Talk:The Garden of Earthly Delights/Archive 3

Miro
Instead of deleting an image, please substitute a better or more suitable one. Miro's paintings are important demonstrations of Bosch's legacy and The Garden of Earthly Delights specifically and cannot be replaced or described by words alone, Thank you...Modernist (talk) 21:14, 22 June 2008 (UTC)


 * It certainly seems to be described by words well enough. I have no problem using Miro's painting in the article about the painting or the artist, but using it in something it's only tangentially related to is not needed. The article itself is quite well illustrated using free images, and it is about Bosch's triptych. Mentioning that others followed in his footsteps is plenty to convey that point, without using a nonfree image. We can always link to articles where the nonfree image is legitimately and necessarily used, but we must, by the Foundation's resolution and our own mission, keep nonfree use to a bare minimum. It's nice, but it's not critical to the article as a whole, and that is the standard. Seraphimblade Talk to me 21:58, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Didn't see this until after I reverted. As you will see above, and in the sub-page linked from the section above, all the editors bringing this article to FA have recognised the need (as is usual with FAs on paintings) to both discuss and illustrate artists and works influenced by the subject. With only one modern image shown, this article actually has fewer than comparable FAs. Johnbod (talk) 22:13, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually the Miro painting is crucial in demonstrating visually the legacy of the Bosch in contemporary or rather in Modernist terms. It's either Miro or Dali's work: that initially recognizes Bosch by paraphrase as an influence on Surrealism in the 20th century. Both Dali and Miro - saw the painting in Spain and worked out of the Bosch - introducing his work if you will; and are quite simply irreplaceable and intensely appropriate....The painting belongs in the article. This is a FA and a collaborative effort and since when does one editor make the rules? It looks like WP:IDON'TLIKEIT rather than any real understanding of the article that was a hard worked month long effort by several seasoned editors to write a great article...What about consensus, there have been a dozen great editors working on this.. Modernist (talk) 22:56, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

As the article has been under considerable scrutiny by experienced editors, who have deemed the use of the image to be valid, it needs an equal level of assessment to remove it. My own thought is that it is valid. I wouldn't describe artistic legacy as "only tangentially related". It is a major aspect of art historical studies, and words alone are not adequate to show the similarities and differences of two works. The Foundation has recognised that art articles have a necessity to include examples of non-free work in order to reach the proper standard. See also:
 * Fu
 * 7. Paintings and other works of visual art: For critical commentary, including images illustrative of a particular technique or school.
 * Fu
 * There are some works, such as important photographs, significant modern artworks, that we cannot realistically expect to be released under a free content license, but that are hard to discuss in an educational context without including examples from the media itself.

I would like to see the Dali shown as well, so that a direct comparison can be made between these two significant derivations.

 Ty  00:43, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with this; it would be unfair to predjuice Modern art with blanket copy right restrictions. Modernist might be the best person to select a Dali. Ceoil  sláinte 00:46, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

If we add the Dali, once again we need to properly reference it. Dali's The Great Masturbator apparently takes an image directly from the left panel of The Garden of Earthly Delights and turns it on its side...I'll look again for the refs that I found about it...Modernist (talk) 01:04, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmm. Thanks again for reminding me why I dont care for Dali! Ceoil  sláinte 01:11, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah - I'm not a big fan either,Clay Corrigan's on line essay Spiritual Visions p.18. We probably will need more text before we add another image. With the Dali the Legacy section does get very crowded. Modernist (talk) 01:27, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Crowded by images you mean. If we add a Dali img we need to add an appropriate amount of text to support the claim. Personally I'm not bothered if the section become long, I think its very interesting, and most relevant. Ceoil  sláinte 01:37, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Folks, all this discussion ignores the fact that it cannot stay. In answer to above, I do not and cannot make the rules. Rather, the Foundation does. The resolution clearly states that use of nonfree content must be kept to an absolute minimum. We can easily illustrate this article's subject, a work of art by Bosch, by using public-domain illustrations of that particular work. We can also quite easily state that the work influenced others in text. After all, I just conveyed that point without the use of a single image! Therefore, while perhaps nice, the images aren't needed. Nothing here can override the Foundation's regulation, so the nonfree images must and will go. Seraphimblade Talk to me 03:56, 23 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Kindly produce the regulation, or is it a Guideline that is open to interpretation? Lets see this so called Regulation that you claim is set into stone....Apparently the subtlety of meaning in this article that the illustrations provide is being trashed...because of what??..Modernist (talk) 04:35, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Can't you say it like this: "blah blah blah influenced Joan Miro's Tilled Field for blah blah blah..." No misuse of non-free images and still gets the point across. -- VegitaU (talk) 04:04, 23 June 2008 (UTC)


 * On that basis, you can say the same in every article concerned with art that uses a non-free image. However, It would severely lack as a quality article on the subject. Non-free images are only used where they would significantly help the reader's understanding, as has been judged to be the case here. That is quite legitimate, in line with Foundation guidance. My points made above quoting from the relevant guidelines have not been addressed, so I repeat them here:


 * As the article has been under considerable scrutiny by experienced editors, who have deemed the use of the image to be valid, it needs an equal level of assessment to remove it. My own thought is that it is valid. I wouldn't describe artistic legacy as "only tangentially related". It is a major aspect of art historical studies, and words alone are not adequate to show the similarities and differences of two works. The Foundation has recognised that art articles have a necessity to include examples of non-free work in order to reach the proper standard. See also:
 * Fu
 * 7. Paintings and other works of visual art: For critical commentary, including images illustrative of a particular technique or school.
 * Fu
 * There are some works, such as important photographs, significant modern artworks, that we cannot realistically expect to be released under a free content license, but that are hard to discuss in an educational context without including examples from the media itself.


 *  Ty  05:54, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

To Modernist, above: I would be happy to produce it. The resolution may be found here. Note that "This policy may not be circumvented, eroded, or ignored on local Wikimedia projects" (emphasis in original), and that use of any nonfree image must be "minimal". This is not minimal use, since text stating that Bosch's work inspired future artists is quite sufficient to convey that point. The use of nonfree images is not necessary to educate the reader that this occurred, text alone (which is free) can do so. Since text alone can convey the message, the use of the image clearly fails the first of the nonfree image criteria, which actually specifically addresses cases where text alone can adequately convey the point. It's also important to remember that, while it might be acceptable to use the images in articles specifically regarding Miro or his work, this article is not about either him or his work. It's not necessary here, and it needs to go. That's not my choice, but it is used in violation of the Foundation's resolution and our own nonfree image policy. I know that can be difficult sometimes, but we do not own articles, and sometimes must see changes made to them that we personally may not like very well. Seraphimblade Talk to me 08:00, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * You are very much mistaken indeed if you think you have "adequately conveyed the point" by text, or that, in this of all cases, that would be possible. The use of the image is perfectly compatible with the Foundation resolution. This is certainly a case where the image is "hard to discuss in an educational context without including examples from the media itself". Johnbod (talk) 13:20, 23 June 2008 (UTC)


