Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Saint Gaudioso

Saint Gaudioso
Voting period ends on 16 Apr 2015  at 17:55:25 (UTC)
 * Reason:Great scan of excellent picture
 * Articles in which this image appears:Gaudentius of Brescia, Romanino
 * FP category for this image:Featured pictures/People/Religious figures
 * Creator:Girolamo Romanino


 * Support as nominator – SchroCat (talk) 17:55, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Support – He looks weighed down by a lot of responsibility. Just wondering: do you think the original colors were brighter? It looks a little dull now. – CorinneSD (talk) 19:06, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose. This is not a painting by Gaudiosus of Naples- it's a painting of Gaudiousus of Naples. More precisely, it's what someone who lived centuries after his death imagined he would look like. This is not at all useful as a likeness, which is how it is currently used. Josh Milburn (talk) 22:43, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The history of Western portrait art can be pretty much summed up by Blackadder, "painted to a romantic ideal rather than the true depiction of the idiosyncratic facial qualities of the person in question", so we could question many of the portraits that end up featured. Everything with Christ in, for example... – SchroCat (talk) 22:50, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I think you have missed my point. This image is not being used as a reproduction of a painting or an example of a particular style of artwork (as any FP featuring Christ will be) but as an illustration of Gaudiosus. Were this image being used to illustrate an article about Renaissance views of historical bishops, or as an example of a painter's work/style, or in an article about the painting itself we would not be having this conversation. As it is, the image is being used apparently simply as a likeness for the subject, and, for that, it is ill-suited. Josh Milburn (talk) 23:17, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment But nobody knows how Hamlet, Ophelia, Jesus, Nicodemus, Augustinus, St. Peter, or even Robin Hood looked - and still they are depicted. This guy is from the 5th century... It is impossible to ask for a real likeness. I really can't notice any point in this opposition. The art of depiction in the 5th century - was not in such state that it would have been any good for depicting any real likeness.  Hafspajen (talk) 01:19, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Other guys from that period were: Augustine of Hippo - nobody has the faintest idea how he looked, really. Hypatia - same there, and all the rest from that period, Saint Patrick, Pelagius, Attila the Hun ... we just don't KNOW how they looked. And still we depict them... And use them in articles. Hafspajen (talk) 01:34, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Also. Even if even if Romanino's article (Girolamo Romani (c. 1485 – c. 1566) - currently is badly illustrated,  he is a rather well known  Italian High Renaissance painter  - and he is good. The above reasoning could have possibly occurred if somebody asked for featuring a  Bible-card  or random Bible illustration, but Romanino, who is an artist of his own right. You don't get the Interpol to go find a stolen painting if it is not an important artist's painting.  Hafspajen (talk) 01:54, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm slightly mystified by this response. No, we don't know what Hamlet looked like, and no, I wouldn't support promoting a painting of him presented as a likeness, either. And yes, we do use "likenesses" in these articles (though it's an open question as to whether we should- I think I recall getting annoyed about this at one point) but "we use type x pictures in articles" is very different from "we should be promoting type x pictures to FP status". I remain unconvinced about the EV of this image. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:20, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, I get annoyed when folks use non-contemporary images for medieval (or earlier) subjects - especially (as in this case) when it's not made clear that it is not at all contemporary. There is no caption in the biography article - which is misleading the readers. Quite honestly, it should be removed from that article - as it's not at all useful. We'd be better off running a cartoon image ... that way readers wouldn't assume that the depiction is accurate, which they probably do now given there is no disclaimer. I see it was added just on 7 April 2015. I was tempted to remove it, but instead put in a caption. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:29, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * And I am not with you two here. The painting is in the church, on the high altar, where he was a bishop, in the very church, where he is buried in Brescia. He was an Italan bishop. It is also an artwork of a well know  artist.Hafspajen (talk) 12:45, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
 * You're not getting the point ... it's not about whether or not it is supposed to depict the subject of the article. It is that it was placed in the article with no caption pointing out that it is not at all likeness of the individual. Without that context, it's misleading. And it's just a pretty decoration without any real accuracy - the vestments depicted would not be correct for the actual period that the person was bishop. Historical writing has gotten away from using non-contemporary depictions for medieval and ancient subjects because it gives the wrong impression. The work was painted 1000 years AFTER the bishop lived. There is no way it can be considered historically accurate and not making that clear to the readers is being misleading. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:53, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but You're not getting the point ... This is not photography, but art history. Are you familiar with art, art history and such? Nobody would ever start considering an artwork like this historically accurate. Nobody ever said it was either. Hafspajen (talk) 12:59, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not objecting to it's use in the article on the painter or in an article on the town or church. But using it on the article about the bishop turns it into history, not art history. It really does not belong in the bishop's article, but at the very least it should have a good caption that explains that it's not contemporary. When this FPC was started ... the bishop's article did not have that. I'm hoping that all future such uses will have the proper context given - that's my point. Or better yet, don't place a non-contemporary image into a medieval or ancient history biography article just for decorative purposes. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:16, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I think it can very well illustrate the article, as you did, adding: 16th century depiction. Hafspajen (talk) 13:55, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Also there is a wast amount of artwork on different themes that is part of our cultural human heritage, and it only shows that the theme they are illustrating is interesting, is a living, actual theme - that preoccupies people and they are still keep on depicting it, adding additional information and things that comes from them, from their time. It is certainly not a reason to oppose a nomination. Hafspajen (talk) 14:02, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
 * No one is opposing this nomination because there is "a [vast] amount of artwork on different themes". Josh Milburn (talk) 14:33, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
 * One can't really judge artwork like this, if they are depicting enough likeness or not. How about Picasso, Mondrian, Matisse? Those artist's works bear with almost no likeness with depicted persons or even objects. One have to be careful about what criteria is risen. Art is not really about photographic likeness at all. Hafspajen (talk) 10:22, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Hafspajen, I think that's a little patronising. I agree fully with Ealdgyth. The picture is in use in a biography, not an article about art history. I am not going to judge it for its contribution to art history, but nor am I going to judge it as a photograph. I'm going to judge its effectiveness as a portrait of a real person. How are you judging it? Because, as far as I can see, it doesn't have much to do with how it's actually used, and that's what we're meant to be judging. Also (and I'm disengaging after this- if you still don't get it, I give up), "Nobody would ever start considering an artwork like this historically accurate. Nobody ever said it was either." I disagree. A lot of people are going to assume at a glance that this is historically accurate, and when it's placed in the lead in the way that it was (and, arguably, the way it now is), it is presented as historically accurate. Josh Milburn (talk) 14:33, 8 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Support - also, fixed his article. (Romanino's *) Hafspajen (talk) 02:15, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Support  -Jobas (talk) 01:07, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment – Sorry, but as either art or portraiture, strikes me as bland, humdrum. Granted, it's 16th C., but still.... Sca (talk) 12:54, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Hm. Have you looked closely? Great brushwork, though. Hafspajen (talk) 01:44, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Maybe it needs cleaning? Sca (talk) 14:24, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

--Armbrust The Homunculus 18:25, 16 April 2015 (UTC)