Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Palenque bas relief

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Palenque bas relief[edit]

Original - Detail drawing of a relief from a Mayan ruin at Palenque sketched at the time of its original excavation in 1787 by Ricardo Almendáriz.
Not for voting: the same bas relief in a 2008 photograph. Note extensive damage in the 221 year interim.
Reason
The Mayan ruins at Palenque are a UNESCO World Heritage Site. This image comes from a collection of drawings made in 1787 when the site was first excavated. The report which this image formed part of was the first significant archaeological study in the Americas. The Ricardo Almendáriz remain scientifically useful because they document details of the site which have since been destroyed by exposure to the elements. Restored version of File:PalenqueA.jpg.
Articles this image appears in
Ricardo Almendáriz, Palenque, Chiapas
Creator
Ricardo Almendáriz
  • Support as nominator --Durova357 03:57, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. High encyclopedic value at Ricardo Almendáriz, slightly less in the others. Illustrates the subjects well. Mostlyharmless (talk) 06:04, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. --Silversmith Hewwo 06:56, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don't understand how this is a "detail of a Mayan ruin". All of the description here refers to an archeological dig, but this is a drawing of people. Was this a statue that was unearthed that has since been destroyed? More detail in the caption (both here and at the image page) is essential. upstateNYer 21:54, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I know that Mayan ruins tend to have images like these on them, but that shouldn't be assumed. Perhaps the caption and description should be updated to make this clear. Mostlyharmless (talk) 01:14, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • The caption does state that, or is some unintentional lack of clarity in the syntax open to misinterpretation? Have provided a modern photograph for comparison. Durova357 03:33, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Having slept on it, added a clarification to the caption. Durova357 17:25, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support  Franklin.vp  23:57, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose (struck, see below) EV is questionable in all but Ricardo Almendáriz because the photo you've provided actually illustrates the object better and, IMO, would be a prime substitute for the nominated image for use in the articles. Maybe it could be possible to place them in articles together using {{Multiple image}} because I definitely see the drawing as secondary to the actual thing (especially since the photo isn't used anywhere, but definitely should be). Additionally, I don't think it's good practice to include "digitally restored" in any caption, which you seem to do on a regular basis. I'm open to hearing why you may think it's good practice, but I think it's equivalent to crediting a photographer, which is against our MOS and trivial for an illustrative image (i.e. it illustrates the text content, it's not there to promote digital restoration or the restorationist); all the necessary information is on the image page. Only situation where it's warranted would be in an article about the image at hand, I would think. upstateNYer 02:09, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it is crucial to indicate that the image was digitally restored. Readers should be made aware that the image was altered from its original state. This is not analogous to giving the name of the photographer (if the caption said "digitally restored by Durova", perhaps you would have more of an argument, but it does not say that). Giving this information is not necessarily promoting digital restoration - it is giving information to the viewer that they would have to click on the image to see otherwise (and most people do not do that clicking). If an image were cropped, flipped, or had color added to it, for example, I would also expect this to be mentioned in the caption. We must not mislead viewers! Awadewit (talk) 02:29, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Now that you mention it, including digital restoration in the caption is analogous to stating (in the caption) that an image was cropped or digitally manipulated. And that's a very bad idea. Do you really want every image on Wikipedia that was cropped, or had levels adjusted, etc., have a mention in the caption? Captions could literally become dozens of words long, offering all-out unnecessary, trivial information (in addition to slowing down the reader, and taking up more space in articles, which can be a problem in the bigger ones; United States comes to mind). That's what Template:Retouched at Commons is for! Whether or not someone clicks on the image is their own problem, but anyone that's interested will, because they will want to see a larger version; that's just human nature. upstateNYer 02:43, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, I do want that. Words such as "Detail", "Retouched", etc. are commonplace in academic works about art and certainly don't take up unusual amounts of space for the crucial information they provide. Awadewit (talk) 02:48, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A reasonable request, and one that Durova and Shoemakers Holiday (and others) normally comply with. I think this is probably an oversight rather than anything else. Durova is a prolific restorer, and usually makes clear that the image has been restored from an original, and if there are significant changes or interpretations made - what these are. Mostlyharmless (talk) 