 * To Seraphimblade Thank you for including the link to the March 23 2007 resolution, While I agree with the resolution, I completely disagree with your interpretation of it especially as it applies here. The Miro FU image is one image of twenty two. The 22:1 ratio clearly demonstrates the fact that FU imagery is Minimal here.. In addition according to EDP policy the image is clearly labeled for limited use in the article, in addition we have minimized the use of FU imagery to one, although Tyrenius requested the addition of a Salvador Dali painting and it has been added. The ratio is now 22:2. The plain truth is Visual arts articles need to illustrate examples of Visual art. We are building an encyclopedia. In my interpretation of the resolution the Miro is a minimal and necessary inclusion. In essence no - one of the greatest painters of the 20th century's paintings cannot be substituted by a few words in this case. Modernist (talk) 13:06, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Text can indeed convey the point that there was influence. What it cannot do is allow a visual comparison of the original and the influenced work, so that the reader can see for themselves the exact place of the influence and make their own evaluation of this. If I were to come across such an article as this in another context, I would expect the influenced work to be shown. This would be quite normal. To not meet such a standard of information is a failing and lessens the value of wikipedia. It is in order to maintain the standard of wikipedia to compete with other world class reference works that the Foundation has acknowledged some use of non-free images is necessary; visual art was specifically cited as one such area. I think Sb has the interpretation wrong in this instance, particularly in the light of its examination at FU level, and the continued support for the image(s) by editors, who are familiar both with the external expectations in the art world and also wikipedia requirements.  Ty  01:21, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Transfer

 * A small point, maybe we sould transfer the discussion here to this page, and have the sub-page deleted. I hadn't know sub-pages in main space are discouraged. Ceoil  sláinte 00:49, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

It is technically impossible to create a sub page of an article. The slash (/) is disabled for it, so what was created was an article called "The Garden of Earthly Delights/Influence". I have now moved the contents to:
 * Talk:The Garden of Earthly Delights/Influence (draft)

There is also still in existence:
 * Talk:The_Garden_of_Earthly_Delights/Influence

It is valid to have a sub page of a talk page (which both the above pages are). I notice some of their content is duplicated on this page. I think the easiest thing might be to copy and paste whatever content you want from those two sub pages into this main talk page (making a note in the edit summaries of what is happening), and then I can delete the two sub pages. This will lose the history, but all the posts are signed and dated anyway, so GFDL is preserved. Alternatively, you might want to keep and/or archive one or both of the sub pages with the content as it currently exists.  Ty  01:38, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Could we move the page to either my or Modernist's user space eg Modernist/Influence, to keep the edit history intact? Ceoil  sláinte 01:42, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * That could be done, or they can be left where they are to keep the history intact, or there could be a merge - more complicated, but possible.  Ty  05:56, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

OK I added the Dali, with a reference and a quote...If you guys don't think it works then take it out. I'm committed to the Miro - Tilled Field; The Great Masturbator - is not my favorite painting. :) Modernist (talk) 01:59, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Modernist, your favourite Dali could do with a more substantial caption summary, if you get a chance ;0 Ceoil  sláinte 21:08, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

NeverEnding Story?
The Ivory Tower looks exactly like the pink towers in the center and left panels. Coincidence?Youtube Clip69.243.192.96 (talk) 23:26, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh well spotted - no I don't think its a coincidence at all. God, I used to love that film when I were a lad ;) (  Ceoil  sláinte 17:39, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Brakhage
Is it of no interest that Stan Brakhage, the film artist, was inspired enough by this painting to give one of his pieces the same name? A fantastic piece, too, I might add. MalignantMouse (talk) 01:29, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Him and many others. Do you think he is significant enought to include? (  Ceoil  sláinte 01:37, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I really don't think I know enough about the field of art in general or art history to make a judgment about that. But I've heard of him, so that's something. I figured I'd bring it to the fore and see if contributors more knowledgeable than myself might chime in. I certainly wouldn't be offended if it were deemed not significant. So... anyone? MalignantMouse (talk) 03:52, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Check this edit
This edit needs to be checked; it was probably an ellipsis. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 01:49, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

and this one
this edit puzzled me so I deleted the [...], why was that placed there?.Modernist (talk) 02:50, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Someone did that in the last few days; I had to correct several of their edits, so I wouldn't worry about it. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 02:52, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Grisaille?
" The panels are painted in oil, the exterior panels of the shutters being in grisaille." According to the link, grisaille refers to something executed in monochrome, sort of like a sepia photograph (although gisaille can presumaby be any other two colors, not just white and black). Given that definition plus the picture, this statement makes no sense. Is it intended to refer to the reverse of the panels, not the "exterior"? Or are they talking about the framing pieces? Someone should investigate this (if needed) and it should be clarified. I did not change it because I assumed it needed investigation and clarification, rather than assuming my presumption of "reverse" as correct, as it appears on the surface.

The pink 'fountain' in the left panel...
Is there any discussion/interpretation of this feature? To my mind it is 'lobsterish', with a definite 'face' between the two 'arms.' - As a matter of fact the more I look at the images the more convinced I become that there is an extensive subtext concealed in the landscape imagery. For example, the landscape on the right-hand exterior shutter is fairly conventional whereas on the left-hand shutter it includes some of the fantastic vegetation repeated in the triptych. I'd appreciate any further information or reading anyone could point me to on this subject. Thank you, Shir-El   too  12:35, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

== GardenED.jpg ==

The image is a bit soft, as if it has been downsized without resharpening. I've done a sharpening job on it, but until the image comes off the front page I can't replace it. If someone with more rights can then the new file is Image:GardenED edit1.jpg Mfield (talk) 15:44, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Non sequitur

 * Bosch reproduces a scene from Martin Schongauer's engraving Flight into Egypt.[83]

The above line is a non sequitur in the article - was some text removed from the article that explains what it means? Tempshill (talk) 16:35, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Corrigan
Does the Corrigan quotation strike anyone else as not the best representation of scholarly consensus? In particular, it seems to assume an overly simplistic explanation of Bosch's religious and philosophical views, especially in comparison to Franger. --Quadalpha (talk) 21:25, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Jim Corrigan is the Spectre —Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.9.225.182 (talk) 22:50, 14 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Okay ... and now a real comment? --Quadalpha (talk) 06:13, 16 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Corrigan's essay is presented exactly as it is - his researched opinion. He is not presented as an art historical authority, or as an expert on Bosch or the early Renaissance; his comments are quoted and he is cited for his published commentary on Dali and The Garden of Earthly Delights...Modernist (talk) 11:00, 16 July 2008 (UTC)


