Talk:Donor portrait

Images

 * Image:Baldung markgrafentafel.jpg
 * tiny Portland donors
 * Image:The-Madonna-and-Child-with-a-Donor-176-mid.jpg small donor
 * Image:Oberfinning 5.jpg naive 1615



Glassmaker Familiy Friedrich
"The roots of the Northern Bohemian glass industry and the glass-maker family Friedrich" (Walter A. Friedrich: Die Wurzeln der nordböhmischen Glasindustrie und die Glasmacherfamilie Friedrich. Fürth, Germany, 2005, published by the author. ISBN 3-00-015752-2) describes and analyses this painting on page 233. The interpretation of the childrens' fate in Donor_portrait doesn't match the description in this monograph, according to which only the two children dressed in white died young. Moreover, a chronicle from 1830 says, the boy without hands really lost his hands. --Eberhard Cornelius (talk) 20:09, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * What exactly do they say? The article doesn't say all the dead children "died young". The 1830 reference sounds dubious to me I must say. Johnbod (talk) 20:33, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Whatever "sounds dubious" in your POV is not relevant. The interpretation of the painting is not supported by any reliable source. According to No_original_research, the article should not contain presumptions or theories. The source of my infomation, the mentioned German monograph, is an extensive research on the history of the Friedrich (Glass-Maker Family) and their influence on the Bohemian glass industry. As you can see in the quotation below, there are several other sources on this issue, which could be used instead of original thought. The quoted text is in German, sorry, haven't got time for translation, but you may try the automatic Google translation. --Eberhard Cornelius (talk) 19:40, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Quotation from ISBN 3-00-015752-2

Page 232:

Page 233:
 * I have amended the text somewhat. The book, which is obviously not a work of art history, doesn't seem to mention that all 5 children with crosses were dead at some point, and the crosses were to mark this, but this is certainly the case, and very common. Johnbod (talk) 23:59, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the edit. --Eberhard Cornelius (talk) 00:59, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Recent changes
Please John, notice I've also improved other aspects of the article (such as WP:Weasel words "surprisingly" etc) and added the far more famous Bentivoglio Altarpiece donors example. I am making a survey to discover what Memling painting is it and I will restore once discovered what is it. Ciao and good work. --&#39;&#39;&#39;Attilios&#39;&#39;&#39; (talk) 09:43, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I did notice it, and reverted it; it is of course very remarkable that consistent scale should be disregarded so late. The image for the Bentivoglio Altarpiece is unacceptably poor, & it does not illustrate at all the point being discussed of donors getting involved in narrative scenes - It just repeats the Memling point. There are many Italian paintings shown, & there is no need to get nationalistic over this.  The name and location of the Memling are of course given on the commons file. I will copy this to the talk page - please continue it there. Johnbod (talk) 09:52, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Are you referring to the Moreel Triptych? It does not have an article yet, but it looks rather notable: Moreel Triptych in scholar. --Anneyh (talk) 10:16, 4 June 2011 (UTC)