03:10, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) Actually, what I suggested were words such as "retouched" or "cleaned" or "cropped". Interestingly, reliable paper reference works do include this type of information, so we should, too. I'm not going to keep repeating my argument - we have both stated our points of view and there is nothing further to be said. Other people can decide what their own views are. There is no reason for us to keep rehashing this. Awadewit (talk) 03:15, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That information is available in full at the image page though, I assume you're asking for it here as well? (Not arguing with you at all - the information is absolutely necessary in a high quality reference work, which is what we aspire to). Mostlyharmless (talk) 03:21, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(e/c) Fair enough, but to note, when you say "If an image were cropped, flipped, or had color added to it, for example, I would also expect this to be mentioned in the caption," it leads one to think that you include many more descriptive words, and if you are to include a trivial word like crop (i.e. this to this), then it's fair to assume you'd want to know everything... within an article caption. That's how I interpreted your statement. And I have yet to see such descriptions mentioned in text books and paper encyclopedias (comparable works to this project); these usually are added to a notes section at the end of the work (similar in concept to the Retouched template, but saved for the end for those few interested parties). upstateNYer 03:27, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Really not understanding this oppose. The reviewer appears to be saying it detracts from encyclopedic value to use an accurate historic drawing that records information which has since decomposed from the actual World Heritage Site. Reviewer also has criticisms of a more general nature which might be better for FPC talk since they would apply to more than one image. Durova357 04:27, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think his oppose saying that the picture illustrates the subject better would be changed if the caption of the image said (Drawing of a detail...). I kind of agree with his point in that respect. But I see the ( high ) value of the nomination as being not the bas relief it self but the drawing that preserves the original content of the bas relief.  franklin.vp  09:58, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, revised the caption a bit to make that clearer. And yes, agreeing the historic and more complete nature of the drawing adds to its ev. Also encyclopedic for the article about the site and the Mexican state of Chiapas, since this image was part of an archaeological report that was pivotal to both their history. The Mayan city had been abandoned for a thousand years, and this was the first scientific excavation of any Mayan site. Durova357 17:03, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not for voting: Comparison of the relief today and sketch showing significant differences between the two; this is a combination of loss of detail and addition of detail, causing the sketch to be idealized by the artist, arguably OR on his part. upstateNYer 20:02, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment My understanding is that a lot of these expeditionary drawings from that time wasn't very accurate and had a lot of issues with the artist unable to grasp what they was drawing and trying to humanize or whatever the term is the art, thus making many of them quite inaccurate from actual photographic documentation. That combined with I believe the tendency to recreate missing parts of the sculpture in the drawing based on what they thought would go there. From the modern photo of the same artwork and the drawing there is at least some support that parts of the artwork was recreated from the drawing. Unless a photograph of the artwork can be produced that shows all that damage in the modern photograph was done in modern times and wasn't there 1787 then I think the EV for anything but the Ricardo Almendáriz is extremely low or shouldn't be included at all. At least thats my take on these drawings of Aztec art from that time frame. — raeky (talk | edits) 17:31, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Cited text from the biography: "Almendáriz's drawings of Palenque are 'remarkably accurate for the era' and depict features of Palenque that have since been destroyed from exposure. For this reason they remain scientifically useful."[1] If you have a source that contradicts this then please expand the article using that source. Otherwise it would cross the WP:NOR line. Durova357 17:48, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Support Thats why it was a comment, if the cites back up that they're accurate and useful then thats sufficient. — raeky (talk | edits) 19:10, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • You're right, it's not accurate. After comparing the two, it seems "remarkably accurate for the era" is a nice way of saying "we'll live with what we were given, even if it's really not that close". See uploaded image at right. Almendáriz lost a lot of the detail from the carving in his transcription, but ironically, added a lot of detail that, on paper, is easy to do, but in rock, is not. So he lost a lot of detail and at the same time added a lot of idealized details of his own. Original research on his own part. If the guy's an artist, these details were not trivial to him; he did them on purpose, making his representation misleading to viewers (like us, 200+ years later). So this makes the EV in the articles even less, save for Almendariz, in which it might be