 * If he is not an art historical authority or a Bosch expert, then it seems the only reason he is quoted here is because he mentions Dali and Garden. To compound the problem, he is being quoted next to art historians, without any indication that he isn't one. Moreover, his quoted commentary seems to be on the one hand unsophisticated with respect to Bosch, and on the other offensive with respect to Dali (seriously, "He has confronted demons with much larger horns than Dali."?). Lastly, I don't think this sentence has a place in the article: "May we only hope that in this generation our artists and our church will address the concrete and invisible evils of our world with as much creativity." --Quadalpha (talk) 01:41, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * It is specified that he is an "author". There is no obligation to restrict references to certified "art historians" (however they might be defined). Any  reliable source is valid, though it may be advisable to indicate the nature of it. Whether or not Corrigan is a RS, I don't have the knowledge to comment.  Ty  02:11, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * And it's not our place to make judgements of sophistication or offensiveness as regards sources. That is up to the reader to decide for themselves.  Ty  03:40, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * As I said Corrigan's article is fairly cited.....No one made a claim or attempted to make a claim that Corrigan was or wasn't the last word on either Dali or Bosch, however I absolutely, positively disagree with the assessment that the following sentence has no place in the article - May we only hope that in this generation our artists and our church will address the concrete and invisible evils of our world with as much creativity. The sentence has a clear place in the article and is presented as published opinion and is both relevant and intelligently articulated. Modernist (talk) 03:31, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay, let me leave aside all other arguments for now and rephrase this way: Is it not slightly misleading that Corrigan is quoted here at length when all the other sources in the section are, I assume, recognised art historians? Also, intentionally or not, the Corrigan quotation is pretty much the "last word" on Dali and Bosch in the article. --Quadalpha (talk) 17:47, 17 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh, and lastly, the phrasing "In Corrigan's words" seems to imply to me that the article agrees with Corrigan's assessment and is therefore borrowing his exact words. --Quadalpha (talk) 17:50, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with Ty that it is not our role to grade reliable sources into level of quality. And I just can't see any validity in the argument that there is significance to the quotation being the "last word" (what does that mean in this context anyway; the article is not an argument) and to be honest your prefacing that claim with "intentionally or not" smacks of bad faith and ironically makes me question your own motives. Also, "In Corrigan's words" is a benign phrase, no different to the more usual "According to", and it in no way implies that the writer agrees or has any openion with the substance of the quotation. In fact the phrase has a distancing effect. (  Ceoil  sláinte 19:17, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Quadal, this mightn't hold any water with you, but look at both archives above to see the amount of careful thought, research and effort that went into building that section. It was not lightly thrown together. (  Ceoil  sláinte 19:21, 17 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't think it would be productive to start suspecting each other of bad faith. I did look through the archives for mentions of Corrigan, but didn't find any; perhaps I should look through again. I have no doubt that much care was expended on that section, but I was just pointing out that to me, reading through the article entire for the first time, that part struck me as jarring, and that is all. I readily admit that I have not been following the article at all before it was FA. While I don't agree with some of what you (ceoil) said about the semantics, I'm sure it won't be difficult to find an acceptable compromise. Thoughts? --Quadalpha (talk) 19:52, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with your last point; I'm sure this can be resolved if we work together; your a fresh pair of eyes, and to be honest both myself and Modernist have are green eyed from this article! Let me have another read through the section-last time I read it was about a month ago, when I was after near two full months working on the page. Anyway, then I'll get back to you. Fair? (  Ceoil  sláinte 20:17, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I trimmed the quote. The first half was resonable, but the last few statements were only conjecture. (  Ceoil  sláinte 20:28, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

That looks good for now. I looked up the article and found that his name is actually Corrigan Clay. Changes made. --Quadalpha (talk) 00:03, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

By the way, does anyone know more about the article? Is it in a journal somewhere? --Quadalpha (talk) 00:21, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Google it, maybe, or what ever. Enough already. (  Ceoil  sláinte 00:33, 18 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Without seeming to harp on and on, I would just like to make sure it is a reliable source. The citation provided here seems to be self-published. --Quadalpha (talk) 06:14, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh; thats a different matter. No pulisher info on the pdf - might have to start searching for a new source, I think. (  Ceoil  sláinte 20:16, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Clay's article is well researched, it's not self-serving, it's not over the top, it's useful and perhaps an opinion, it is a reasonable opinion about Bosch and relatively contemporary art; that is usually not written about by more conventional authors of the 1950s and earlier. The article is a good source. This critique of it sounds to me like WP:IDON'TLIKEIT and frankly I think the essay is a reasonable source. There are always exceptions....I don't have any problem with the essay. WP:IAR applies - it's good information...Modernist (talk) 20:29, 18 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Firstly, I'm sure we'll be able to find some source linking Dali and Bosch. We just need to find someone at an academic institution with access to JSTOR or something similar. And secondly, I admit that Modernist is almost right about my not liking the article; my objection is more specifically about its presentation in the page. Leaving aside RS technicalities for now, Clay's analysis seem coloured by religiously orthodox interpretations, which would be perfectly fine with me if such information was included in the text framing the quotation ("Clay, who held the view that ..."). This is important especially because in the preceding text (for example, "Interpretations"), alternative hypotheses are put forth, showing that the issue of Bosch's moralities is one on which there is not yet scholarly consensus. Lastly, the purpose of the Clay quotation in the article is just to have someone to cite for the Bosch-Dali link, which, if absolutely no better sources can be found, would be amply demonstrated with just a citation and not a block quotation that also includes analysis already (and better) done in the preceding text. So, in conclusion, I think the best solution would be to look for another source, but a compromise would be alright. --Quadalpha (talk) 00:04, 19 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh, and please don't take anything I say personally. I am aware that I don't have much invested in this page, and that I've been known to enjoy my rhetoric too much. :) --Quadalpha (talk) 00:07, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Don't worry Quadalpha, nothing is personal here, its just business. I agree with the substance of whats left from the quote, but it just fails RS, and well that is that. Shame, but well, worse things happen at sea. Move on. (  Ceoil  sláinte 00:34, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm posting here so we can tidy up at a later date when we are less jaded by the page:

However these artists held very different world views from Bosch, and the writer Fèlix Fanés observed that while Bosch's starting point was "medieval theology and a literal belief in the afterlife", the surrealists sought to destroy "the barriers, both physical and physic, between the conscious and the unconscious mind." The French critic Roger Caillios examined the correlation in symbolism between Dali and Bosch, and found much commonality. In particular he drew attention to the device of a woman impaled on the strings of a musical instrument, a motif which he believes Dali borrowed from center ground of The Garden's right panel.

Author Corrigan Clay points out Salvador Dali's almost direct quotation of the large yellow face-like object along the central left border in the middle of the left panel of The Garden of Earthly Delights in his painting The Great Masturbator 1929. Clay wrote:

"Ultimately, Hieronymus Bosch has been employed by the very vices he fought against. To think that his most famous fan from modern movements would be Salvador Dali! Hieronymus Bosch, the pre-Reformation moralist, would roll over in his grave to know that an image from one of his paintings would be high jacked for a work called, The Grand Masturbator. But who knows, Bosch seems well equipped to face up to the offenses of this world." (  Ceoil  sláinte 00:42, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Pre-Internet Freakiness
I couldn't help but notice, in the middle panel, a person (appears male) with a bouquet of flowers... in their anus. Along with a man standing next to them with more flowers in his hands. Just goes to show that we never needed the internet or film to be freaks. 216.187.149.142 (talk) 14:03, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * He; there's worse there than that, if you look closely! (  Ceoil  sláinte 20:23, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Renaissance Artist?
During the Renaissance, weren't artists using a more realistic feel, perspectives, shadows, etc. and deviate from medieval ideas? Because this painting looks seriously medieval. See medieval art. 76.232.48.94 (talk) 02:44, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

New material
Dear Modernist I don't understand why you deleted my modest addition to the outer wing segment, saying it was unreferenced. I named the book, [ The secret heresy of hieronymus bosch' that was the source. What do you mean by unreferenced?


