Talk:Imperia (statue)

Imperia Cognati

(David Eppstein undid revision 652717391 by Enyavar - that doesn't look like someone's name — do you have a source for it?)

(Enyavar undid revision 652733586 by David Eppstein - Well YES, and the source is actually in the linked article - "Lucrezia de Paris" is her alternate name that historians can't confirm.)

(David Eppstein undid revision 652763862 by Enyavar - "Imperia cognati" is NOT A NAME. It is a phrase, meaning "known as Imperia".)

Dear User:David Eppstein, would you like to share your insight on the italian language in the main article on the lady? I for one have CHECKED this suspect name because I also first thought it was just that. The meaning of cognatus in latin is relative. The meaning of cognato/cognata in (modern) Italian is cousin. The translation of known as to (modern) Italian is conosciuto/conosciuta. The translation of known as to Latin is (quoque notus) ut. But all of these translations don't mean a thing (in my opinion), because what we see here, is an actual name.

The harlot Diana's surname was either Cognati or Cugnati (or Corgnati which I actually doubt, I suppose that was a typo inLa Repubblica). Her daughter inherited the mother's name, signed with it apparently five times and her official article in the Italian Dizionario Biografico is under the lemma of COGNATI, Imperia. That same article also believably refutes the name Lucrezia de Paris. Imperia de Paris was a name that Imperia officially only used once, in her will. Lucrezia was the name of her daughter that was apparently confused with her person in later times. If anything, Lucrezia de Chigi would have been the name of Imperia's daughter before she married Colonna.

I can see why you reverted the first edit that didn't include a citation. What I can't understand is the second revert, after I referred you to Imperia's main article in the edit summary. Now I will include an inline citation, which I before thought was unnecessary in a stub-rate article that doesn't even provide inline citations for the object it describes. --Enyavar (talk) 20:14, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Imitation

I'm 100% certain I saw a picture in a high school text book of a statue from Mesopotamia or around the region which looks strikingly the same except for the figures on her hands. I'm certain because I have shown it around before. It's been a long time so I don't remember the details except it's some sort of goddess perhaps of fertility. Is there an image database out there to look for it? Or can someone check it out?

I just found similar statues or figurines: 3rd millennium BC, the Minoan Crete Snake Goddess from Knossos c. 1600 – 1550 BCE.[1] And another minoan “Mother Goddess, Our Lady of the Sports and Muse of Unofficial Poetry blessing the arena.”[2][3]. I'm not sure anymore if they are the one I'm remembering. Mightyname (talk) 01:03, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

The similarity is obvious and compelling, but we need reliable published sources saying so before we can put it into our article. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:40, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Emperor/Pope or two jesters

The artist creating has stated the two little men are jesters (in German "Gaukler") parodying the emperor and pope and not as stated in the article that they are them.

… Es handelt sich bei den Figuren der Imperia nicht um den Papst und nicht um den Kaiser, sondern um Gaukler, die sich die Insignien der weltlichen und geistlichen Macht angeeignet haben. Und inwieweit die echten Päpste und Kaiser auch Gaukler waren, überlasse ich der geschichtlichen Bildung der Betrachter. …

— Peter Lenk im Interview mit Jasmin Hummel

Nsae Comp (talk) 23:00, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

I propose the following text:

For the info box: "subject = Imperia holding two jesters representing secular and religious powers, possibly Pope Martin V and Sigismund"

For in the text: "The two men are two jesters representing secular and religious powers and as such at the time of the council represented by Pope Martin V and Emperor Sigismund." Nsae Comp (talk) 23:05, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

References

A jester is a type of actual person, a clown in a pointy cloth hat who follows around a king and tells jokes to amuse him, like the ones in the Shakespeare plays or in Stańczyk (painting). They are not naked people wearing pope hats and king hats, which are also pointy but differently and distinctively shaped. Google translate tells me that Gaukler can mean "juggler" (I don't know myself; I'm not a speaker of German) but it is also obvious that the figures held by the statue are not jugglers: they are not juggling anything and it would be strange for a juggler to be naked and wearing a king hat or a pope hat. Finally, it is also obvious that these figures bear a strong resemblance to Pope Martin V and Emperor Sigismund. I don't know whether the artist said they were Gaukler as a way to be polite and evade the obvious truth that they look like the pope and the emperor, or whether what he actually meant is that they are puppets or figurines or dolls, words that can all be used for small objects that resemble people and are of a size to be held in a hand like the ones in the statue. The puppet or figurine meaning would make sense symbolically, in that a puppet is also something that the person holding it controls, and the symbolic meaning of the story and the statue is that this courtesan was controlling the pope and the emperor. But to say that they are not actually the pope and the emperor is both fatuous (they are parts of a statue, not real people) and evasive of the truth (they really are intended to look like the pope and the emperor). And to say that they are jesters is just incorrect English. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:21, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