good to point out his shortcomings. Switch to strong oppose as the nominated image does not represent the subject well. The photograph should be the image in the articles, not the idealized sketch. And before it's called out, comparing differences between two material things is not original research. upstateNYer 20:02, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • The stone surface underwent two centuries of exposure and deterioration between excavation and the 2008 photograph. The natural climate of Chiapas is tropical rainforest. See water erosion. It steps out on very shaky ground to attempt to assess the accuracy of the original based upon a single photograph whose details could have been affected by centuries of rill erosion. It takes an expert to make that sort of assessment; requesting the strong oppose be disqualified as a WP:NOR violation in light of the reliable source cited in the biography article and in discussion above. Durova359 20:13, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • I agree with the request. It is not a trivial claim that of the differences. Actually IMO some of those differences are somehow exaggerated.  franklin.vp  21:04, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • If you actually look at my comparison you will see that every one of the details that I point out is independent of corrosion or wear; they've actually survived the elements. Today, the relief has medallions hanging off the lower outerwear of the figure in the bottom left, but these are not shown in the sketch; today the feathers in the headdress have pointed ends and veins all the way to the ends of the feathers, while the sketch misses these details; today the relief shows that the standing figure has no smile, but the sketch does; today the relief clearly shows the bosom of the figure in the bottom left, while the sketch hides it under the figure's arms; today the scepter's end has sharp, distinguished angles which have survived the elements, while the sketch shows something more European. All of these details have survived your 2 centuries of erosion and prove that the sketch is not that accurate. Did you even open the image? I mean, really. It comes down to the fact that this is not an accurate representation of the actual thing, it misleads its viewers, and is an idealized, indeed Europeanized, interpretation of a Mayan ruin, which still has enough detail on it today to show such an issue. This is not OR nor does it take an expert to distinguish. It takes an inquisitive pair of eyes and 5 minutes' time. My strong oppose comes with a vast amount of logical rationale. It best not be ignored. upstateNYer 22:09, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, I don't know Durova but, I did look at the image closely. An it is clear, as you point, that there are differences. There is one difference even more striking and important, one is a bas relief and the other is a drawing. Perhaps Durova's strategic mistake was not to title the nomination Drawing of Mayan bas relief... or something like that. Actually, this is what, IMO, it should be. Now the caption of the drawing have this wording. Now the differences you point, even if they were a gross misinterpretation by Almendáriz, they won't matter since it is his drawing, as a historic document... etc, what is in question.  franklin.vp  23:02, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The difficulty was purely syntactical. It's a bit tricky to convey that this was a historic 1787 drawing by Almendáriz of a much older Mayan bas relief, of one feature upon one building within a larger site. Was wondering whether the reviewers here at en:wiki had misread, since everybody at the concurrent Commons nomination has been comprehending it with unanimous support. Durova359 23:56, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Because rubber stamping is proof of quality, and everything... upstateNYer 06:38, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Historic material that shows how artefacts deteriorate over time... We know what things were like exactly because of material like this.. It is also yet another fine restoration with documents the bag of tricks needed to create something that approaches the original image. GerardM (talk) 17:55, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Do tell how the sketch shows how artifacts degrade over time. Only the photo combined with sketch can show that, and the photo is used nowhere but on this page. And we don't know what things were like exactly, because the sketch is idealized. See comment and image above. upstateNYer 20:02, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I think the discussion here has become sidetracked. The encyclopedic value of the image is in its illustration of the illustration of Palenque by Ricardo Almendáriz, in both those articles. For that reason it does not matter that there are a small number of inaccuracies. In fact, in Ricardo Almendáriz, it is explicitly noted that they are not entirely accurate, just that they are "remarkably" accurate compared to contemporaneous artwork. If anybody on this page wants to tell the Mayanist scholar George Stuart he is wrong in thinking that the images of Almendariz are useful (despite their limitations), that is their prerogative. But they shouldn't do so here. I want to thank Durova for creating useful and encyclopedic content. Mostlyharmless (talk) 23:07, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment. I believe the panel and its supporting structure were standing in situ when del Rio & Almendariz visited, i.e. not buried, so "excavation" is probably not the right word. In del Rio's account he describes the panel and structure thus (p.9 of the 1822 Henry Berthould edn):