 * It's considered rude not to sign your remarks..you do that by four of these tildes in a row..This thread should be moved to the bottom of the page; that's how it's done...You made an unreferenced addition to a featured article that was worked on for months by seasoned editors - you placed someone's book and your WP:POV into a section that was labored over by many editors and your addition did not belong there..If you want to elucidate people about that book perhaps start another article - this article is about a painting. By the way - I'm moving this to the bottom of the page..because that is the correct form when adding to a talk page, and I'm planning on giving you a template to aid in your editing...Modernist (talk) 22:11, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Hello- I have been researching this painting and wikipedia page is very informative; however, in one section it is stated that the center pannel displays "sexually engaged nude figures". There has been on going debates as to if there actually is any sexual activity in the paintings composition or if the painting simply displays a time before indeacent exposure exisited. With this in mind I encourage further research and the exemption of that sentence in the wiki. - Julian —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.100.152.86 (talk) 22:39, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * References are always welcome regarding those unattributed ongoing debates.  Litho  derm  20:32, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

New ultra-high resolution image available on Google Earth
The Prado and Google have placed 14 of the museum's most famous paintings on Google Earth in the highest resolution possible. See here for more. --Bobak (talk) 21:03, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Picture replacement time?
Turns out there's a wonderful image of the painting at Commons: - perhaps the colors aren't as bright (?), but the level of detail is just about perfect, in my opinion. I wonder if we should change the links? --Jashiin (talk) 16:23, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Nice find; I've made the change. Thanks. Ceoil (talk) 20:24, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

The Exterior again
I know I got told off for seeking to insert a different reading of the exterior but reading what's there I realise I might want to return to this subject. If the God in the top left corner is not a heretical image of a supposedly all powerful Creator I don't know what is, and in the text itself it says he looks, on the third day !,  as if his Creation is  ' already slipping beyond his control.'! Doesn't say an awful lot for his powers does it ? I think the view of Bosch as a heretic and a painter of heretical paintings does deserve being given some space in the article. Neutrality can't mean weighting the article against some interpretations, but just saying..there's this interpretation, and this, and this, etc..so long as any reading is backed up with good arguments. The Creation, on the exterior looks pretty horrible and that has theological repercussions which I think are relevant to the sort of painting Bosch ended up practising Sayerslle (talk) 23:00, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Everything you say may or not be so..Frankly I don't agree with your interpretation. You have a POV..not everyone shares. Please achieve consensus here before you turn the image of G-D in the corner into an impotent imposter painted by a gimmicky heretic...Thanks...Modernist (talk) 23:09, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Modernist is correct: you cannot simply add your personal viewpoint to the article. The article isn't meant as an original critique or an interpretation of the painting (please see our policy on original research) but instead offers an overview of scholarly opinions and research on the topic. Kafka Liz (talk) 01:07, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Blimey, I get so annoyed. Kafka Liz is incorrect in believing I would simply be 'adding my personal viewpoint' or an 'original critique' ! that's absurd. The article as it stands, for all that Modernist says - 'it's about a painting, not a book' mentions, quite rightly, the views and understandings of Boschs art gleaned from many books. All I would seek to be adding, to make the overview completer would be the views of another writer who has carried out years of research, namely Lynda Harris. As it stands the article is kind of internally inconsistent, if it maintains a painter with orthodox beliefs in an omnipotent and beneficent god painted it,and yet is happy to admit it looks here as if the (horrible looking) Creation, ' is slipping beyond his control.' I feel like I'm facing a cabal here. Modernist has his own POV too you know and a tendentious use of language. 'G-D', 'gimmicky', whats all that about if not POV? Probably I wont seek to add anything then but if I do I repeat it wont be 'original research' or my 'personal point of view' Kafka Liz, get it right, and if i do I'll put it on this page first and if it is judged o.k then .o.kSayerslle (talk) 12:31, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I see no problem with including a single passing mention of Harris - but no more. Her theory is similar to Fränger's - Bosch was a member of a sect (Adamites according to Fränger, Cathars according to Harris), which explains the painting. Why a heretical painting was displayed in public and why church authorities commissioned heretical paintings is not a subject discussed by Fränger or Harris. They both have no arguments whatsoever other than highly subjective interpretations of certain things in certain paintings. This whole "heretical sect" idea used to be popular in the past, when we knew little about the painting, but now that we know who owned it and that it was displayed in public, it really becomes quite ridiculous: the church commissioning paintings from a heretic? And allowing heretical paintings to be displayed in public? A heretic enjoying a great financial position, becoming a popular painter and being a member of an extremely conservative religious group? Yeah, right. But like I said, I guess something along the lines of "Scholar Lynda Harris also suggests Bosch was a member of a sect." would do no harm. --Jashiin (talk) 13:32, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

But then Jashiin, the fact that you look at the outer panel and see nothing odd or heretical, and that I look at it and do see heresy, is maybe part of the answer of how Bosch was not seen by orthodox believers as painting anything heretical. I haven't got Harris book on me but I remember she pointed out in The Epiphany (Bosch triptych) behind the stable, a monkey on an ass - you may see nothing odd or heretical in that but I do.Sayerslle (talk) 14:23, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Sayerslle, can you put together a short para here, an overview with cites and we can take a look and evaluate. Ta. Ceoil (talk) 20:18, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

O.K. That's fair enough. In a couple of months then I'll put my short paragraph on this page. I want to re-read Harris book, make sure I don't let her down or misrepresent her.Sayerslle (talk) 21:16, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Sayerslle, there is no need to adopt such a combative tone with me, as you did above. I was responding to your post at the head of this thread, where you made no mention of a book but instead heavily emphasised your opinion on the depiction of God and the implications it held regarding his power. Your name does not appear anywhere in the edit history of the article or the talk page prior to this thread, you'll have to forgive me for having overlooked edits you made as an IP. I assume that this is the post you're referring to? If so, I might point out that Ms. Harris' book is published by a press that specialises in children's literature and that is has received no reviews in the type of peer-reviewed journals that would qualify it as a reliable source. I'm not even sure it fits the bill as a notable fringe theory. Kafka Liz (talk) 23:54, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

'The combative tone' is just how I deal with edit disagreements. I've given myself a couple of months to try and write a paragraph and maybe I'll try and read a little more widely than just the Harris book. As for its publisher not being respected by academics that doesnt perturb me in the least. The world is too impressed with all that stuff, imprimaturs and the like are so much straw to the heretic spirit! I just read a book and then make my own mind up as to its merits. As Malcolm Muggeridge said, 'some of the greatest buffoons I've ever met have had university degrees.'Sayerslle (talk) 01:15, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep in mind it may or may not be included in this article...mostly depending on consensus, which was how this article has been created so far...Modernist (talk) 01:21, 28 February 2009 (UTC)


