Talk:Agostino Vespucci

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Mona Lisa

There are scholars who think that the painting's subject is Leonardo's mother Caterina in a distant memory. She died in 1495. Lisa del Giocondo's job was only to be the model. This document is a proof that Lise del Giocondo is the painting's model and not the painting's subject. Agostino Vespucci couldn't know Leonardo's secret thought and idea. Additionally, the painting was finished after October 1503. Relpmek (talk) 16:38, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The idea that "the painting's subject is Leonardo's mother Caterina in a distant memory" is a fantasy unsupported by evidence. When you say "this document is a proof that Lise del Giocondo is the painting's model and not the painting's subject", are you referring to this document? To the contrary, this document names Lisa del Giocodo as the painting's subject no fewer than four times (e.g., "Vespucci’s notes in the margin from October 1503 permit an exact dating of the painting and definitely confirms Vasari’s comment from 1550 that the subject was Lisa del Giocondo"). I challenge you to find the word model anywhere on that page. When we cite a source, we should accurately characterize what the source says, and what this source says is that Lisa del Giocondo is Mona Lisa's subject.
Likewise, this article from the Leonardo da Vinci Society Newsletter, Issue 30, May 2008, p. 4, says: "Vasari's Life of Leonardo was formerly our only source for Lisa del Giocondo being the subject of a renowned portrait by Leonardo. This contemporary reference both confirms that Vasari was correct, and confirms the date of 1503..."
I am puzzled by your last edit summary, which reads: "Mona Lisa (1503 - 1519) is not a commissioned portrait". Have you a
reliable source for this declaration? The consensus among art historians is that it almost certainly is a commissioned portrait; here's how the case is summarized at artmuseumjournal.com ("Mona Lisa Identity Confirmed")
:

Germany's University of Heidelberg Library announced on January 14, 2008 that a manuscript expert uncovered written evidence that apparently identifies the subject of Mona Lisa (ca. 1503-06) by Italian Renaissance master Leonardo da Vinci (1452-1519) as Lisa del Giocondo (1479-1542/51). Lisa's husband commissioned Leonardo to paint Mona Lisa, his spouse's monumental half-length portrait, upon the purchase of the couple's new home and the birth of Andrea, their second son.

A more detailed account is given in Frank Zöllner's article, "Leonardo's Portrait of Mona Lisa del Giocondo", originally published in Gazette des Beaux-Arts, 121, 1993. Zöllner expresses a high degree of certainty that Mona Lisa was painted as a commission:

Documents, however, both for the commission of the painting and for subsequent payments, if any, are lacking and it is likely that a contract never existed for a minor commission such as a private portrait; neither could there have been significant payments, because the painting was never delivered. Despite this lack of direct documentation, the particular circumstances and the date of the commission can be reconstructed by piecing together Vasari's account, documents regarding Francesco's family and the records for Leonardo's activities during his second stay in Florence. (p. 6)

Ewulp (talk) 04:17, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The idea that the painting's subject is Lisa del Giocondo is unsupported by evidence. Leonardo didn't name Lisa del Giocondo as the painting's subject; Leonardo kept the portrait with him wherever he traveled, until his death; Documents, both for the commission of the painting and for subsequent payments are lacking; She doesn't look like 24 years old; Where is her son Andrea... We can only say in a high degree of certainty that Lisa is the painting's model. See Kempler's theory in this article[1]. 85.250.185.152 (talk) 17:37, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The idea that the painting's subject is Lisa del Giocondo is supported by reliable sources. In wikipedia we are not allowed to promote our own novel theories (see
WP:NOR); we are required to follow sources. This article is about Agostino Vespucci, not about the Kempler theory. Our source
names Lisa del Giocodo as the painting's subject no fewer than four times (e.g., "Vespucci’s notes in the margin from October 1503 permit an exact dating of the painting and definitely confirms Vasari’s comment from 1550 that the subject was Lisa del Giocondo"). When we cite a source, we should accurately characterize what the source says, and what this source says (as do many others) is that Lisa del Giocondo is Mona Lisa's subject. If you want to argue that all of the experts are wrong, wikipedia is not the place to do it.
I sense from certain details in your writing that English may not be your native language; is it possible that you are misunderstanding the way in which the word subject is used here? You agree that Lisa posed for the painting, and you call the painting a portrait. It is customary to say that the person who poses for a portrait is the portrait's subject. If a model poses for a painting that is very definitely about something other than the individual who posed, then that painting is not a portrait. We don't know the names of the models who posed for
Poussin
's The Nurture of Jupiter, but even if we uncovered a document that identified Poussin's models as Fred Amri and Irma Derf, we would still not say that Fred and Irma were the subjects of the painting; the subject is the nurture of Jupiter. Mona Lisa, however, is a portrait, as you yourself concede, and the person who poses for a portrait is normally referred to as the portrait's subject. Sources that have written about Agostino Vespucci--our article's subject--say that Agostino has confirmed the portrait's subject, and we shouldn't second-guess our sources.
A friendly note: perhaps you would be taken more seriously if you could resist the urge to waste your time and mine with totally unconstructive reverts here, where I made an edit five days ago that consisted of italicizing a title (as recommended by
WP:OTHERDATE). Can you explain your motivation in reverting it every day in tandem with this article? Ewulp (talk) 03:43, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

