Talk:Knight, Death and the Devil

BM category

Does this really belong in a British Museum category? It is hardly a "defining" characteristic of the print. The other prints we have categorised like this have uniqiue material in the BM - the proof album, heavily covered in the article, for The Disasters of War, and a drawing, illustrated in the article, for the Durer Rhinoceros. I modi is just a unique impression. Almost everything in Category:Prints (art) could be categorized in this, and loads of other "collection" categories, on this basis, which I don't think is helpful. Johnbod (talk) 17:52, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I took this issue and ran with it. I put a discussion on the Visual arts wikiproject here: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Visual_arts#Placing_of_Prints_into_.22Collections_of....22_categories. Witty Lama 12:21, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Stupid question - since this is an engraving, I assume there's a metal master plate somewhere. Where is that? Raul654 (talk) 14:51, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Only some survive, mostly worn to death & then reworked at least once by the art trade over the centuries. Bartrum's BM catalogue does not mention a plate for this, but there may be one. The Albertina probably has the most. Johnbod (talk) 15:15, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm fine with removing the cat - Lith asked for a look, and I did a bit and saw a print in the BM. Opportunism. Ceoil (talk) 19:41, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Nazis

Removed this for reason in edit summary, but the knight was (see Bartum etc) regarded with special interest and self-identification by German nationalists and then Nazis, & a bit on this would be welcome. Johnbod (talk) 06:04, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Agree with removal and have added a bit, but there is much more on this, ie why they regarded it as so. It should probably be mentioned in the lead. Ceoil (talk) 14:50, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

infobox

user:Ceoil ; user:Johnbod - is there a reason why you do not want an infobox showing the work in wikidata? Marthacustis (talk) 17:30, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Go back in the history, and look at what you actually did - everything about it was wrong, including the wikidata link, which went to another work entirely. Wikidata links are especially useless for prints, encouraging the impression that there are a handful of copies around, instead of many hundred. Plus they usually make the image too small and contain the wrong info, as yours did. Johnbod (talk) 00:57, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

go back in the history and look at what i did. i linked to wikidata and it had comfused information. i then corrected the information. this is a print, that is held by multiple institutions including the Met and NGA. editors are particularly useless if they do not edit wikidata. (Personal attack removed) Marthacustis (talk) 17:37, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Possible duplication

The last para of the Composition section has this:

• In contrast, American artist Ursula Meyer believed that the knight displayed in this print is not a Christian knight at all, but a "robber knight" (raubritter). She believes that the iconography of the fox tail symbolises the greed of the knight, and that Death and the Devil are merely the knight's companions on his journey, not omens.[12]

And the third para of the Interpretation has this

• An alternative interpretation was presented in 1970 by writer Sten Karling, who suggested that the work did not seek to glorify the knight, but instead depict a "robber Baron". Karling points to the lack of Christian or religious symbolism in the work and to the fox's tail wrapped on top the knight's lance – in Greek legend[17] the fox's tail was a symbol of greed, cunning and treachery, as well as lust and whoring.[11] However, knights were commonly depicted in contemporary art with a fox tail tied to the tip of their lance. Moreover, the fox tail was a common form of protective amulet.[18]

Just thought I would raise here ... Karling 1970 predates Meyer 1976... so would be inclined to delete first - or some kind of merging Meyer into the Karling section. Just thought I would raise here. (Msrasnw (talk) 12:00, 11 February 2019 (UTC))

Yes, merged. The source used for Karling is actually later than Meyer btw. Johnbod (talk) 14:26, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Splendid ... just the ticket... I think I wasn't being lazy - just careful not to tread on toes... best wishes (Msrasnw (talk) 15:28, 11 February 2019 (UTC))

Interpretaion: fox tails

The passages in the alternate interpretations are setting off alarm bells, that it would be good to go back to the RS and check the explanations. In particular the material about foxtails seems to be a mess: it quotes "Greek legend" about fox tails as an alternative to Christian symbolism, but the book cited is a book of early Christian symbols: Greek yes but not pagan and not legends. And not about foxes tails, just foxes.

So (even apart from the surely ignorant claim there is no Christian symbolism -- err, devil, death, skull, city on hill, soldier in armour?) that is two synthesis or citation errors: so I think those paras may need verification and a re-write (and, perhaps, a credibility check.) Rick Jelliffe (talk) 10:37, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Composition

This section says, "As with the two other of his Meisterstiche, it contains a skull, dog, and hourglass".

However, it appears that one of the Meisterstiche, namely, Melencolia I, does NOT contain a skull. I will change this incorrect text unless someone objects or documents that it does. MathPerson (talk) 21:31, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Sources have interpreted that work as containing a skull - see for example this description. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:19, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the info! The Wikipedia article on Melencolia I says that it "may be a faint skull[6] or face, possibly even of Dürer.". Reference [6] says "His point of departure was the observation that a skull may be dimly discerned on the main facet of the polyhedron." So, should somebody tweak the language here to be less definite, that is, to say that it may contain a skull?MathPerson (talk)

Hi MathPerson, yes it does...suggest we add the doubt in a footnote to the claim in this article. Ceoil (talk) 19:58, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Added a skull-like object. Thanks for the spot. Ceoil (talk) 21:34, 24 June 2021 (UTC)