 * While we're at it, I don't know when " The triptych depicts several biblical and heretical scenes on a grand scale " crept into the lead, but this seems way too emphatic to me, plus very poor English. If we are accusing him of heresy, which one, or what heretical views? I could also live without Hans Belting & his rather eccentric view of what a "true tripych" must contain. I think "The triptych was probably intended to illustrate the history of mankind according to medieval Christian doctrine." covers the ground for the 1st para fine. Johnbod (talk) 01:21, 28 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Sayerslle, just put together your argument, with cites and well talk from there. Ceoil (talk) 01:27, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Wow, Modernist deleted practically every thing I wrote on a few of the Bosch paintings. Modernist, you may know about art, but about the history of religious ideas? I think you are a vindictive, extremely biased, unnecessarily provocative blank. You are all a cosy little cabal and you make me sick but you've cured me from wanting to contribute to the territory you controlSayerslle (talk) 16:53, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Your edits are from the same narrow, anti-semitic, anti-Bosch, source; those articles and comments were all tagged by several editors; that follow a single point of view and an obsession with a book by Lynda Harris; you can also refrain from your personal attacks - per WP:NPA.. Modernist (talk) 17:04, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Not everyone throughout history had a high opinion of The Old Testament. Not every painter, not every thinker etc. To point that out is not anti semitism .It's dumb to think it is; when you write G-D the heart of Pharisaism beatsSayerslle (talk) 18:34, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Let's be clear - this comment - Please achieve consensus here before you turn the image of G-D in the corner into an impotent imposter painted by a gimmicky heretic...Thanks... -

was tongue in cheek...God in the corner - I am not a religious person on any level, hey big deal..but - your so-called expert on Bosch - who left few records, few paintings, and you are adding an interpretation - not fact - not information that can be verified - only Harris's opinion...however learned a scholar she might be - it's somewhat inflammatory and duh anti-semitic, and controversial, good for selling her book, - new spin on old artist...., then you come along, you read her book and decide to spread her word like it's gospel on every page that you can find with a painting by Bosch, like it's the most important truth, that frankly cannot be verified.... Modernist (talk) 18:58, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Then you come along... you are very condescending and its dead annoying which I guess is calculated...'you write about this book on every page that you can find  with a painting by Bosch'...er no you lying liar. Did I write about it on every page I could find with a painting by Bosch. No. Still, the facts don't bother you do they? If you are not religious in any way how are you qualified to know what youre talking about with art with religious preoccupations? Dislike of the Old Testament is not duh anti-semitic. Simone Weil didnt care for it and she was duh jewish.I'm off to watch Leeds UnitedSayerslle (talk) 19:25, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I stopped you before you could get to every Bosch painting, with all your multiple IPs..lets be truthful...you did 4 or 5 and you were working on this one, and I stopped you..you would have moved to others had I not stopped you..I also asked for other opinions and all those that you wrote on were tagged and commented upon by others, not just me...I may not be religious but I know when something is offensive..Modernist (talk) 19:34, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

'I stopped you..' you would have moved on to others had I not stopped you..' Christ. If you've never read The Old Testament how can you trust yourself to see when Bosch might be denigrating it? As one of your mates pointed out it's old hat, people very early on thought Bosch didn't look exactly orthodox, it's an old theory, - anyway I'd need Derek and Clive with me to carry on disputing with youSayerslle (talk) 12:40, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmm, Derek and Clive, you know I met those two guys, a long time ago....they were very funny..to say the least...Modernist (talk) 12:44, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

You've met everyone. You know everything. You've deleted everything I wrote, you mean minded person. You make me feel like Father Jack Hackett in the presence of the superi-ah Noel Coward.Sayerslle (talk) 13:09, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Don't know those guys, who said that I never read the Old Testament by the way?...You know - I don't make you feel anything, you do that all by yourself. My complaint is your exclusive reliance on one very recent book...Modernist (talk) 13:18, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Have you read The Old Testament. Honestly.Sayerslle (talk) 13:33, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * You know you deleted your own comments here:The Seven Deadly Sins and the Four Last Things the other day as an IP. I restored your comments..then you deleted them again as User:Sayerslle, and then you blanked your own user page - because you were overwrought? Lighten up...Modernist (talk) 13:40, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

What I don't understand is why you are consistently picking on me, what's at stake. It's not as if what you deleted was utterly ludicrous when you looked at the paintings, like in the christ crowned with thorns, what harm was the stuff I wrote doing. The book isn't really very recent. 13 years old, its cogent and interesting and she herself cites plenty of other authorities and writers....I can't lighten up, cos you wind me up..like when you say 'let's be honest  you would've..' But let us be honest...is annoying because I am, it was you that wrote the lie that Id written on every page I could find. Why did you lie. overwrought?Sayerslle (talk) 13:49, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Sayerslle,

what Modernist is trying to get across is that (a) Harris is not the only book on Bosch, and (b) furthermore, it is not, by any stretch of imagination, definitive in any way (i.e. it is not frequently cited by other researchers, it is comparatively recent, etc.). Her book describes what is currently a fringe theory: that Bosch was a Cathar, and that the unorthodox imagery in his paintings stems from Cathar symbols. There is nothing wrong with including Harris' point of view in any article on a Bosch painting, but, as the page I just linked explains, I quote, "Wikipedia describes significant opinions in its articles, with representation in proportion to their prominence." In other words, you can add anything from Harris as long as you (a) include a description of interpretations according to standard scholarship and (b) make sure Harris does not get represented better than the sources currently considered standard. As I have said above, a mention of Harris' theory in this particular article (i.e. The Garden of Earthly Delights) would be acceptable, since this article covers much of standard interpretations. However, articles such as The Seven Deadly Sins and the Four Last Things are too short, and when you simply add large paragraphs on Harris to them, it misleads readers into thinking that her interpretation is standard and accepted by most, which it is not. A partial solution is to post messages to such articles' talk pages, i.e. describe Harris point of view there, so that in the future, when someone starts expanding the article, they're aware of her theories and take them into account when expanding.

--Jashiin (talk) 14:43, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

The thing is Catch 22, like on say christ crowned with thorns where the article was practically nothing there,, then to give Harris views a chance takes half a page, and then sneering lying Modernist type people can remove it saying its out of proportion to the prominence of the views expressed The articles were tagged as unbalanced so how could they mislead readers. Modernists scorched earth policy in regard to Harris is over the top, and I have no confidence that anything I seek to write will be treated fairly by a lying, supercilious mean mean sob,  the dark heart of a mob. The thing is Modernist wiped the wayfarer, christ crowned with thorns and john the baptist and the articles were doing no harm, probably totally unread anyway, and he  goes out of his way to kick them in.That's it ,finishSayerslle (talk) 15:33, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Jesus
"Detail from the left hand panel, showing Christ anointing Eve before she is presented to Adam". Christ? In Genesis? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.131.205.119 (talk) 16:16, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Jesus is considered both the Son of God and God himself in Christianity. Jesus is God in the flesh. He is depicted as the God talked about in the beginning of Genesis, who walked in the Garden of Eden. - Cyborg Ninja  04:51, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Mussel shell
In the Hieronymus_Bosch_037.jpg image, there seems to be a man in the mussel shell and another leg, probably of another person, and it's depicted pointed downwards while the man's feet are pointed up. The caption for the image in the article says there's a man in the shell, but doesn't mention anyone else. Is there any more info that we know about who's in that shell, and what it means? I don't know much about Bosch, but I was just curious. - Cyborg Ninja  04:51, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Given the rest of the painting's content, I'd say it's a fairly straightforward case of two people having a frolic inside a mussel shell. There are some pearls in there with them too, if you look closely. I don't have my Bosch books immediately to hand, but bivalve shellfish in art generally connote female sexuality. In Classical art, Venus is frequently portrayed on a shell, as she is in the Renaissance painting The Birth of Venus. There are also those who see a visual similarity between shellfish and female genitalia. So in a nutshell (as it were), the whole thing is just more sexual decadence. Kafka Liz (talk) 10:19, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

