Talk:Pietro Aretino

New images

FYI I've uploaded this engraving by Wenceslas Hollar (right), which is a very old copy of the drawing featured on the page already. I've also uploaded this engraving (left), which is a copy of the lead painting. Feel free to use these or not. Dcoetzee 09:11, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

The photo at the top right of the entry on Pietro Aretino states that it is Titian's first portrait of Aretino. In fact, it is not by Titian and it is not of Aretino. The correct photo is at the top of the article linked to in note 10 of the Pietro Aretino entry. I don't know how to upload photos; would someone else do it, please? I would be happy to detail the basis for my conclusion, but for now I will say that Xavier Salomon, the curator of the Frick and the author of Titian's Pietro Aretino, wrote to me in an email, ″I am absolutely certain the portrait is neither by Titian nor of Aretino.″ As for the photo linked to in note 10 being the correct one, that is not 100% certain, so, under the photo, we could change "Titian's first portrait of him" to "Apparently Titian's first portrait of him." Or we could use the Frick's portrait (in note 9) and label it "Titian's portrait of him in the Frick Collection." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maurice Magnus (talk • contribs) 14:37, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Maurice Magnus, Interesting. This source [1] says you're right, this source [2] says you're wrong. Pinging Vexations for an opinion. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:09, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Gråbergs Gråa Sång, I would give more weight to the opinion of Xavier F. Salomon, William Suida and Carlo Volpe than Vittorio Sgarbi. In 2019, Solomon wrote: "Today the website of the Kunstmuseum lists the painting as by a ‘Venetian master, 16th Century’ and concludes that ‘the question of attribution remains unresolved’. " Apparently, the Kunstmuseum Basel has changed its mind and now attributes it to Titian. http://sammlungonline.kunstmuseumbasel.ch/eMuseumPlus?service=direct/1/ResultDetailView/result.inline.list.t1.collection_list.$TspTitleLink.link&sp=13&sp=Sartist&sp=SfilterDefinition&sp=0&sp=2&sp=1&sp=SdetailView&sp=23&sp=Sdetail&sp=0&sp=T&sp=0&sp=SdetailList&sp=0&sp=F&sp=Scollection&sp=l274

I don't know that we need to get into which portrait is earlier; the Basel portrait is from ca. 1527, the ca. Frick from 1537, the Pitti is from ca. 1545. Pietro would have been 35, 45 and 53 years old in those portraits. It's not hard to tell which portrait depicts the younger Pietro. What I'm not quite sure of is what to make of https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:TitianFirstAretinoPortrait.jpg. It's not Aretino, it's not by Titian, but what is it? Vexations (talk) 22:04, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

to answer my own question, it appears to be a painting by Moretto da Brescia in the collection of Luigi Koelliker. https://www.aboutartonline.com/aggiustamenti-su-tiziano-importanti-novita-nello-studio-di-massimo-pulini/ Vexations (talk) 22:49, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the input and the article-edit. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:05, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Gråbergs Gråa Sång, that was a fun problem to try to figure out. There are so many of these portraits that they almost deserve an article of their own. Vexations (talk) 13:18, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for those links. Who or what is Vexations, and does Vexations have the authority to make a final decision? Should I present my case to Vexations?Maurice Magnus (talk) 17:23, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Maurice Magnus, I'm Vexations and I am just another editor without any special authority to make decisions. I do know a thing or two about visual arts, fancy my self knowledgeable about our content policies and know how to upload photos. If I can be of assistance, I 'd be happy to help or provide a third opinion if requested. Vexations (talk) 17:42, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you Vexations. Later today I will write up my case, and, if you agree with it, I would be highly grateful for you to replace the current photo with another.Maurice Magnus (talk) 17:48, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

In the article linked to in note 10 of the Pietro Aretino entry, Xavier Salomon agrees with the 1939 Burlington Magazine article. I quoted him above from an email he sent me: ″I am absolutely certain the portrait is neither by Titian nor of Aretino.″

My case that the photo at the upper right of the Pietro Aretino entry is not, as it states, ″Titian's first portrait of Aretino,″ and in fact is not by Titian or of Aretino:

On page 36 of Titian's Portraits Through Aretino's Lens (1995), Luba Freedman writes: “The four recorded portraits of Aretino by Titian were painted for (1) the Marquis of Mantua, Federico Gonzaga, in 1527; (2) the Cardinal Ippolito de’ Medici, not later than 1535 (the year he was poisoned); (3) the Venetian publisher Francesco Marcolini, most probably in 1537; (4) the Duke of Florence, Cosimo I de’ Medici, in 1545. Of these portraits, only those done for Marcolini and Cosimo I have survived; they are in the Frick Collection and in the Pitti Palace, respectively.” The first, chronologically, is in the Kunstmuseum, Basel, according to the 1939 Burlington Magazine article that Grabergs linked to above, and according to the 2019 Apollo article by Frick curator Xavier Salomon that is linked to in note 10 of the Wikipedia entry on Pietro Aretino. The second, chronologically, is apparently unknown. Luba Freedman's book does not contain a photo of it or of another artist's copy of it. Xavier Salomon states in his new book, Titian's Pietro Aretino, that "there is no evidence that it ever existed." The third and fourth portraits are in the Frick and the Pitti Palace, respectively.

Unless the first portrait is not the one in Basel but is the one in the upper right of Aretino's Wikipedia entry, it is none of the three (according to Salomon) or four (according to Freedman) that exist. And there appears to be no substantial evidence that it is by Titian or of Aretino. Graberg's link that contends that it is a Titian portrait of Aretino offers no evidence for that contention beyond, "the ruffled cuff of the white shirt is painted with the extraordinary naturalness of which only Titian was capable." Even if this is true (which of course cannot be proved), it does not support the claim that the portrait is of Aretino. Its subject does not closely resemble Aretino in the Basel or Frick or Pitti Palace portraits.

As I said above, Xavier Salomon wrote to me, ″I am absolutely certain the portrait [at the upper right of Aretino's Wikipedia entry] is neither by Titian nor of Aretino.″ I suggest, therefore, that we replace it with the Basel portrait in the Apollo article. Because we lack 100% certainty that that portrait is the first in Freedman's list, we should change the caption to "Apparently Titian's first portrait of Aretino." Or we could use the Frick's portrait (in note 9) and label it "Titian's portrait of him in the Frick Collection." Of that we are 100% certain. (The portrait in the Pitti Palace is already pictured in the entry.)Maurice Magnus (talk) 18:43, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Basics

This article contains virtually no inline citations and a plethora of commentary and conclusions suggestive of original research, personal essay or plagiarism. 76.23.157.102 (talk) 01:51, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Layout

I did not study the layout guidelines, but I divided the "Life" section into four sections. Is that adequate to remove the template message? If so, would someone please do so.Maurice Magnus (talk) 11:12, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Inclusion in The Wedding at Cana

To add to this article: Aretino is featured in Veronese's famous painting The Wedding at Cana. 173.88.246.138 (talk) 04:33, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

@talk What is your source for that, and which figure is Aretino? Maurice Magnus (talk) 17:45, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

From this Peter Greenaway documentary: https://vimeo.com/491786159 173.88.246.138 (talk) 22:41, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

@talk Do you know what happened to our exchange that followed your answer to my question about the source? I don't care that it is gone, but I don't understand why it doesn't show up even in the history of this Talk section. I'm curious, because I've never seen anything disappear from, or not be recorded in, a history of edits. Maurice Magnus (talk) 22:28, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Writer or poet?

I don't care about the list of categories at the bottom, so I won't revert the January 4 edits, but why change "writer" to "poet" when the article itself lists his poetry, prose, and plays? "Writer" encompasses all three. Maurice Magnus (talk) 13:38, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

The tomb no longer exists

Under "Legacy" is the sentence, The tomb at the church now no longer exists, since the church was demolished.^{[why?][when?]} But San Luca, Venice is in the present tense, with no indication that the church no longer exists. Hutton's book, cited in n.34, states that the tomb no longer exists, not that the church no longer exists. I don't know what the book cited in n.35 says. But, based on Hutton's book, I will delete "since the church was demolished." Perhaps it was demolished and rebuilt, but for an article on Aretino, the existence of his tomb is more relevant than is the existence of the church. Perhaps another editor is more knowledgeable about this or has a copy of the book cited in n.35. Maurice Magnus (talk) 10:36, 30 July 2024 (UTC)