Talk:Ship of Fools (painting)

Cut from article

 * The owl in the tree is symbolic of heresy, as is the Muslim crescent on the pink banner that flies from the ship's mast.
 * The lute and bowl of cherries have erotic associations.
 * The people in the water may represent the sins of gluttony or lust.
 * The inverted funnel is symbolic of madness.
 * The large roast bird is a symbol of gluttony.  The knife being used to cut it down may be a phallic symbol or it may be symbolic of the sin of anger.
 * A monk and a nun are singing together. This has some erotic overtones  (especially with the presence of the aforementioned lute) since men and women in monastic orders were supposed to be separate.

Ceoil sláinte 02:35, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

the above is very useful content to enhance the richness of the article and should be considered to be put back in ! maybe it needs more supporting work, but it really opens up understanding of the painting ! Osip7315 (talk) 03:26, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Dürer & Brant
very interesting orginal print that shows the Dürer/Brant ship of fools that is so similar to bosch's painting ! http://special.lib.gla.ac.uk/exhibns/month/Mar2002.html 1/3 the way down "Hunterian Bn.3.9 Folio 1r opening page" Osip7315 (talk) 04:38, 13 September 2011 (UTC) better pic http://ec-dejavu.ru/c-2/carnival-1.html, you can see bosch's version is almost like a satire of Dürer's Osip7315 (talk) 05:13, 13 September 2011 (UTC)


 * "Almost" seems like the operative word, given 1) the very tenuous authorship of Dürer 2) the many possibilities for Bosch's inspiration and 3) the impossibility of establishing Bosch's acquaintance with Stultifara navis (1498) or with the 1493 frontispiece. I've added a reference to Walter Bosing's theory instead Sparafucil (talk) 03:29, 6 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Ship of Fools (satire) dates the woodcuts to 1494. This article dates the painting to 1491 - 1498, thus allowing the suggestion in that article (that the woodcut is a satire of the painting), and the suggestion in this article (that the painting is a satire of the woodcut). But this article begs the question, in what sense would the painting be a 'satire' of the published satire? Is that just a messy bit of editing or vandalism? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.200.27.15 (talk) 07:08, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

boring
This article needs to include information from scholarly studies about the people in the picture and the cultural background on why they were selected for inclusion. 100.15.129.3 (talk) 23:48, 12 October 2018 (UTC)