Talk:Portrait Diptych of Dürer's Parents

Diptych or pendant?
The history doesn't make much sense. They were created as a diptych and later separated but the mother's portrait was probably created later as a pendant? It claims that hers was likely to have been painted later "when she would have been between 37 and 40" but if they married when he was 40 and she was 15 she'd already be 38 when he had his painted. Yomangani talk 18:18, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll raise this at WP:Visual arts. Perhaps they could address this issue.-- Lenticel ( talk ) 01:24, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The word "later" may be causing some confusion; apparently the portraits were painted within months of each other, not years, and at least one source says Barbara's portrait dates from 1489/90. The reported ages are correct if both portraits date from about 1490: Albrecht Dürer the elder was born in 1427 and Barbara (née Holper) was born in 1452. Ewulp (talk) 03:44, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I have more on this to add, the mother portrit is at most a year or two later, maybe a month or two, but's not knon. The father portrait was painted early in 1490, so she was prob 37 at that time. Ceoil  08:13, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
 * O and thanks for the look. I have Anzelewsky on pdf if anybody wants a copy, send an email.  Ceoil  08:20, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
 * You should probably expand that explanation of the uncertainty: "later" doesn't really cut it (especially there is all the stuff about their relative ages which implies he needed to wait until she was older to paint her). The other question was over diptych or pendant: they aren't the same thing. Yomangani talk 02:16, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Sources indicate that either he waited or that he painted her older than she was. She certainly looks older than 37. The 1514 drawing also contradicts, given it shows her at 63. The main source is very archaic in its writing and, frankly, confusing, so I'm treading slowly. Ceoil  02:14, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Comments
I copyedited this as requested, and have some additional questions and suggestions. I referred extensively to the GNM pages on the two works (father and mother). They are of course in Italian, so I had to rely on my pitiful Latin and the powers of Google translation, but I think I've picked up on a few areas that could use minor expansion.
 * The images' sizes should be mentioned in prose too, not just in the captions in the lead. Further, is there anything more to the GNM's comments on the images' "large size"?
 * Agreed...wait... Ceoil (talk) 03:56, 5 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Can we define 'pendant', with a footnote if necessary?
 * Done Ceoil (talk) 03:56, 5 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Would it be possible to settle on "Albrecht the elder" or "Durer the elder" consistently?
 * Done Ceoil (talk) 03:56, 5 October 2013 (UTC)


 * In describing Anzelewsky's connection, we say the mother's "panel could be associated in tone, theme and size with the London work". Am I missing a time when one of the works was in London, or is this meant to be 'the Florence work'?
 * Eek. Clarified that. Ceoil (talk) 03:56, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

More as I think of it. Maralia (talk) 15:49, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The prose and image captions repeatedly describe the images as "oil on oak panel", yet in the Lost diptych section we have "canvases mounted on pine panel". They are both technically oil on canvas mounted on panels (two each), yes? A little digging at GNM turned up that the mother's panels have been analyzed & determined to be pine, while the father's have not been analyzed and are deemed only 'softwood'. Is this documented elsewhere?
 * GNM says "apparently Durer originally planned only a portrait of the father, which might explain the mother's positioning on the 'wrong' left". Any more sources on these two issues?
 * GNM says infrared examination of the father's panel showed a background of room with arched windows and countryside views under the green paint; the mother's panel showed 'no sign in the background'. Do other sources address this?

Another item: Thank you so much for these and for the copyedit. GNM is a great find, am digging around. Ceoil (talk) 18:54, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I noticed the question of the identity of 'Imhoff' came up in the peer review. He was apparently Willibald Imhoff, the grandson of Willibald Pirckheimer; there is more info in the corresponding German article. Maralia (talk) 22:45, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I saw you hadn't been around for a few days, so I started hunting on JSTOR and elsewhere. Have found answers to some of my questions, and a few new insights. Will try to make some sense of my notes to share soon. Maralia (talk) 19:06, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Not a fun week at work, thats for sure, though was peaking through my fingers. Ive been through JSTOR a fair few times, but perhalps have been using the wrong search terms. Ceoil (talk) 19:14, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
 * For the record, we are working through these, helped by from Victoria. Ceoil (talk) 03:35, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Are the quotes a little long? I'm half thinking of trimming them down. Thanks for the copyedits bty. Ceoil (talk) 16:03, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
 * They are a bit long; probably a good idea. I am digging into Barbara's panel's history a bit, to come up with something to say about its 'lost' years. Maralia (talk) 17:09, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Ok will do. I'm very interested to read what you find, and hope you incorporate directly. I'm getting so much more help here than I expected. Its great. Ceoil (talk) 17:24, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

More comments
I've pulled out the current "Provenance" section and tried a modified rewrite here for a couple of reasons. 1., I wanted to fix the section about Brand Philips comparing to the later portrait of the father which I think is a hold-over from before Maralia's rewrite when the section looked like this, and doesn't mesh with my reading of her analyses (though I could be wrong!) 2., I wanted to see how it would read it if written more from the point of view of this page (the panels) and not Brand Philip's bio - and so tweaked only a little. Anyway, feel free to ignore. I have to be gone for about 2 weeks after today (might be dropping in for a small amount of editing) and so won't be around after today when you guys take this FAC. And btw, no, please don't make me part of the review! I haven't the time! or energy! Anyway, sorry for butting in and feel free to ignore this – I've always thought that analysis to be slightly hard to parse and could be very wrong. Victoria (talk) 15:37, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree that Provenance isn't there yet; it definitely needs some work. I think you previously mentioned a disparity RE comparing to the 1490 vs the 1497 father portrait, but I read right over it without processing it. Will read your rewrite now. You are never butting in; many thanks. Maralia (talk) 16:20, 28 October 2013 (UTC)