Talk:Donatello/Archive 1

beginning to 2017

Mistake or joke?

In the paragraph "Later work" it is written:

"When Cosimo, the greatest art patron of his time, was exiled from Florence in 1433, Bimbo accompanied him to Venice, while Donatello.. "

Who is Bimbo? Is this vandalism or the nickname of an actual person? Please edit accordingly. --FocalPoint 06:30, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like ancient vandalism: Michelozzo→Bimbo

Michelozzo was a pupil of Donatello.

--Jtir 16:12, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

reference to statue is incorrect

The reference to a statue of the Madonna in the Musee del'Opera del Duomo is incorrect. This is in fact a statue of Mary Magdalene. Veronica Harris 212.219.247.242 12:41, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Italian Roman Catholics

Please see the discussion in Michelangelo. I argue this category is meaningless, for someone like Donatello. What else could he have been?CARAVAGGISTI 04:26, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He is most famous for his roman catholic themed artwork. So...It seems appropriate to me 24.207.131.20 (talk) 17:06, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism in later works

In later works the part about him inventing cell phones and MP3 players...

Mikeyc252 17:12, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statue of David

Hello????? This guy is famous for his 'Ststue of David'. Both him and Michalangelo did one. Please get a picture of it on here!!!!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.76.13.166 (talk) 21:59, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

David pic.

I added an image of the artist's sculpture of David to the photo gallery since it's arguably his most well-known, not to mention most controversial, work. But now it's in a second row all by itself and it looks rather awkward. I think the picture should definitely be in this article, but someone more familiar with the technical end of wikipedia should fix the formatting if I can't manage to figure it out myself. That or add more photos if there are quality free images available? Wormwoodpoppies (talk) 17:48, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aight never mind, I took it out of the gallery and put it in with the relevant section, which is more appropriate for an object of its importance anyway. Wormwoodpoppies (talk) 18:00, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Locking

why isn't this article locked like michelangelo's, Raphael's, and Leonardo da Vinci? i was gonna add that they are Ninja Turtles, but Donatello's is the only one that isn't locked. Really not point of just putting it in one. Lock this article please to end this nonsense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.131.246.80 (talk) 20:54, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Different Main Picture

well from what I gather from the intro/first paragraph on this entry, it says that Donatello's main style of stulpture was basrelief, so should the main picture be a bas relief and not a free standing sculpture... just saying... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drasagon (talk • contribs) 21:23, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The "purported sexuality" debacle

Paul Strathern: "Donatello's David revelled in its naked male beauty, expressing an unambiguous subjective truth concerning its creator - namely, his homosexuality.'" - This is pure speculation, unacceptable here.-Galassi (talk) 11:22, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I must confess to finding your attitude of "I know better than everyone else" rather tiring - particularly where you fail to engage other than based on your personal assumptions of what is or is not absurd. Contaldo80 (talk) 09:06, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Disputed sexuality" section

I moved the two sentences about Donatello's sexuality to a new section called "Disputed sexuality." I have searched for this information many times before realizing it was buried in the section "Major commissions in Florence." Since this article is tagged by WikiProject LGBT studies, I think the issue deserves a bit more prominence. I know there are some modern-day Savonarolas who seek to suppress this debate, but let's let the sources speak for themselves. I also find it strange that Crompton is used to support the counter-argument when the bulk of his chapter provides evidence to the contrary. 92.78.111.204 (talk) 13:27, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I support your intentions, but not sure there is yet enough material to warrant a separate section? But happy to be persuaded. And the title of "disputed sexuality" suggests that there are those that disagree. There may be, but they're not covered in the article. Would be great if you could put some more of the Crompton stuff in though. Contaldo80 (talk) 09:30, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Concerns

Strathern is a historian - we make this clear o that people reading the article don't have to ask "who i Strathern - why should we care what he says?" Crompton talks about the archives being incomplete - which tells us that it is difficult to expect to find too much. Same sex sexual activity and sodomy were rife in 15th and 16th century Florence, hence the number of contemporary commentaries. There is no point trying to edit out bits of history that we find personally uncomfortable for whatevr personal reasons. Contaldo80 (talk) 09:06, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Painter?

In the opening paragraph it is claimed that Donatello is both a painter and sculptor. While his status as sculptor is indisputable, nowhere in the article is there any information indicating he was, in fact, a painter, or even had painted anything at all. Theranthrope (talk) 08:23, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ULAN list him as sculptor and "draftsman" but not painter. I'll remove. Johnbod (talk) 13:25, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Word use, clarity, and revision?