    "The entrance is on the eastern side, by a portico or corridor thirty-six varas or yards in length and three in breadth, supported by plain rectangular pillars, without either bases or pedestals, upon which there are square smooth stones of more than a foot in thickness forming an architrave, while on the exterior superficies are species of stucco shields, the designs of some of them accompanying this report, are numbered 1, 2, 3,..[where 1 is this illustration]".

    Also, it'd be better to provide much more detailed information on the image description page, about what the drawing depicts (at a bare minimum identifying the specific relief and structure is needed), the context in which the drawing was made, and outlining its impact, publication history and use. That should assist in assessing EV qualities. For example, the following could be used to flesh out the img's description page, & enhance the caption:

    The drawing depicts the stucco relief on the eastern exterior of a pier (Pier E) on the building called House A, part of the Eastern Court of the Palace complex at Palenque (here's a reconstuction drawing showing House A's location and probable sequence in the Palace's construction). House A and its stuccos were most probably constructed during the famous K'inich Janaab' Pakal's reign and the bldg dedicated a little after 668 CE, most probably in 670 CE. There is some evidence that it may have been later, during the reign of his son K'inich K'an Joy Chitam II.

    The figures in the relief are not specifically identified/identifiable, AFAIK. This and similar ones on other piers also lacking glyphic inscriptions are thought likely to be ancestor rulers, and their parents. The standing figure holds a mannikin sceptre in the left hand, and in the right instead of the usual incense bag, a length of material. The seated figures adopt a posture of submission or deference, with hands placed on opposite shoulder.

    The drawing itself, done in brown ink-and-wash on paper, is a copy of Almendariz's original engravings (now all lost). It is bound in a collection with 29 others he made ("Colección de Estampas Copiadas..."). There are slight differences discernable between this and its earliest known copy, held in Madrid. The drawings in this collection were meant to be published with del Rio's text, but they never were. When del Rio's account was finally published (in 1822 by Henri Berthould of London), the drawings accompanying it were copies re-engraved (with considerable 'artistic license') by Jean-Frédéric Waldeck. It is interesting to compare this drawing, presumably faithful to Almendariz's original, with the version (see here) made by Waldeck. Easy to see why accusations of wild fancy and Europeanisation leveled at Waldeck ring true. Other copies of Almendariz's drawing circulated in the early 19thC and were reproduced and used, mostly without attribution. One copy found its way to Alexander von Humboldt where it was reproduced in his Vue des Cordillères (1810), but was mis-captioned as a bas relief from Oaxaca.

    Almendariz is not credited as the illustrator in del Rio's text or in the collection of his drawings and as an artist is poorly documented; according to Heinrich Berlin his given name was probably Ignacio, not Ricardo.

    Re EV, in the context of Palenque's iconography this particular stucco relief is not among the most significant. Even within House A there are others like pier C with its six-fingered figure that have attracted greater study. In the context of Almendariz's works it's probably not his most interesting drawing (see the full set in the Kislak collection at the LoC's website), but maybe it's been reproduced slightly more than the others (maybe 'cos it's the first figure in the set). Although Almendariz's work may have been reasonable for the time, others like R. Tripp Evans (in Romancing the Maya, 2004) describe them, particularly his architectural drawings, as "often inaccurate", over-simplified and "dissapointingly banal" (pp.20-22). Del Rio and Almendariz were not the first to investigate and record Palenque, tho' theirs was probably the best-done study to that time. It could be argued that Almendariz's renderings had initially a slight adverse impact on early Maya studies, as they encouraged a number of 19thC theories of connections with Phoenicians, Romans, Egyptians, etc that were popular (particularly through the more widely seen bastardised versions produced by Waldeck). Compared to other drawings by Almendariz or later drawings of Palenque by others, it would be hard to say this is among the images with the highest EV; but on the other hand it's had an interesting history nonetheless and could be argued perhaps on that score.--cjllw ʘ TALK 02:26, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Thank you very much for the thoughtful commentary. Selected this image principally as the first from this publication and partly because its perspective distortion challenges were less severe than others form the same group. See this blog post regarding the technical issues. Had an eye toward perhaps restoring the entire set if this were well received (which, as you can see, is not the case here). Would you suggest a different image from that group as being more suitable than this one? Durova359 02:41, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for that; I wish we could get such extensive history like that in all our noms (and captions - many of our FP captions lack in oh-so-many ways); too many times we voters just don't know enough about an image to question it, when questioning is precisely what's needed. upstateNYer 06:38, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Fascinating stuff. This nom is an extremely pertinent example of the inherent dangers in reinterpreting historical works. I don't want to sideline it any more than it has been, so I'll take it to the talk page. mikaultalk
    • Don't get me wrong, I like the img and readily appreciate the evident technical skill of Durova's digital restoration. I'd have no issues with that, and would be glad if Durova had the time or inclination to attend to other drawings in Almendariz's set.