I am sorry but the artist clearly states in the quote that they are NOT ("nicht") the pope and emperor:"Es handelt sich bei den Figuren der Imperia nicht um den Papst und nicht um den Kaiser, sondern um Gaukler" ... if you want to use another word than jester, maybe joker. ... I dont understand why the translation problem disqualifies the fact!? Nsae Comp (talk) 01:13, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Ill help to find a better word by describing the use of "Gaukler" by the artist in his statement: he means an entertainer who parodies people. So now you can choose out of the abundance of words for entertainers who do things like that, or just call them entertainers, comics, etc. ... but dont say that even the Cambridge Dictionary wrongly translates "Gaukler" Nsae Comp (talk) 01:32, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

What might help is that "Gaukler" in german means in an old fashion way of expression any sort of street entertainer, so yes juggler could be one. But the sentance of the artist narrows the meaning of "Gaukler" to a parodying entertainer or streetartist. Nsae Comp (talk) 01:38, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

If the artists's statement literally means "those are not actually representations of the pope and the emperor, but of two other people who are pretending to look like the pope and the emperor" then to me it comes across as a polite evasion, because that level of indirection makes no sense for the artwork unless the artist (despite the boldness of his work) is somehow afraid of being called a heretic for depicting a pope in this way. But the correct English word for someone who pretends to be some other specific person would be "impersonator". —David Eppstein (talk) 03:38, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes thats what he said and got published. Your interpretation of a clear statement is of your buisness, but Wikipedia is factual afterall. This is geting increasingly rediculas. The artist clearly seems not to be afraid of controversy, otherwise this piece of art wouldnt look like it does, especially not about being a heretic, this is Germany not some religious backwater. The statement even continues by being irrespectful of the emperor and pope, by saying that it is possible that emperors and popes are baffoons/tricksters/... (how ever you want to translate it, because he uses here again "Gaukler" and as you know by now "Gaukler" is a broad term). Nsae Comp (talk) 08:57, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

PS:This quote is also on the german version of the article and does reference it how I am trying to integrate it here. So this is not only me referencing it like that. Maybe you can find a text that is factual and also brings in your reading, Wikipedia needs to be more constructive and less obstructive specifically for the sake of its principles. Nsae Comp (talk) 09:13, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

I could easily believe that the statue is intended to realistically portray a woman holding two doll-like figurines representing the pope and the emperor. I find it impossible to believe your apparent interpretation, that the statue is intended to realistically portray a woman holding up two other people, who are so tiny that they fit in her hand, and that those two other people are not actually the pope and the emperor but rather tiny impersonators of the pope and the emperor. And the alternative syntheses, that it is intended to realistically portray a woman holding up figurines of impersonators, or that it is a non-realistic portrayal that is intended to show three real people out-of-scale but two of those people are impersonators of the pope and the emperor, don't make any sense. Can we maybe find a third opinion by an editor who is both fluent in German and capable of reading poetic descriptions as being poetic rather than literal? —David Eppstein (talk) 21:33, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Realism of the figures (nor poetry) isn't really a factor. Third Opinion: The translation from German (of the artists' explanation on the two figures) that Nsae Comp has delivered, is factual. I didn't check if the interview's source "Labhards Bodensee Magazin 2013, p. 44–45" is correct in the German quote, but I support Nsae in the principal matter. Just the words "jester", "juggler" or "joker" are wrong in this context. "Gaukler" is a term in the context of carnival fair entertainers (where these translations would be possible), but there is more to it. Another synonym for "Gaukler" is "Narr", literally translated "fool", which I suggest to use in this article instead of "jester". As the artist said: it is upon the observer to interpret these "naked fool sculptures" as depictions of the real thing, or not. If "Fool" doesn't cut it either, then "Gaukler" (in the context of being a funny stage magician) is also possible to translate as "trickster". The original verb "gaukeln" means to "trick others / fool others", mostly in the way of being an illusionist (for entertainment) or a (malevolent) con artist. --Enyavar (talk) 23:45, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

I was at first against the use of fool, because it doesnt highlight as much that a Gaukler is an occupation. But your reminder that it works also with the artists suggestion of the emperor and pope being fools fits nicely. Nsae Comp (talk) 02:05, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

So would something like the following be accurate: "Although the two figures held by Imperia resemble the pope and the emperor, Lenk has stated that they are actually intended to represent entertainers who have dressed as the pope and emperor"? I think "entertainers", while vaguer, is less likely to raise the reaction I had to "jester" of being an obviously-incorrect description of the artwork. "Fool" is not a good choice; it can have the intended meaning, but more often today means "foolish person". —David Eppstein (talk) 05:08, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

