Talk:Giorgione

Revisions
In editing thus far, I found that the paragraph-long sentence detailing his early commissions reads better as a series of sentences. The mention of different critics' assessments is, I believe, an outdated reference--sounds like much of the rest, as if copied from the century-old entry from Brittanica.JNW 15:19, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Self-portrait
I have re-installed the self-portrait for the following reasons: The attribution of works to Giorgione, with few exceptions, is controversial; even the Pastoral Concert, long a mainstay in his column, has lately been re-attributed to Titian. The assignment of this picture is no less uncertain. However, it was accepted as genuine by Vasari in 1528. Its quality, while abraded with age, and difficult to judge by this washed-out reproduction, is high. And the precociousness of concept and ambiguity of meaning are consistent with Giorgione's work--to posit that he would have been the first artist in Venice to create a painted self-portrait would not be giving him too much credit. Finally, there was no supporting rationale for reverting the picture. If solid recent evidence can be cited to the effect that the picture is now widely discredited, then I will stand happily corrected, and please re-revert. JNW 02:22, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Please provide academic sources that this painting is a self-portrait and that it is the same painting as mentioned by Vasari. A museum website is not an academic source. As best I know, Vasari mentions three self-portraits by Giorgione. His attributions may be well doubted, as "Bocchini tells us the story of how he and Vecchia were once shown a self-portrait of Giorgione, which Vecchia laughingly confessed to having painted himself thrity-two years earlier" (Mary Jane Harris, "Continuity, Innovation, and Connoisseurship"). Nevertheless, Vasari tells us the following:
 * ''One of these heads [in the possession of Patriarch Grimani], in which the hair is depicted falling to the shoulders, as was the fashion in those days, is said to be Giorgione's self-portrait. The portrait represents David, who is depicted with wonderful vigour and realism. His breast is protected by armour as is the arm with which he holds the severed head of Goliath".


 * I assume the Brunswick picture is a severely truncated relic of the subject. Gloria Fossi adds that, if the Brunswick painting is indeed a self-portrait, it indicates the painter's Jewish ethnicity. I also vaguely recall that this artwork was imitated by Samuel Beckett in several of his works, but this needs substantiating. -- Ghirla -трёп-  08:16, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, the literature identifies this as the cropped version of a work which served as the model for a 1650 engraving by Wenzel Hollar (Hollar's engraving confirms this with a written inscription), and which included the head of Goliath. My mistake on the Vasari date; " The portrait can be identified as the work by Giorgione that Vasari saw in Venice in the collection of Giovanni Grimani, 'reported to be his own portrait' (1568). It was mentioned earlier in an inventory of the Marino Grimani collection, compiled in 1528, indicated as a 'portrait of Giorgione by his hand, depicting the David and Goliath' (Paschini. 1926-7), but there is no certain proof that the painting now in Braunschweig can be identified as this work (Terisio Pignatti, Filippo Pedrocco, "Giorgione")." The authors go on to doubt the work's authenticity, based on 'solidity of brushstroke that is unlike Giorgione's more measured stroke', and classify it as a copy of a lost original--I find it a little unusual to revoke an attribution from a master because the brushwork is too confident, and am skeptical of questioning it on those grounds. Nevertheless, they do note that Hornig (1987), Luco (1995), and Anderson (1996), restored attribution to Giorgione.


 * None of this is conclusive (nor do I suspect it ever will be), and it seems that some of the hesitance to attribute the picture to Giorgione is based on its condition, and that it does not fit easily into some scholars' previous chronologies (Jaynie Anderson, "Giorgione"--she finds the provenance credible, and also assigns the picture to Giorgione). It is my misfortune not to have immediate access to more recent research, which might shed newer light; these sources date from 1999 and 1997, respectively. I am now curious to see if subsequent scholarship has shifted much. Until then, I think the revised credit you have proposed is a satisfactory compromise, and, incidentally, the formatting is an improvement. I also wonder how the subject's ethnicity can be deduced from the portrait--was Fossi expansive on this? This is all a bit windy, but as I said already, it is interesting. JNW 19:13, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I just found something from Fossi ("Italian Art", 2000), in which she makes reference to the possibility that Giorgione was Jewish, and that his self-portrait as David can be seen as supporting this interpretation. Of course, in so doing, she accepts the traditional attribution of the painting as a self-portrait by the artist. JNW 05:45, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
 * As for the Beckett reference: I found a French article online which maintains that the writer went to Brunswick in 1936, saw this painting, and was haunted by the image; ten years later the memory and attendant anxiety recurred while he was writing a story. JNW 12:45, 8 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Really the article needs much more on the complicated question of which paintings are actually by Giorgione, or the current consensus (or lack of it) on attributions. Johnbod 11:18, 6 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Agreed. On my to-do list. JNW 06:05, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I've expanded this considerably now, and everyone should be suitably confused, but in a more up-to-date way. Improvements welcome. I shrank from attempting a new list, or "selection", as I don't have any of the current full lists.  Does anyone? Johnbod 22:38, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * It appears that your bibliography is current and wide-ranging; my access to references is summarized in the earlier conversations above. Your expansion of 'attributions' and other contributions are excellent. JNW 14:19, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks! The David/self-portrait, btw, still seems to have supporters, at least as a G, if not necessarily a self-portrait. Johnbod 14:27, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Portrait of Warrior with his Equerry
I'm no expert, but has "Portrait of Warrior with his Equerry" (estimated 1509) perhaps been attributed to Cavazzola (new estimation 1518-22)? See for example http://www.wga.hu/frames-e.html?/html/c/cavazzol/warrior.html which states: "Formerly the picture has been ascribed to the last activity of Giorgione, dead in 1510." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.209.88.226 (talk) 00:02, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on Giorgione. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20121012072059/http://www.nga.gov/press/exh/191/invention.pdf to http://www.nga.gov/press/exh/191/invention.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20050325161807/http://www.khm.at:80/giorgione/en/03/paintings.html to http://www.khm.at/giorgione/en/03/paintings.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 19:40, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Evaluations
I have found this article to contain substantial amounts of relevant information on Giorgione with a good balance of text in each of the sections 'Life', 'Works' and 'Attributions'; the section of 'Legacy', in comparison, is much shorter. The information is clearly structured and coherent within the article using clear headings, sub-headings and some of Giorgione's works have also been selected to be presented in the 'Gallery' section.