      Also agree with Awadewit that it is desirable practice to note in the caption, even briefly, that it is digitally restored. Particularly for drawings like this one that illustrate actual artefacts and sculptured/drawn iconography. In such cases analyses and interpretations of the item depicted depend not only on the original item's form, but also on an assessment of the illustrator's techniques and their choices about what to display and how, and even upon the condition of the drawing itself. Iconographic or textual information may or may not coincide with blotches, marks or other deficiencies in the drawing medium or its reproduction, and sometimes the addition or removal of a single line, curve or cross-hatch can change the epigraphic interpretation of a glyph, or the identification of an iconographic element (not that I'm saying Durova's careful alterations have had such an impact, but it's as well to note alteration has occurred). Sometimes it takes only a slight change to alter the reading of a glyph or element, and mistaken readings based on unclear reproductions or artist error certainly happen from time to time.

      These artefacts and reliefs are often damaged and how, or whether, the illustrator shows these broken or missing elements is an important consideration to know. Art historians & epigraphers can sometimes interpolate a reading from such broken or missing elements, but of course the rendered drawing needs to show the elements were once there. Modern archaeological artists are usually careful and follow conventions in depicting these elements; with earlier artists it is much more hit and miss. Almendariz's drawing is executed as if the relief was fully intact when he saw it—but was it? It would be unlikely that it was in pristine condition, possibly there are elements just filled in or guessed at.

      But that said, his rendition is a reasonable one considering the period, regarded as such as indicated by comments like George Stuart's. His architectural drawings were way off the mark, but for the most part his reliefs have analysis value. Any artist rendering in 2D a 3D stucco has to make choices about what's significant to display, and no two independently made drawings would be exact matches whatever the degree of care taken by the artist.

      As mentioned other Palenque reliefs drawn by Almendariz (eg the Palace Oval Tablet, fig.XV) are much more 'significant' to Mayanists and are better studied reliefs than this one (House A Pier E, Almendariz fig.I). However, after doing some more digging around into the background and reproduction history of this drawing, I don't think that detracts from any EV that could be attached to it. There have been a dozen or more versions derived from it published, while others in his set have been reproduced as well this one seems to be the most widely copied. In particular the version published by Humboldt in 1810 brought it to a wide 19thC audience, mislabelled even as it was (a correction was published in a note).

      As the genesis of many copies, as a representative image—whatever its faults—of Maya art as known to early Americanist scholars, and as an item with an interesting, convoluted and documented history of its own, I can see there's a reasonable case for EV to be made, and would be fine to support FPC. My main concern was that I thought the description needed to specify the relief's identification and some of the history behind it and the drawing, to be more complete and informative. A lot can go in the article of course, but that'd be a longer-term exercise, my time is limited right now but when I get a chance will add some sources and work to expand it. There are plenty of good sources on this out there, one of the most interesting and comprehensive is this 1994 article in the Anales del Museo de América. Check out in particular pp.105-107, where the author reproduces nine different versions of or derived from this drawing for comparision, together with the modern archaeological drawing of the relief by Merle Greene Robertson. --cjllw ʘ TALK 01:24, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

      • Thank you again, and feel free to make any alterations to the captions that you consider appropriate. Durova362 01:39, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Very cool; seems example 10 is the closest to the real thing. upstateNYer 03:50, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:PalenqueAc.jpg --jjron (talk) 12:55, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/Palenque_bas_relief&oldid=1148689867"