The following comments apply both to the section of the Donatello article that pertains to the bronze David and to the section of the David (Donatello) article that pertains to the bronze.

In the following sections, there are statements that could be judged as subjective, conjecture, or ambiguous. Also, some of the wording may need to be revised. I have noted comments and revisions in single brackets: [ ]. Discussion, of course, is welcomed. If needed, I will, after a period, change and rewrite those things that are noted below and provide citations.

The article reads: This piece was requested ["commissioned" may be the preferred term] by the Medici family to be placed in the centre of the courtyard of the Palazzo Medici Riccardi in Florence. This daring move showed that the Medici family thought that they could take ownership of David, a symbol of the city of Florence. [This comment is a bit subjective and ambiguous. Although David was a symbol of Florence and the Medici were a ruling family of the city, these facts alone do not mean the commission was an "ownership" of David. Perhaps, it would be better to state that such a commission represented an desire to be allied or associated with the ideals and principles of David the Warrior and Victor? This is a subject that has been discussed by scholars of Donatello and the Medici. Perhaps, if the author wishes to include the civic importance of this David to the Medici it may be of use to include: "The first free-standing nude bronze of the Renaissance, David the Victor or Warrior (to distinguish the imagery and meaning from David as Prophet or David as King) was commissioned by the Medici who wished to legitimatize, if only in popular opinion, their leadership of Florence. The meaning of this David would be implicit and clear to Florentines of the period." Similarities could be noted that David was a shepherd boy, the Medici wished to be perceived as of the people. As David did, the Medici responded to public outcry for the end of tyranny. As did David, the Medici defeated a mightier foe and became a recognized Hero of the people.]

The article continues: Because this was such a scandalous idea at the time, Donatello put some shifts on the subject matter that could explain away the identity of David as "just another sculpture". Goliath's helmet has a feather protruding that can be seen as attached to David's foot, and thus characterized as Hermes, the Greek god [Following the questionable premise of "ownership of David", the author goes onto make a logical fallacy: Ownership of David would be scandalous; therefore Donatello must subvert this. Also is the "just another sculpture" from an expert source or the author's own opinion. If the former, where are the citations? If the latter, author please explain further. It is doubtful that a Quattrocento sculptor, especially one who was a scholar of classic antique canons of proportion and meaning would have "put some shifts on the subject matter" but if there is something more please expand.]

The article continues: The David also has slight breasts which could classify him as a woman if seen from the side where his leg is blocking his testicles. [On viewing the David from the side in person and not reproduction- which may be the source of the misunderstanding- these do not seem to be the slight breasts of a woman; but, rather, those of a muscular young man. Donatello's bronze of David is based on a classic canon of proportions for a young hero. As stated before, Donatello was a scholar of classical canons of proportion. (a study that was begun in earnest when he travelled with Brunelleschi to Rome sometime in the early 1400's according to Vasari. Modern historians note lack of documentation for Vasari's account and cite the later date of after 1429 for his travel to Rome, with Michelozzo the sculptor.) Examples for "Heroes" employing ideal canon of proportions in antique imagery would include those of Praxiteles and the Riace Bronzes. Donatello would have been familiar with Alberti's canon.]

The article states that this David was without architectural setting. This is uncertain as some commentators, starting with Vasari, mention a pillar or fountain upon which the statue was originally placed. Easelpainter (talk) 00:29, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

NVM Going to ask for WP:SEMI or WP:WHITELOCK

Looking through the last 6 months of diffs, I see a lot more than 5% acceptable vandalism levels. Any one else have input on this? SEMI, or WHITELOCK, or FULL?L3X1 (talk) 15:30, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

6 counts yesterday, none today so far.L3X1 (talk) 15:59, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
NVM, the vandalism has dropped off, so I won't bother admins. L3X1 Complaints Desk 19:56, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Question

What exactly is the "Florentine Wool Combers Guild" and why are you mentioning it?

They were the Goldman Sachs of the day, sort of. Johnbod (talk) 04:08, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Donatello. 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051111083821/http://www.scultura-italiana.com/Galleria/Donatello/index.html to http://www.scultura-italiana.com/Galleria/Donatello/index.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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) 19:23, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Donatello. 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111006225009/http://www.casasantapia.com/art/donatello.htm to http://www.casasantapia.com/art/donatello.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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) 12:32, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]