Talk:The Battle of Anghiari (Leonardo)

the rubens is a copy of a copy - when it was done in the 17th century the original was already gone

cerca trova

It would seem that the location of the green flag (which may just as well be a small arrow) is almost exactly coincident in a vertical line with the vertical side of the door below it. It might therefore indicate exactly the top left corner of the Battle of Anghiari. Furthermore, if the ceiling was raised, it is logical to assume that Vasari would have inserted strong pegs into the plaster directly above the Battle painting in order to erect a temporary roof above the Battle, in order to protect the Battle from falling plaster and rubble as the ceiling was lifted. There may well therefore be a row of peg holes visible (now filled) on thermographic imaging in a line above the original Battle painting. Lgh —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.176.25.216 (talk) 04:31, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Update

Looks like it it time to include some updated info, see: Press Release ~Eric F 184.76.225.106 (talk) 16:17, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Misc. edits

• Added "one of the" to "later frescoes" in the lead, for clarity; otherwise it implies multiple locations.

(however, there is more than one fresco on the wall in front of the wall possibly containing the "lost" painting; so this might need clarification?)

• Removed "no less than" preceding "Niccolò Machiavelli" since it implies ancillary information not on this page; and otherwise seems to be a non-encyclopedic aside.
• Changed "Allegedly" to "Purportedly" in image description, for clarity. ~Eric F 184.76.225.106 (talk) 19:11, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
• Inserted WP link to 'The_Last_Supper_(Leonardo_da_Vinci)' ~Eric F 184.76.225.106 (talk) 20:40, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
• Added info: "on the east wall" ~Eric F 184.76.225.106 (talk) 00:07, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
• Changed "Possible recovery" to "Possible discovery" in section title. -- There is no discussion (yet) of recovery. ~Eric F 184.76.225.106 (talk) 06:11, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Confusing

The relationship between the drawing (shown) and the painting is confusing in this article. For instance, the second paragraph of the lead states that Many preparatory studies by Leonardo still exist; but then goes on to describe works by artists other than Da Vinci. The title above the image: The Battle of Anghiari is not the title of the work (The Battle of the Standard), and the artist is listed as Leonardo da Vinci. Describing the image as "a copy of ..." might be convenient short-hand, it is not entirely accurate. While reading the entire article can clarify the situation, a reader just skimming can easily be confused or come away with erroneous assumptions. I'm not sure how to rectify the situation within the template/guidelines, etc., but this certainly needs some work. ~Eric F 184.76.225.106 (talk) 19:41, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

The problem with infoboxes is that they require simple yes/no answers and don't lend themselves to subtle explanations. This is another example of a misleading one and is the reason some editors don't use them. I suggest the image is removed from the infobox and inserted as a standalone image with an appropriate caption. This will leave an infobox with only a trivial amount of information, all of which is in the first sentence of the lede. It may as well be removed altogether. SpinningSpark 21:25, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Citations needed

Citations are needed just about everywhere in this article. In particular, I am having trouble verifying the statement that N. Machiavelli "signed the contract" (commission). ~Eric F 184.76.225.106 (talk) 21:50, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

[1][2][3]. SpinningSpark 22:29, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! #2 should do the trick. ~Eric F 184.76.225.106 (talk) 23:21, 12 March 2012 (UTC)