However, several changes pertaining to the referencing and citations can further improve the overall quality of the article. Not every fact presented in the article has been explicitly referenced. For instance, in presenting Giorgione's biographical information, only his birth, death and nationality are cited. While it is possible that much of the biographical information came from the same source and thus the information presented after the initial facts have not been cited, it is preferable to indicate that the information derives from the same source and refer back to the initial citation. In addition, there are many explicit textual references to Vasari throughout the article without any link to citations; although from what I discern the tone of the article remains neutral, this runs the risk of over-representing his viewpoint and creating bias in a objective article.

Existing citations in the article are from various sources including online encyclopedias, JSTOR, press release, academic articles from various organizations of art and museum websites. Some of these sources, such as JSTOR and in particular the academic articles, which have been published by institutions such as the Royal Academy of Arts London and the National Gallery of Art, can be deemed to be reliable as they generally hold authority in the field of visual arts. On the other hand, sources such as press releases and museum websites are less reliable and this impinges on the credibility of the article as a whole. Upon checking select references, no close paraphrasing was found, however, many of the links are no longer functional and need to be updated, such as reference [5] to Burlington Magazine, [6] to JSTOR, and [9] to Encyclopedia Britannica. Not all of the ISBN numbers for journal articles have been provided either. This can be problematic as the reliability of the information presented in the article then becomes questionable.

Irenez2017 (talk) 19:38, 28 January 2017 (UTC)Irenez2017

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Giorgione. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140503184806/http://www.3pipe.net/2011/10/giorgione-in-early-modern-sources.html to http://www.3pipe.net/2011/10/giorgione-in-early-modern-sources.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150311184224/http://www.nga.gov/collection/gallery/gg16/gg16-main1.html to https://www.nga.gov/collection/gallery/gg16/gg16-main1.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 05:18, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

New Age at death
I've just added in the death notice and related news articles in to this page as I've just made the source to digitised content available today. This new information actually impacts the top part of the page as the death notice discovered indicates he died aged 36, not 30 as indicated on page. USydKim 10:10, 25 February 2019 (AEST)
 * This, and the library link, is interesting, but I'd propose to wait until after it is properly published in the March 2019 issue of The Burlington Magazine, and seeing reaction to that before changing. For now, I'll just expand the range to include 36. Johnbod (talk) 01:52, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

year of birth
A previous editor had 1477/78, citing Gould, which I have not been able to check. I added 1476, citing Nichols, which I own. But, obviously, what should be cited is Vasari's 1550 edition. Does anyone have access to it? If someone can tell us what Vasari said in that edition, then we can drop the cite to Gould and to Nichols. Maurice Magnus (talk) 19:42, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
 * We should still cite Nichols if he's correcting Vasari. Ewulp (talk) 23:44, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I think the current format is fine. Kemp and Peter Humfrey give 1477–8 . It would be dubious to act like we know the exact year—and it should probably be written as 1476–78, the slashes are just cruft. Aza24 (talk) 01:00, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Indeed. I added the Gould, which is as stated, though obviously that's a bit old now. But I think nothing has changed. The vasari will be online in Italian. Johnbod (talk) 02:11, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

I changed 1476/77/78 to 1476-78, as suggested, and, for consistency, I also changed 1473/74 to 1473-74. I also changed the dates under the photo at the upper right to match those in the opening sentence. (The "31" is because, if he were born in 1478, he might have died in 1510 before reaching his 32nd birthday.) I haven't been able to find Vasari in Italian. Maurice Magnus (talk) 20:51, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
 * "dico che in Castel Franco in sul Trevisano nacque l'anno MCCCCLXXVII ..." - link in EL at V's bio. Johnbod (talk) 00:01, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. Since we have from the horse's mouth Vasari's 1550 statement that Giorgione was born in 1477 and his 1568 statement that Giorgione was born in 1478, we have no need to cite Gould or Nichols as to what Vasari wrote. Therefore, I deleted their statements and linked to Vasari's words in both editions of his book. I also changed the dates under the photo at the upper right from 1476-78 back to 1477-78, because Nichols was wrong that in 1550 Vasari wrote 1476. On another point, in footnote 1, I put brackets around the two URLs in order to hide them and create links to them. When I did that "[1]" and "[2]" appeared. I know that there is a way to avoid those bracketed numbers, but I don't know what it is.Maurice Magnus (talk) 01:13, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

"mastery of its means"
The third paragraph under "Life" states, "released the art from the last shackles of archaic rigidity and placed it in possession of full freedom and the full mastery of its means." Can someone translate that into English? Art cannot have "mastery of its means." I can't edit it because I don't know what it is trying to say. Maurice Magnus (talk) 09:59, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Looks like it was taken from a very old (public domain) source, with not much rephrasing. Now removed. Ceoil (talk) 10:08, 20 November 2022 (UTC)