Talk:Madonna of Chancellor Rolin

Where was this painting?
Comparing this article with the one on Autun Cathedral, there is a discrepancy about when the painting was in the cathedral at Autun.

I don't suppose any of the present editors were around then, but are there records to go to? Wanderer57 (talk) 03:03, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Not any longer, there isn't Johnbod (talk) 03:42, 12 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Database backup systems two centuries ago were pretty pathetic. Wanderer57 (talk) 05:20, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Madonna of Chancellor Rolin. 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/20090713015628/http://www.louvre.fr/llv/dossiers/detail_oal.jsp?CONTENT%3C%3Ecnt_id=10134198674055871&CURRENT_LLV_OAL%3C%3Ecnt_id=10134198674055871&bmUID=1182710990695&bmLocale=en to http://www.louvre.fr/llv/dossiers/detail_oal.jsp?CONTENT%3C%3Ecnt_id=10134198674055871&CURRENT_LLV_OAL%3C%3Ecnt_id=10134198674055871&bmUID=1182710990695&bmLocale=en

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) 02:08, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

This is a painting made by... "the Early Netherlandish painter Jan van Eyck, dating from around 1435."
Hi,

We live in a strange age. Perceptions and interpretations can anytime cut loose, and get to the realm of absurd...

Just look at this article...

It is about a painting.

What the reader gets is a proper package of information.

What do I need to know about this?

Who made it, to start with?

Ah, the early Netherlandish painter, called Jan Van Eyck...

Oh, I'll save his name to my notes...

- -

So wrong...

This painting is interesting because Jan Van Eyck is interesting...

This painting is interesting as one of his work.

To introduce this painting as something that's already interesting (perhaps because paintings are usually interesting owing to their money value) is weird.

Imagine introducing the Hamlet like "This is a theater play by an English playwright, Shakespeare, who lived in the 1600s..."

- -

I'd start this article like:

"This is one of Van Eyck's extant canvases, which he made for Chancellor Rolin..."

Something like that...

Otherwise, readers will look at this painting alienated from Van Eyck,

thinking that this is a famous canvas (for some reasons), and it might be worth memorizing the guy's name who made it...

- -

Take Mona Lisa...

You can go about it in 3 ways..

3 possible approaches...


 * 1) This painting, made by the renaissance artist, Leonardo Da Vinci, is ....
 * 2) This painting, by Leonardo Da Vinci, is...
 * 3) This painting is a portrait of Lisa del Giocondo, made in ca. 1500 ...

The point being that Leonardo shouldn't be "introduced" as someone who happened to have made it...

For the reader, "he is the man"... he's more interesting and more important than the work...

- -

The absurd situation is definitely owing to the art dealer approach...

here's something that is worth a lot of money... and it has a story.. a creator, etc...

sorry for the length :)

but this is the "talk" section, right ? :)

Peter

&#45;-peter.josvai (talk) 20:31, 13 March 2024 (UTC)