References as to passage of time between panels 1 and 2
Wouldn't the presence of black people indicate a significant period of time had elapsed, for melanin levels to change in the skin? I've heard that there was a belief held that black people came about as the result of Cain's actions outside of the Garden of Eden. I don't know if that was a more modern interpretation though, but I would be interested if anyone could find commentary to that effect. 92.0.138.3 (talk) 13:58, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

High resolution image
I have uploaded a higher resolution image. It comes from Google Earth. Please let me know if you find any stitching artifacts. AxelBoldt (talk) 16:20, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Images for inclusion on rotation


Phallic symbol

"On a tree to the right a snake curls around a tree trunk, while to its right a mouse creeps—both animals are universal phallic symbols." I don't see any mouse, but a lizard instead; in fact, I don't see any mouse-like creature in the left panel. Is there any mis-typing?

Mirrordor 02:24, 20 October 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mirrordor (talk • contribs)

Phallic symbols.

"On a tree to the right a snake curls around a tree trunk, while to its right a mouse creeps—both animals are universal phallic symbols".

I don't see any mouse or mouse-like creature anywhere in the left panel; I see a lizard instead. Is there a typo here?

Mirrordor 02:30, 20 October 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mirrordor (talk • contribs)

Matthew Collings
Matthew Collings is discussing this painting on 23 October 2010 BBC2. Will he say it has a gnostic heretic message? the suspense. Sayerslle (talk) 20:04, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * No, he didn't. Zut. He dated it 1505 and said van Eyck's Ghent Altarpiece was an influence on the painting. Sayerslle (talk) 13:20, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I leave ye guys alone to trash this one out. Have fun! Ceoil (talk) 19:37, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * He's arguing with himself - probably Irish. Johnbod (talk) 23:44, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Thats been known to happen. I have a lot of time for Collings though -and increasingly less for you Johnbod, rampant irishist- would be an interesting doc to have seen. Sayerslle if it gets a repeat can you let me know. Ceoil (talk) 09:32, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Will do . Sometimes series like this make it to DVD. Private life of a Masterpiece did. Cheers. Sayerslle (talk) 10:23, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * This Is Modern Art made it to DVD. Its a bit brash, but worth while. Ceoil (talk) 11:04, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Buckethead - Spokes On The Wheel Of Torment
Should it be listed in legacy that Buckethead did a music video (Spokes On The Wheel Of Torment) based on this painting? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.16.35.253 (talk) 17:03, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Nah, maybe on the Bucketheadpage that would be fine. Ceoil (talk) 17:09, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

15:47, 26 January 2011 (UTC)Thom1516 (talk)

dating
The English, Spanish, Catalan and Italian texts on this item are all featured articles. Yet the English version is the only one that still has 1503-1504 as the most likely date of the painting. Please read the following article: http://www.jheronimusbosch-artcenter.nl/gfx/content/vermet.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thom1516 (talk • contribs) 15:10, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

The Prado dates the painting: 1500-1505, this article says 1503-1504, close enough; the articles that say 1480-1490 appear to be incorrect...Modernist (talk) 16:52, 26 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Bernard Vermet is the co-author of Hieronymus Bosch. The Complete Paintings and Drawings (ISBN 0-8109-6735-9), so he's quite an authority on Bosch. In this book he also states that according to him the Garden of Earthly delights was probably painted between 1480 and 1490 and he gives several arguments. I think it's worth it to review this publication and incorporate it into this article. I don't think you can speak in terms of correct and incorrect. After all the date given by the Prado is an assumption too. Vincent Steenberg (talk) 20:00, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The Prado owns the painting, I prefer to defer to them...Modernist (talk) 20:34, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

The Dutch wikitext too gives 1480-1490. In the recent article I mentioned (on line for less than a month)Vermet suggests the painting was initiated in or shortly after 1481, when Engelbrecht II of Nassau attended the Chapter of the Knights of the Golden Fleece in ’s-Hertogenbosch. (Sorry for not signing; no idea how I should do that). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thom1516 (talk • contribs) 22:43, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I was hoping a native speaker would add info about the by now widely, though not yet generally accepted earlier dating, but I gave it a try myself. Please check my English.Thom1516 (talk) 22:50, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

" ...casted new light on the commissioning of a work... " The past tense of cast is cast, not casted. I have changed this to the correct form. I'm sorry about pointing it out, as it's a minor edit, but this is a pet peeve of mine and really sets me off for some reason, and I see it FAR too often, usually in the form of how someone "casted a spell" or a television show was "broadcasted across the world." Anyway, sorry, not really a big deal I guess, but it really annoys me and I try to point it out whenever I can so that the people who don't seem to understand the correct form will learn better. I'll shut up now. RyokoMocha (talk) 20:56, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