It seems to me that "jesters" really is the best choice for translating the sense of the original into English. It's a period-specific term which makes perfect sense in relation to the 15th-century event the statue commemorates. Perhaps link the term jester so that any reader who doesn't know can click through and see that jesters were known for imitation? I also speak German but that's really beside the point here. Nsae Comp has explained the context and the various shades of meaning very well. The problem with "fools" is that in English it has two senses: the earlier one where it's a synonym for jester and the more current one where it refers to a stupid person. I get what Enyavar and Nsae Comp are saying about the artist's intentions, but sticking to a literal translation which avoids ambiguity allows the reader to put that together themselves, and allows us editors to stay clear of WP:OR. Generalrelative (talk) 06:46, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Ok, whatever. Jesters. The other glaring problem with the proposed edits was that they replaced "Pope Martin V and Sigismund" by "jesters representing secular and religious powers". If we are to believe what the artist says, rather than interpreting him as being a jokester himself or letting the art stand for itself (see The Death of the Author), it is nevertheless true that these two figures look like Pope Martin V and Sigismund, and are dressed in hats that are not merely generic representations of secular and religious powers but that specifically would only be worn by the pope and the emperor. It is misleading to remove the pope and the emperor from the description and pretend that these figures are merely allegories of abstract symbolic concepts. Lenk may have literally said something like "the insignia of secular and spiritual power", but those insignia are a pope hat and an emperor hat, signifying not just the power but the person. So, was what said in that phrase merely a circumlocution for "dressed to look like the king and the pope", or are we, like the people in the story supposed to pretend that despite their nakedness they're really dressed in more than what we actually see, erase all thought of popes and emperors from the art, and pretend that it's merely a harmless play presented by some courtiers to amuse the actual pope and emperor rather than a biting satire of their power? A moment's thought reveals what would happen to jesters who did that. Has Lenk come out with equally-believable clarifications about how the people in his other artworks, the ones who resemble actual living German politicians, are not actually representations of those politicians but rather comedians and gymnasts who just happen coincidentally to resemble the politicians? —David Eppstein (talk) 07:41, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

D.Eppstein excuse me but why are you continuing to interprete a factual case? Anyways in my original edit I did consider that it is important to keep the reference to Sigismund and Pope Martin. As above, here again what I had originally: For the info box: "subject = Imperia holding two jesters representing secular and religious powers,[2] possibly Pope Martin V and Sigismund" ... For in the text: "The two men are two jesters representing secular and religious powers and as such at the time of the council represented by Pope Martin V and Emperor Sigismund." —Nsae Comp (talk) 10:27, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

I think (1) the interpretation of art is not generally a purely factual thing, (2) the artist's many-years-later stated interpretation of a piece of art is not the only possible interpretation, and (3) not every statement of an artist should be taken at face value. If a British artist (say) said such a thing, I would understand it to be pure sarcasm, the opposite of what was actually intended by the artwork, a joke to the readers of the quote who understand that it is a joke, a joke at the expense of readers of the quote who don't understand jokes, and an implicit statement that you should interpret it for yourself rather than asking the artist what was meant. Maybe German culture is different and everyone always says exactly what they mean. In any case, your phrasing indicates that the jesters represent the power of Martin and Sigismund but avoids stating the obvious, that they look like Martin and Sigismund. Why are you trying to avoid stating the obvious? —David Eppstein (talk) 16:05, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

I fully endorse Nsae Comp's suggestions, and would only add that I think a translation of the entire statement quoted at the top of this Talk section, noting that this is the artist's own interpretation, would be useful (given the interpretive issues discussed in this thread). David Eppstein, I am sure you mean well but it seems to me that you're overthinking it. So long as the article states that the artist's interpretation is simply the artist's interpretation there should be no issue. The reader can decide for themselves how much weight to give it, and the info box should defer to the artist's statement in the absence of any reliable secondary source stating otherwise. I suggest letting Nsae Comp do the edit and moving on to other things. Cheers to you both! Generalrelative (talk) 19:55, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

My objection at this point is not to including this information, it is instead to stating in Wikipedia's voice definitively that they are jesters, rather than both qualifying this statement as Lenk's statement and continuing to point out the physical resemblence to the two specific people. I have added a version that I think satisfies these considerations. The reference description and other metadata still needs to be translated into English and a link provided if this is possible. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:03, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Upon further reflection, it does seem that the double meaning of "fools" is required to accurately translate Lenk's full statement, so I went with that and did the edit myself. I hope that's alright with y'all. Generalrelative (talk) 20:16, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Your version makes clear that the double meaning is intended, so that's ok. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:36, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

@Generalrelative thank you for the resolution of this issue. Thanks for the engaged discussion everyone. Nsae Comp (talk) 21:58, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

And thank you for the work of translating the statement. Nsae Comp (talk) 21:59, 30 June 2020 (UTC)