority. For instance, that page has "Kolunič-Rota, Martin" as a variant instead of "Martin Rota Kolunić", the second being the name which actually crops up. (The diacritic ć seems to be correct, and Rota is treated as a first rather than second surname.) And I confess it isn't clear to me why the Italian Martino should be preferred to the Croatian, English, German, Spanish, French etc. alternative. Rota was a Croatian working in Italy and Austria, rather than being an Italian, as that page describes him. But no matter, with the redirects and so forth, either name works. Xn4 (talk) 18:22, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is the pre-eminent authority, and has long been accepted as so, even before Getty took over hosting it. Look at the references on the entry & the pages on the methodology. Johnbod (talk) 19:05, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No doubt it's a large and useful database, but in general it doesn't strike me as very scholarly. The 'Sources and Contributors' section has titles, rather than citations. The most impressive one for Rota (Thieme & Becker, Allgemeines Lexikon der Kunstler) doesn't even say which one of 37 volumes it refers to. I clicked through to the page for Vienna and found that it was "Annexed by Nazi Germany in 1938 and liberated by the Russians in 1945". Vienna was so thoroughly liberated by the Russians that at least 100,000 of its women were raped before it was occupied for ten years. Xn4 (talk) 23:01, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It will be the T&B volume covering RO! Like it or not, this is the OED of artists names & dates, & like the OED no longer produces hard copy versions. And thanks to the price of oil, it's all free! From someone happy to use Bryant, your quibbles seem odd frankly. Johnbod (talk) 23:24, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Martino Rota. 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) 18:19, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Martino_Rota&oldid=1208243313"