Talk:Ecce Homo (Caravaggio, Genoa)

A possible second Ecce Homo, once the art historians weigh in
A developing story, so not ready for inclusion in Caravaggios oeuvre with it's own article, but this story could lead to an addition to Caravaggios oeuvre, a little more information here in this NY Times article. It was about to be put up for auction as a work by Jusepe de Ribera, but it was withdrawn from the auction and is now being investigated as "a well-documented but long-lost Caravaggio". There is speculation that it could be the Caravaggio piece from the "Ecce Homo" competition with two other painters, Cigoli and Domenico Passignano. There has always been speculation that the Ecce Homo (Caravaggio) in Genoa was not the Caravaggio work from this competition (and by some that this work was not by Caravaggio at all), and that another was floating around somewhere. It will be interesting to see how it shakes out.  He  iro  20:19, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
 * More details emerge on the discovery.
 *  He  iro  05:32, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
 *  He  iro  05:32, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Once the art historians, conservators, curators, et al weigh in on this one in a year or 2s time, if it is determined to be an autograph Caravaggio, this work should probably be spun off into it's own article (the way the many John the Baptist works currently have their own page), something like Ecce Homo (Caravaggio, Madrid). When/IF that happens, this one could probably be moved to Ecce Homo (Caravaggio, Genoa). Assuming they weigh back in that it is by Ribera or his circle, and not a Caravaggio, I guess that can be dealt with as well. 18:19, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Stuff added, but I don't think the matter can be regarded as settled. Johnbod (talk) 16:04, 17 May 2024 (UTC)


 * I believe it would still be prudent to move this article to Ecce Homo (Caravaggio, Genoa) since, as I see it, enough news outlets have attributed the Madrid Ecce Homo to Caravaggio such that most people seeking futher information on the Madrid painting would instinctually disambiguate the painting by understanding that it was attributed to Caravaggio. In addition, it's not unprecedented to have (somewhat) dubious attributions be used as disambiguators, as in the case of Salvator Mundi (Leonardo), as long as it helps most people find what they're looking for. ― Howard • 🌽33 13:46, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't really follow - at the moment this covers both paintings. That "most people seeking futher information on the Madrid painting would instinctually disambiguate the painting by understanding that it was attributed to Caravaggio." seems most unlikely to me. If (see section below) a new Madrid article appears, a splitting & rename would follow. In fact I see the draft has come along a lot - ready to roll imo. Johnbod (talk) 14:30, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Huh. I had assumed this was a discussion on whether to rename the article at all. If all it takes is for the draft article to be published, then fine ig. ― Howard • 🌽33 16:54, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Creating an article for the Madrid Ecce Homo
Currently, User:Howardcorn33 and I are working on creating an article for the Madrid Ecce Homo. The draft for it is pretty small right now; the section about the Madrid Ecce Homo in this article will probably have to be moved to that draft. Are there any suggestions for the draft? Also, would everyone be okay with having this article moved to Ecce Homo (Caravaggio, Genoa) once the new article is moved out of draftspace? That Tired Tarantula  Burrow  19:04, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is pretty small! I wonder if the attribution to C should be stated so firmly. See previous section, it's early days yet. Johnbod (talk) 00:56, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Got it! I'll look into the attribution more and re-word the lead a bit. That Tired Tarantula   Burrow  02:08, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Okay, the page is now ready to be published, but it would be helpful for this page to be renamed first and for the section about the Madrid Ecce Homo in this article to be removed, since then it wouldn't be relevant to the focus of the article. Is everyone okay with me removing that section and renaming the page? That Tired Tarantula   Burrow  19:28, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree that the section on the Madrid Ecce Homo should be removed considering it does not appear to have much relevance to the Genoa Ecce Homo, other than the subject and artist. ― Howard • 🌽33 19:40, 3 June 2024 (UTC)