Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Breisacher Munster Hochaltar (Detail).jpg

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

File:Breisacher Munster Hochaltar (Detail).jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Sep 2012 at 09:03:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Breisach Minster high altar detail (Mary's coronation and God the Father)
  •  Info all by Wladyslaw. This picture shows the detail of a high altar that was made in the 16. century. The chief motive is Mary's coronation and God the Father. -- Wladyslaw (talk) 09:03, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support -- Wladyslaw (talk) 09:03, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support I like it. Tomer T (talk) 12:06, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose sorry, but random cut = missing a composition, strong and distracting shadows, unfavorable light. More important will be your whole work: File:Breisacher Munster Hochaltar.jpg. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 14:48, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    the cut is not random but focused on the main motive of the altar, I can't see distracting shadows (distracting would mean that important parts would be bad visbible, which important parts are so?) as well but a nice malleable impression --Wladyslaw (talk) 14:59, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    "I'm sorry, I don't remember asking you for your opinion." Here is simply my opinion at the FP page for all. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 15:05, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, but I don't need a permession to clarify that this image is showing the most important part of the altar. On the other hand you are setting up a theory (distracting shadows) which I question because it is not comprehensible for me. If you like you can answer my question so maybe I can improve the parts that are really distracting. But I can't see such parts. Thank you. --Wladyslaw (talk) 15:17, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    A discussion with you is still pointless. You can accept my opinion or not, that is only your problem. My best hint: take a new image with better light. Bye. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 15:25, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe you shouldn't vote here if you have a serious problem that your opinion could be asked. As you are not willing to anwser my question we all could think ourselves how intense your "opinion" is. --Wladyslaw (talk) 15:42, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry but I'm not your teacher for "how I make a better image", without photographic problems. If you are not open for valid criticism than please don't show us your images. Perhaps it is only one oppose for this image. Good luck. And I remember the de:FP side. For me EOD. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 15:56, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    It has nothing to do with being a teacher to ask a point that I didn't see. I do not ask for lessons but for explanation of a global not specific argument made by you. --Wladyslaw (talk) 18:10, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    You're welcome. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 19:13, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose: Unlevel (rotate ccw), arbitrary crop. -- Julian H. (talk/files) 16:49, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    please explain why the main object which is Cultural-historical most important should be an arbitrary crop. the slight rotation is needed is easy fixed. --Wladyslaw (talk) 18:06, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I can't evaluate the Cultura-historical importance, so when the rotation is corrected, I will change my vote to neutral. --Julian H. (talk/files) 15:00, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support A featurable picture is not necessarily a good picture in the sense that it appeals to the sense of aesthetics or that it is executed with all the lights, bells and whistles of photographic technique. This picture is pretty decent from the technical point of view considering the circumstances. Yes, it has shadows, but the shadows are precisely what give this image texture that reveals the intricacy of the work. The lighting may not be the best, but I think that studio lighting would be pretty hard, considering the logistics of the site. So the best that we can hope for is a good image that describes visually the subject matter, and in this case, even with the crop (you always have to crop something), it is pretty informative in many ways, which is the objective of Commons, to gather images that illustrate, register, capture, etc., etc., material for use in other projects. I am sure that many scholars would find this image extremely valuable. It may not be pretty, exciting, but it informs. It has value. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 22:08, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Brilliant crop; I checked all the angels on the edges. The only problem for me is the shadow on top left. (May be a different crop possible including the Son (while seeing the whole work); but it is a different choice. -- Jkadavoor (Jee) (talk) 07:22, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose I don't like the crop (Jesus and the figures feet are cut off), and the low angle of view (emphasises the stabilising structure in the top left and the shadows). These shadows are really hard but IMO tolarable considering the available light conditions. Maybe you're better of at Commons:VIC --Martin Kraft (talk) 07:48, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Bad lighting towards bottom of picture, cropped too far, and slightly skewed. Lwebdan (talk) 11:53, 4 September 2012 (UTC) // voting not valid, cf. rules, very peculiar that users appear here after years of inactivity --Wladyslaw (talk) 12:41, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Have to agree the crop reduces the value of this image. If this were a continuous or vast display then I could understand having to crop somewhere rather arbitrary. But chopping Christ out of a Christian alter is rather an unusual approach and it seems to me the three figures are equally important in the scene. Any featured image here would surely be the whole alter. Crops of parts of the scene may be useful for commentary in an article, but not in themselves feature-worthy imo. Colin (talk) 17:56, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • sorry, but please have a look at the full altar. There is not Christ figure so Christ was not croped out. Maybe you make a conscientious investigation next time. And the argument why a detail picture could not get a FP is not comprehensible for me because we have many examples which refute your theory. --Wladyslaw (talk) 18:31, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Taxiarchos228 claims the figure on the LHS (cropped out but visible in the full scene linked above) is not Christ. Well this website tells us "The center shrine shows an astonishingly lifelike depiction of the crowning of Mary. God the Father and Christ hold a crown, beautifully decorated with blossoms and angels playing music, high over Mary's head. The Holy Ghost is symbolized by a dove hovering above the crown." Another website says "Coronation of Saint Mary, main altar, 1523-1526. Signed by an unidentified Master "H.L." Saint Mary between God-Father and Christ, the Holy Ghost above her crown. Left the deacons Saint Stephen and Laurence, right the city patrons Protasius and Gervasius." (the left and right here referring to the side panels, also cropped out). This schematic shows the location of Jesus Christ, Mary and God the Father. The German Wikipedia page goes into detail on the figure of Christ saying (via Google Translate) "The representation of Christ is far less restrained. He also appears with a royal crown and scepter. Sweeping hair and a beard frame a gekrauster his face. His gaze, but his whole body is facing Mary. His deep drooping robe boils over his body and held in place by a double cord. At the same time you can see below the bare chest deep spear at his side." But look, the detail crop next to this article text doesn't show Christ. I did my homework before reviewing this article. Both Christ and God the Father jointly crown Mary in this scene. It is absolutely essential that Christ figures in any featurable depiction of this work. I think I and several other reviewers are owed an apology both for the ill-thought-out nomination and the ill-tempered response to review comments.. Colin (talk) 20:41, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Indeed: I mixed this altar up with an other. The figure is Jesus. The german article and the schematic image was written/ made by me years ago. Jesus is important for the christian religion but the figure of Jesus Christ has not the same importance in cultural reception in art over the thousands of years. This picture shows a piece of art which is a Marienaltar (Mary's altar). This means the main figure of presentation and even of worship is Mary. Jesus and even Godfather has iconographicly just a supporting role. This you can see very clearly because Jesus and God are carved below of Mary, actually God and Jesus are looking up to her and she is not kneeing but well dressed and the absolute center of this event. So why Godfather and Mary and not Jesus and Mary or the three altogether? Three figures would take the dramatic and aesthetic content. God and Mary are facing each other, so my choose was to picture this interaction of this both figures. To put Jesus to an importance that he has definitely not means ignoring the cultural history facts. It's not blemish not to know this important details of the picture but it's a blemish to insist on points that are not reproducing the matter of facts. Therefore this candidature is closed. --Wladyslaw (talk) 21:39, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • The reduction of central compositioned scenery (with Marie surounded by the trinity) to a bipolar composition (with just Marie an God father) alters the meaning and icongraphy intended by the 16th century artist. Therefore it's this arbitrary cut that ignores 'cultural history facts' for some 'dramatic and aesthetic' reasons (I don't approve). --Martin Kraft (talk) 07:40, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • The reduction of this both figures is owed to the fact that the the artist has chosen this both figures facing each other. --Wladyslaw (talk) 09:09, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
              • Mary is not looking down at God the Father. Her head is tilted slightly that way, as though she is listening to him, but she's looking ahead/up, at the crown perhaps. As Martin states, the whole trinity is represented here (with the Holy Spirit above). You're entitled to your opinion that Mary/God are the two most important figures and we are entitled to ours that the scene requires all four figures to function correctly. Claiming our opinion is a "blemish" and that we are ignorant (wrt Christ figuring) when in fact we are correct is just plain rude. Colin (talk) 09:54, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                I didn't said that Mary is looking down to Godfahther, I said they are facing each other because they do so. Please do not interpret clear facts as you thinks best. And the rest of your theory is definitely wrong. You can read all relevant of this altar in Uwe Fahrer et al. (Bearb.), Münsterpfarrei St. Stephan Breisach (Hrsg.): Das Breisacher Münster. Schnell & Steiner. Regensburg 2005, ISBN 3-7954-1649-3, page 44 til 48. --Wladyslaw (talk) 13:29, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                • Well she's not facing him either. For comparison, he is facing her. Quite different. She is facing the front both in terms of her body and her head. Her head is titled at an angle to one one side but is still facing forwards. This really is the most silly discussion I've had all week. Colin (talk) 13:47, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
@Colin: Don't waste your time: Wladyslaw will neither accept his obvious misconception nor apologise for his imputations. Somebody who continues to claim all the 'clear facts' for himself, after beeing proved wrong already, won't take any criticism at all. --Martin Kraft (talk) 14:36, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
<ironie>Of course, literature clearly states, that the only reasonable way to photograph this altar is to cut off two thirds of the trinity, because it is only about this two characters and everything else is just, what the artist did in his spare time.</ironie>Come on: this is nonsense and you know that! --Martin Kraft (talk) 15:54, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The theory was: is Jesus so important that this figure can not be cropped out. This theory is demonstrably false. --Wladyslaw (talk) 09:49, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment This is both epic and rather amusing. It also highlights everything that is wrong with this project. 131.137.245.209 13:59, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Uses who are not brave enough to log in and write their opinion using their real name? Is something wrong with the project or just with single users? I believe Commons is more than a loose collection of users. Regarding the candidate, it's of very fine quality but you ask people for their opinion here and these may be influenced by various things, even their current mood. -- Rillke(q?) 15:56, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:Breisacher_Munster_Hochaltar_(Detail).jpg&oldid=303775411"