File:The Garden of Earthly Delights by Bosch High Resolution.jpg to appear as POTD soon
Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:The Garden of Earthly Delights by Bosch High Resolution.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on December 19, 2011. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2011-12-19. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :) Thanks!  howcheng  {chat} 19:58, 16 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the heads up...Modernist (talk) 21:06, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Wo ho! Ceoil (talk) 22:32, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Arbutus unedo
Martin, first of all thanks for the copy edit, much appreciated. Second, re the strawberry tree, we can source it to here. And the there is a nice little fact there about its origional Spanish title - La Pintura del Madrono (The Painting of the Strawberry [Tree]) ;) Ceoil (talk) 22:03, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes indeed. I was literally just looking myself at Arbutus unedo and reading "A she-bear and a madroño (strawberry tree) are the symbol of Madrid". So was this just 16th Century Madrid-centrism? Those giant single fruits do look very much like real strawberries, don't they, despite the clearly rendered tree. If you're really interested you may wish to visit, as I have, this! Martinevans123 (talk) 22:19, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Argh, and I was in Summerset 12 months ago! I have some of the books used lying around here somewhere, I'll dig them out and might expand a section on this. Thanks again and keep on going! Ceoil (talk) 22:27, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I shall. But I note that the source you give, in fact, says this: "It is revealling that Siguenza referred to the painting in this way, becasue it shows that either he was following reports on its contents and writing about it before he had seen it, since as a Spaniard, he could not have mistaken Bosch's giant strawberries on which his revellers are feasting for the upalletable arbuttis... " So even Marina Warner seems ambivalent about this. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:36, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Its a mythology/philospohical rather that art history book so am slow to use, and Arbutus unedo + bosch returns zilch. I'll dig out thoes other books other over the weekend, a few are dedicated to the painting, we'll see where they lead. They're somewhere in the room in at the moment, but under large piles of other books. Also Modernist or Liz might have a source or view. Ceoil (talk) 22:59, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Which sentence precisely are we looking to cite? Kafka Liz (talk) 23:20, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The image caption. Look at Martin's "hedging" edit. I'm too lazy tonight to take it on, but will tomorrow. Seriously. Ceoil (talk) 23:26, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The Prado mentions La Pintura del Madrono, but dunno if Madrono means strawberry tree or what. Note tree is brackets in the first source above. That said I not really trying very hard, so whatever. Ceoil (talk) 23:29, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * So what we need is a source addressing whether it's a strawberry or a strawberry tree fruit. Hm. I'll see what I can do, but this one's gonna be tricky. Kafka Liz (talk) 23:34, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Well not really, I think I just plucked a poor source. Ceoil (talk) 23:59, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Siguenza says: "...breve gusto de la fresa o madroño y su olorcillo..." ("...fleeting taste of the strawberry or madroño and its scent...") It's clearly the fruit not the tree, but whether he means "fleeting taste of either the strawberry (one of the Fragaria genus) or the madroño (fruit of the Arbutus unedo)" or "the fleeting taste of the strawberry or madroño (which are both names for the fruit of the Arbutus unedo)" is a bit of guesswork; that he uses "su olorcillo" in the singular suggests he means the latter, but (quite aside from being pure original research) it isn't conclusive. Bear in mind that the big red garden strawberries are a fairly modern hybrid and probably wouldn't have been around in Siguenza's or Bosch's time. Siguenza's identification isn't going to be definitive anyway - Bosch was long dead halfway across Europe by the time Siguenza was looking at it - why not say "giant red fruit"?  Yomangani talk 03:04, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm not sure it's really an art history question, as such. Although the article tells about the symbolism of cherries - what about starawberries? But yes, it might be safer not to mention any fruit species. Or even say "a red fruit with the appearance of a giant strawberry"? Maybe Bosch wanted to accentuate the unearthly feel of his painting by showing strawberries growing on trees? Or maybe he was familiar with the Arbutus unedo? Maybe both. (And what's the history behind the she-bear and a madroño as the symbol of Madrid?) Martinevans123 (talk) 09:46, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I've never heard it was a she-bear rather than just a bear of indeterminate sex, but part of the story is to be found in Coat of arms of Madrid (if you can struggle through the translation. I'll try to fix that up a bit a some point if I can work up the enthusiasm). Yomangani talk 11:32, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I see. Meanwhile, would you like to correct the coat of arms image capton in the Arbutus unedo article? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:31, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * It's ok. Ursa minor now ursa non-descriptus. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:44, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Proposal
Hello. I didn't want to edit the article because it is apparently a Featured article but I was wondering if a picture of The Great Masturbator could be added to the Legacy section (or a picture of The Garden of Earthly Delights that looks similar). As the article states, '''Comparisons have been made to Hieronymus Bosch's The Garden of Earthly Delights. The Great Masturbator is similar to an image on the right side of the left panel of the The Garden of Earthly Delights composed of rocks, bushes and little animals resembling a face with a prominent nose and long eyelashes.''' Maybe this comment could also be added to the article (properly written to meet FA requirements). Anyway, thanks and good work on the article.85.50.135.193 (talk) 23:46, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:43, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Clarity of language
The following sentence

"Generally, his work is described as a warning against lust, and the central panel as a representation of the transience of worldly pleasure."

was changed into

"Often, his work has been described as a warning against lust, and the central panel as a depiction of the passing nature of worldly pleasure."

For the following reasons:

1) "Generally" cannot be correct, because many art historians do not share this view. One of them is the cheered pop star of this article, Wilhelm Fraenger. But there are many others, more important ones, who do not share this view.

2) "Often" is a common and reasonable term for a relevant but numerically undetermined quantity.

3) Painters paint. They do not represent.

4) "Transience" is unclear in this context, mainly because the term is rarely used in spoken English. "Passing nature of worldly pleasure" is made up of common usage, straight-forward English. Of course it is abstract, as is "transience", but it is the common job of artists to depict abstract concepts.

User:Martinevans123, could you please reconsider the elimination of my edits? Agric (talk) 00:10, 7 February 2013 (UTC)


 * If there are other interpretations maybe they should be included. The rest is fine: the central panel is a representation; OED defines representation as "Something which stands for or denotes another symbolically", also as "a depiction or portrayal of a person or thing, typically one produced in an artistic medium; an image, a model, a picture". "Transience" is a common enough word; this isn't Simple English Wikipedia. Ewulp (talk) 02:09, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that I "eliminated" anything. I reverted one of your many edits here, with three questions in my edit summary, as I thought they should be discussed. I think "transience" could be linked if it had an article, but it does not. I think you'd need sources to show "often". Yes, painters paint - they can depict objects or represent ideas which are not objects. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:51, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The "other interpretations" are already in the article. It is explicitly, and at length, stated in the present version that both Belting and Fraenger have the opposite opinion. Both have been influential in the reception of this piece. Therefore it seems completely absurd to use the term "generally" here. The term "often" appears to be the most appropriate one in this situation. Is there a better one? I do what I can - but I am not totally nuts. Thank you. Agric (talk) 20:12, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Ok. Which is the predominant view? If there isn't one, why not just say "The work has been described... (is one example needed, perhaps?) Shouldn't "his work" be "this work"? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:40, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Im inclined to agree with Agric re 'generally'. Ceoil (talk) 21:20, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Edited as such. Ceoil (talk) 21:28, 7 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I claim no special expertise on Bosch, but does our article risk leaving the reader with the impression that the interpretation in question is a minority view? The "Interpretation" section gives more paragraphs to Fraenger than to what I'll call the conventional interpretation, which we are no longer describing as "most commonly accepted" or traditional or the like. The article, citing Fraenger, notes that "At various times in its history, the triptych was known as La Lujuria, The Sins of the World and The Wages of Sin". Don't the majority of contemporary sources continue to interpret the central panel in terms of lust and sin? Reliable sources available online rarely stray from this line. For example, Oxford At Online says "The central panel shows the false paradise of love, probably as the aetas aurea from Adam to Noah, to be repeated at the end of the world sub specie luxuriae (‘sicut in diebus Noe …’)." The Museo del Prado website says (google translation): "Between Heaven and Hell, these delights are but allusions to Sin, showing humanity given to the various worldly pleasures. There are obvious representations of Lust, strong erotic charge, along with other more enigmatic meaning."


 * Elliott Simon, in The Myth of Sisyphus: Renaissance Theories of Human Perfectibility (2007; p. 364) says: "the Garden is not Bosch's vision of innocent sexuality ... Bosch's bacchanalian carnival of sensuality is filled with images of perverted acts of lovemaking with naked men and women riding on the backs of horses, goats, stags, camels, bulls, and pigs. The Garden of Earthly Delights is a diatribe against excessive human depravity with numerous figures in a condition of degenerating metamorphoses. Death awaits everyone, and the progress from the garden leads to Hell with its monstrous forms." Bergin, T. G., & Speake, J. (2004), Encyclopedia of the Renaissance, has this: "The central panel portrays an alien landscape filled to capacity with nude men and women, animals, and colossal fruits. While the subject matter is presumably a denunciation of hedonism, the painting is primarily memorable for its superb decorative patterns, glowing colors, and boundless inventiveness." Note the term "hedonism" there.


 * More here, here, and here. I also found a contrary example but it took a while.


