Talk:Artemisia Gentileschi

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: RandomAth.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 17:33, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Ecradu01.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 14:46, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Italian?
Italy as a country was formed in 1815, if Artemisia lived between 1593 and 1654, how is it possible that she is "Italian" as the page says? --2A02:2450:102A:188:BA07:271F:D445:435A (talk) 09:44, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
 * zzzzzzzz! Italy and Italians were recognized as an area and a people for thousands of years before Italian unification. Likewise Germany and Germans. 16:02, 8 July 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnbod (talk • contribs)

Florentine Period
I have updated the section on Florence to reflect the recent scholarship done in the lead up to the National Gallery exhibition in 2020. In particular, I have added information on the courtly culture of Florence and the important role it played in her career, and also on the five children that she had in this period. More could still be added about the paintings done in these six years. Xcia0069 (talk) 13:11, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Roman section (1620-1626)
Updated the section on Artemisia's career in early 1620 to take account of new research done on this period, especially Artemisia's artistic network in Rome and her stylistic diversity and maturity. Have added more citations Xcia0069 (talk) 19:20, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Number of images...
There are about 60 paintings that are attributed to Gentileschi. This article now has 25. Does the article actually need this many images? Shearonink (talk) 14:05, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

- No need for the Selected Works I would suggest, especially as a few of them are of doubtful provenance. I also think the images in the text could be updates to show paintings that are more relevant to actual content of each section. Xcia0069 (talk) 12:55, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree. I've removed 4 from Selected works - I think more could go, the Selected works/gallery still seems superfluous. Shearonink (talk) 04:21, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
 * The number of images here is not excessive. If you're determined to trim some galleries, aren't there better candidates for reductions – e.g., have you seen Jean-Léon Gérôme? Ewulp (talk) 06:20, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
 * If the images in another article are excessive in number why is that being mentioned here and not being fixed there? Btw, I am "not determined to trim some galleries" I am only concerned about the number of images in this particular article. I do not understand how this article is better by having a total of 25 images in it, about half of the artist's apparent known output. I removed 4 images and that is somehow a terrible thing? Shearonink (talk) 08:15, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
 * No, you've complained about this at a number of articles in the past I think. There are a couple of people who go around doing this. Why would the article not be better by having 25 imjages? I don't understand. Most are at the bottom, and many have their own articles, so it's good to show & link them. Johnbod (talk) 12:20, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Even if I did mention this elsewhere does that mean that I am necessarily wrong about this article? Maybe it could be that I'm right. The number of images in this article seems excessive to me, I don't think having so many images adds to the reader's understanding of the subject. You have your opinion, I have mine...I don't think I have said anything untoward about what other editors have done or not done, I've just stated my opinion that I think there doesn't need to be this many images in the article. It hasn't always been so, in the past there were fewer and now there are more. If the editorial consensus is to retain the 25 (or more, things can change around here) images in this article, then that's the way it will be. Shearonink (talk) 22:36, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Three Years in Venice
Have added a few paragraphs to this section to reflect the current research done on her time in Venice, specifically the Jesse Locker monograph and the 2020 exhibition catalogue Xcia0069 (talk) 12:53, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Merging Further Reading & Bibliography
I merged these two sections as they were fulfilling the same purpose Xcia0069 (talk) 15:12, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
 * And I reverted you, because they were not. The "Bibliography" contained the works actually used to reference the article and Further Reading contained other works that were not. Didn't you notice this?  This is per policy, and it is important to keep these distinct.  I had to revert other additions & edits - feel free to reinstate these. The FR section should be trimmed to say the six most important works.  Johnbod (talk) 15:45, 3 August 2020 (UTC)


 * No, I didn't notice this, because the Bibliography contained works not in the article and vice versa with the Further Reading. If this is the policy, then "Sources" is perhaps a better description to use than "Bibliography"
 * Yes - myself I prefer References, after "Notes". I will try to work out which are being used. Could you then trim the rest to six? Johnbod (talk) 21:54, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

R Ward is wrong about there only being one surviving daughter, Prudenzia
We have evidence that two of Artemisia's daughters survived to adulthood, Prudenzia and one other. We know this because Prudenzia got married in 1637 and in a letter Artemisia complains about how she has had to get a daughter settled in a marriage twice, in 1637 and 1649. If Prudenzia had been widowed and remarried in 1649 her mother would not have been responsible for paying her dowry, so it must be a different daughter. Mary Garrard believes this. The 1624 census lists only Prudenzia, so the daughter must've been born after 1624, and been old enough to marry in 1649. Artemisia writes that the daughter who married in 1649 could paint, and we know that Prudenzia could play the spinet and paint. Her daughters may have helped on her paintings. Griselda Pollock's statement about her teaching several daughters to paint a bit generous, when we only have evidence of the two surviving daughters being taught to paint.R Ward is incorrect about only one surviving daughter. The second daughter married a high-ranking knight who could only have married into a family claiming 4 quarters of nobility. So it is likely that the second daughter's father was not Artemisia's husband, but a high-ranking man, perhaps a patron of Artemisia. Her lover Maringhi was a noble, and her Spanish patron the Duke of Alcala was too. Alcala was a ladies' man with a string of illegitimate children-he could have been the father. 94.197.30.140 (talk) 08:40, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

(UTC)

Another painting
I stumbled upon a painting called Maria Magdalene in Ecstasy by Artemisia Gentileschi in the Franciscan friary, Dubrovnik. Surprisingly there is zero information about it in the Internet. Do you think that it should be added to the List of works by Artemisia Gentileschi? Alaexis¿question? 08:31, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Not without robust international sourcing. I'm not sure it looks much like her style. Johnbod (talk) 18:11, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Alaexis¿question? 19:14, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Disambiguating article titles for works by Artemisia Gentileschi
Please see for a discussion on how to disambiguate that article's title and those for other works by this artist. Should "Artemisia", "Gentileschi", or "Artemisia Gentileschi" be used as a disambiguator? Ham II (talk) 09:15, 15 October 2023 (UTC)