Talk:Heroic nudity

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 28 August 2017 and 3 January 2018. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): PatJosephK, Aamagett, Cyborgkid11.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 23:24, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Oh my
Hölscher but not Himmelmann? Strange. Only male nude images - as big as possible. Only sculpture, why not vase images? And it's not only "a concept in classical scholarship", also in modern art history. So this is an masterpice example of a modern piece of heroic nudity. Marcus Cyron (talk) 16:52, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Peer Review
I will indicate my spelling, grammar, and other suggestions in bold

Heroic nudity ',' or ideal nudity ',' is a concept in classical scholarship (Replace "classical scholarship" with "art history". Do we know when the term heroic nudity was actually coined, I don't remember from the Spivey reading, because "classical scholarship" denotes Ancient Greek scholars used that descriptive term) to describe the use of nudity in classical sculpture tox which indicated that a sculpture's apparently mortal human subject is ',' in fact ',' a hero or semi-divine being. This convention began in archaic and classical Greece and was later adopted by Hellenistic and Roman sculptors. Nudity was often thought to be an important aspect of Greek civilization and was frequent in places such as gymnasiums and when competing in games.[1] This concept operated for women as well as for men, with females being portrayed through Venus and other goddesses.[2] Particularly in Roman examples like the Tivoli General or Delos "Pseudo-Athlete", this could lead to an odd juxtaposition of a hyper-realistic portrait bust in the Roman style (warts-and-all clarify this phrase please for the men, or with an elaborate hairstyle for the women) with an idealized god-like body in the Greek style. Male genitalia explicitly was not depicted as overly well-endowed to separate a noble and modest facade from the connotation in Greek culture that larger endowments belonged to more primal and barbaric characteristics.[3] As a concept, it has been modified since its inception, with other types of nudity now recognized in classical sculpture—e.g., the pathetic nudity of brave but defeated barbarian enemies like the Dying Gaul.[4] Tonio Hölscher has even rejected the concept entirely for Greek art of the 4th century BC and earlier. Heroic nudity allowed Greek sculptors to show a subject's character more accurately, without the disguise or added context of clothing. [5]

General Suggestions

The article has clear structure so far.

The lead sentence could use some work but the rest of the introduction is really good.

You have great, reliable sources.

I like that you were able to find a source that disagreed, it gives you balanced coverage. I know you have a lot to add but just make sure the sections are similar in length.

You have a neutral and objective tone, and you presented both sides. I think it sounds encyclopedic.

Overall, great job and keep it up!

-Anj Magett

"women as well as men"
The sentence "This concept operated for women as well as for men, with females being portrayed through Venus and other goddesses," which in context seems to be talking about Greek civilization, needs examining. I can think of a few early sources on this, but they all treat nudity of women in ancient Greek culture as an exception to a more general rule. This sentence seems to make it part of a general rule.

Well, a source is cited, labelled as "Trajanic woman as Venus". The link is dead. I think it was sort of intended as a reference to the following article, available behind a paywall. Linda Maria Gigante, "Roman Commemorative Portraits: Women with the Attributes of Venus" in Memory & Oblivion (Springer? 1999) pp. 447-453. The references are visible free, and they are almost all about Rome, not Greece.

A preliminary conclusion: this sentence, if retained, needs limiting to the context of the middle Roman empire. But someone who can pay the vast price of the book or article, or find it elsewhere, might show that the sentence is OK as it stands. Andrew Dalby 09:18, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Hmm, I've modified this a bit, but I find the whole para rather unclear; I'm not wholly sure we need it. The lead distinguishes better between the sexes. Johnbod (talk) 17:49, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 02:52, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Seleucid prince (Rome).JPG