Talk:Rosalia (festival)

Congrats and comment

Congratulations on an interesting DYK!

However, I want to comment less positively on the use of illustrations. There are quite a number of images here drawn from the 17th to 19th centuries. In every case where the modern picture has been used to illustrate the ancient context, it is of far less value than the Ancient depictions of the same event, and, despite being appropriately captioned, may confuse rather than inform the reader, because in every case the artistic notion is bound to be an inaccurate one.

My suggestion is that a section is devoted to representations of Rosalia in art and that the group of pictures is placed there. (I am not referring to those that deal with the continuing Marian tradition.) As an art historian, I see one of the aspects of any work of art as being a primary source of history, for the period to which it dates. Hence an imaginative, illustrative and romanticised 19th century painting is a primary source to the 19th century, and shouldn't be used as a primary source to an ancient culture, regardless of what it depicts, and regardless of how beautiful it is. The only reason for drawing such a source as illustrative material for an encyclopedic article would be that there is no other depiction. In this case, there are a number of relevant pics.

Amandajm (talk) 06:32, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

I couldn't disagree more. FIrst of all, that would most assuredly be OR: I'm aware of no scholarly treatment of the "Rosalia in art" that would generate text for such a section. Second, please read the classical tradition: reception is an important part of classical studies, and an area that is enjoying renewed attention from classicists. (In fact, books from scholarly presses often use a cover image from later paintings. T.P. Wiseman begins his crossover book on Roman mythology by looking at the reception of Roman myths and legends by painters from the Renaissance through Romanticism.) Third, each image is clearly labeled with its date, so readers know this is a later representation. Some even have footnotes to works explaining that the painting is a treatment of classical themes. Fourth, if you've read the article, you've seen that themes of continuation, syncretism, and adaptation are inherent in the treatment of this festival. Moreover, the interest in illustrating classical themes around the turn of the 19th-20th century reflects and was inspired by archaeological discoveries of the 19th century and by the vivid interest in myths and their interpretation generated by the work of J.G. Frazer, Jane Ellen Harrison, and others. The approach you advocate runs completely counter to the spirit of classical studies. Cutting the study of antiquity off from its later reception renders it into a merely academic or antiquarian pursuit, rather than a living tradition. Cynwolfe (talk) 16:20, 11 June 2013 (UTC)