 * Bosing (2000; p. 8) says the conventional interpretation is "generally believed": "Fraenger asumes that the Garden of Earthly Delights was painted for a group of Adamites ... and that the unabashedly erotic scene of the central panel represents not a condemnation of unbridled sensuality, as is generally believed, but the religious practices of the sect ... Although most scholars object vigorously to Fraenger's thesis, it has received widespread attention in the public press ... The great appeal of this interpretation lies partly in its novelty....". Is Bosing wrong? The examples above certainly suggest that he's not wrong by much. Ewulp (talk) 07:00, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Bosing is right on the issue of Fraenger. This article is way too much Fraenger biased. But I would suggest that we fix this problem slowly and with great care. My plan is to go through to the end of the Interpretation section with minor improvements, and then add a new perspective that has appeared in the art historic literature of the very recent years. When this is done, and we have then reached a consensus on the presentation of this most recent stage in the reception of the piece, we might - slowly and cautiously - reduce the space given to Fraenger and give him the credit that we can agree he deserves. Agric (talk) 18:51, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
 * (ec) My copy of The Prado Guide (ed. Maria Dolores Jimenez Blano, 2011, page 320) says: "But Bosch was an orthodox Catholic and the eroticism of paintings like The Garden of Earthly Delights, which may surprise the initiated viewer today, should in fact be seen as a moral message, showing that people would be damned if they followed pursuits condemned by the church." For an entry in the official guide book, that seems like the generally accepted orthodox view to me. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:51, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't bet on that! Clearly Bosch's imagination is, well, a bit unusual and complex, and the meaning of his paintings can operate at a number of levels, which has long been recognised, even without bringing fringe church movements into it. You can't rely on a museum guidebook for stuff like that.  Johnbod (talk) 03:04, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not really saying we "rely" on a museum guidebook for anything. I'm just suggesting that such a source is more likely to summarise the conventional view. It seems a perfectly "reliable" source to me. But alternative interpretations are also essential, if they come from reliable sources. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:30, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Does someone of you know who made this edit in the "Interpretation"?
 * De Tolnay wrote that the center panel represents "the nightmare of humanity", where "the artist's purpose above all is to show the evil consequences of sensual pleasure and to stress its ephemeral character".

The ref is not correct. Agric (talk) 13:39, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Well I don't recall making that edit myself. But beyond that, no. So which is the correct ref? You'd have to step back through the edit history and see when it appeared - as I did for the "Antichrist" addition (for which we are still awaiting clarification). Martinevans123 (talk) 15:30, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I have no access to a tool that can search edit archives. Who has? Then, would it not be more reasonable to delete the wrong source data and flag the citation with a "citation missing". Could you perhaps do that? I don't have the know-how. Agric (talk) 17:22, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I was thinking exactly the same. Maybe worth asking at Village pump (technical). If the claim and the source do not tally by all means replace the ref with a tag (that bit's quite easy!) Martinevans123 (talk) 17:48, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm fairly good at trawling through history but it takes a bit of time. Can't do it right now, but later will have a look through to see what's going on. Sometimes refs get misplaced. Truthkeeper (talk) 19:31, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Found the source here: on Jstor. The first page should be viewable; it's quoted in Glum and I've amended so. Truthkeeper (talk) 22:00, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
 * That's a very useful jstor source (now on my self), many thanks. Tolnay's view, quoted therein, seems to coincide quite closely with that expressed in the official guide book. We still need to track down that Antichrist ref. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:31, 9 February 2013 (UTC) p.s. The table-top painting of The Seven Deadly Sins and the Four Last Things is in the same room as the Garden at The Prado and they both have a quite mystical, almost occult, feel.
 * It is. I'll try to find the other one. Can you point me to the discussion for it, so I have a starting place. Truthkeeper (talk) 22:00, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
 * If you remember, it was here. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:03, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I wasn't following all of it, thanks for the link. I think I can find that. Off to search. Will report back. Truthkeeper (talk) 22:06, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Jstor link is here. As for gamblers and drunkards, I'd say that's fine to use. The rest is speculation, but I think that's what the article said. Certainly based on this, it could be put back and attributed to Glum as speculation. But it's really up to the main contributors and what they want. Truthkeeper (talk) 22:24, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
 * 18 minutes is not a very long time, even here. Many thanks. What is Agric's view? I am more of an "interested meddler" than a main contributor. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:13, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm good at some things, others not so good. Like you, I'm an "interested meddler" - I've never edited the page and can't remember why it's on my watch. But it's FA and I'm seeing a lot of changes, so I got curious. Haven't a clue what Agric thinks. Truthkeeper (talk) 23:23, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

I read Peter Glum's letter to the editor. He says he does not (!) agree with the Antichrist attribution. As to his saying "an inn full of drinking and gambling people", this is not part of an analytical description, but just a flippy remark in passing. It is obviously not in agreement with Bosch's painting. I think it should not be quoted. There are enough correct descriptions that can be quoted. Agric (talk) 22:20, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I was more interested in the basis for the origin of the attribution in the first place, not whether or nor Glum agreed with it. The Prado Guide also mentions a gambler. I wonder where it got that from? Martinevans123 (talk) 08:48, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The bottom left corner of the right hand panel shows a group of figures with dice and cards round a large upturned table. That's pretty clear. Johnbod (talk) 14:55, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, the Guide uses the word in the singular, presumably in the sense of an archetype. It says this: "The specific torments of the gambler, the alchemist and the impious clergymen are shown in the foreground." Maybe "clergyman" was intended. I'm not sure that I've worked out which is the alchemist. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:19, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, the "toppled gambling table" has already entered into the article. That is fine. If the naked persons behind it are "condemned" gamblers, is not clear. It is the strategy of Bosch, as of many other artists, to leave many things unclear and ambiguous. For example, could being massacred by swords and big knives have been a just punishment for gambling in the eyes of contemporaneous viewers? Rather doubtful. But Bosch possibly raised this question. In my view we should not simplify Bosch's work by making things "clear" that are not clear, and most probably were intended not to be clear. As to the tree-man's belly, there is no allusion to gambling at all. Some authors thought that this belly tavern was a brothel. Please let's not confirm such falsifications of Bosch's work by quoting them here. Agric (talk) 13:10, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I quite agree that any intended ambiguity is not be quashed in the search for "one single explanation" of each image/ device. That would surely do Bosch's artistry a great disservice. But if reputable critics do offer interpretations that seem to contradict the physical entities depicted, I think they may be worthy of mention, provided those sources provide an explanation for such. I see no evidence for or against any "alchemist", and I do not recommend that it is added just on the basis of the Prado Guidebook. But I would be surprised if this had not originaly come from a more reliable or reputable source. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:23, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

sentence removed from lead
What a fantastic article this is. I think I found one of my new go-to examples to explain featured articles to my students.

I did remove one sentence from the lead, though: "It reveals the artist at the height of his powers; in no other painting does he achieve such complexity of meaning or such vivid imagery."

Reason: This kind of statement seems perfectly appropriate for a work of art criticism or museum brochure but too definitive in its evaluation for an encyclopedia article (or at least the lead). --&mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  |  03:10, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Good edit. Unless it's proclaimed to be Bosch's magnum opus by multiple RS, that sentence shouldn't be included.  If it is (it's probably his most popular work, or at least most well-known), then we need some good citations for it. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:23, 8 April 2014 (UTC)