The subject of the painting

"Agostino Vespucci was a Florentine chancellery official, clerk, and assistant to Niccolò Machiavelli and others. He is most well known for identifying the subject of...". It is also well known that Vespucci is not an official authority capable of identifying the subject of the painting. Only Leonardo would have been capable of telling us the subject of the painting but he neglected to do so.

talk) 16:16, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

Removed as unsourced and relying on
WP:Weasel words ("it is well known"). Our article does not suggest that Vespucci guessed at any secret meaning the portrait may have had for Leonardo, so no disclaimer is needed. Ewulp (talk) 20:31, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Merge

Hi. Do we know anything about Mr. Vespucci? (Except he had famous cousin.) If not I suggest this article be merged into Mona Lisa. -SusanLesch (talk) 21:52, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, besides this tiny note, a number of his manuscripts survive, including at least one piece that later became part of Leonardo's Codices; as well as letters, both personal and political, to the people he worked with in the Florentine government, most famously (but not only) Machiavelli. I haven't had the time to research and expand the article in that area. – Quoth (talk) 16:05, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Quoth. I hesitated to put this up for deletion. Instead maybe we can work it out here. I think this is a non-notable biography, per
WP:SINGLEEVENT. How do you disagree? Right now it's more than 75% about something other than its subject, so I think it could be merged or redirected to Mona Lisa. -SusanLesch (talk) 17:38, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply
]
Hi again Susan, I wouldn't clog the main article with this thin specualtion. Best keep it forked, imo. Ceoil 01:05, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have read a decisive part of the Heidelberg source in its German original and am clearly under the impression that it is written by a real expert. We do not have to do with a mere artificial theoretical construct on the basis of traditional conventions regarding when the subject of a painting should be counted verified, or so, but with a really thorough, conscientious assessment. The reliability of the Heidelberg University source is clearly supported by everything which I have so far been able to appraise regarding the Mona Lisa, on the basis of my endeavors in the realms of fringe sciences, i.e., indirectly, also on the basis of some encouragement from a noted physician active in these realms.

Nonetheless: the new evidence provided by the Heidelberg men is already clearly enough hinted to in the article Mona Lisa. I also think that one should not clog the main article with a detailed description of how, and on the basis of which overall impressions, Dr. Armin Schlechter and Dr. Veit Probst of the Heidelberg University Library have come to the conclusion that the woman in the picture is really Lisa del Giocondo. This should, on the other hand, be given somewhere in Wikipedia, for its unusual meaning and interest. At the moment, it is given in this article. To move it to the article on Lisa del Giocondo would mean to clog the article on this woman with an ample summary on things that are, at the end, of an overall rather bibliographical interest and also of an, altogether, rather coincidental nature. This summary would refer only to the picture Leonardo has painted of Lisa — and, how famous and important this picture may ever be, Lisa has also led a life apart from it!

I have inserted a reference to this article on Vespucci, in the related section of the article on Lisa. --Hans Dunkelberg (talk) 08:19, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Quoth, Ceoil and Hans Dunkelberg. I will remove the merge template because the consensus seems to be to keep this article. -SusanLesch (talk) 14:06, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Agostino Vespucci. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{

Sourcecheck
}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:39, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Lise"

The article says:

Vespucci lists Leonardo's work on the portrait of "Lise del Giocondo,"

thus implying that Vespucci used the name "Lise del Giocondo." But the quoted Latin text says ut enim caput Lise del Giocondo et Anne matris virginis. In both of the names "Lise" and "Anne" what we are seeing is the inflected ending -e, which is the mediæval equivalent of Classical Latin genitive singular -ae. These names are in the genitive case in order to modify the noun caput "head": caput Lise... et Anne.... = "the head of Lisa and [the head] of Anna." Names outside of a specific grammatical context should be quoted in the nominative. Thus the Latin text is not evidence for a name "Lise del Giocondo" but rather Lisa del Giocondo. RandomCritic (talk) 17:31, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot for taking the time to explain, I'll amend the article. I'm afraid I know less than I wish I did about Latin declension, though now I know just a little more :) – Quoth (talk) 22:14, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Agostino_Vespucci&oldid=1205922068"