Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Padrão Descobrimentos April 2009-1b.jpg

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

Voting period ends on 16 Apr 2009 at 23:51:13
SHORT DESCRIPTION

  •  Info Monument to the Portuguese maritime discoveries (detail). Lisbon, Portugal. Everything by Alvesgaspar (talk) 23:51, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 23:51, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support good composition, sharp, good details --Mbdortmund (talk) 01:02, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Great image!--Mbz1 (talk) 01:07, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support --Roman Zacharij (talk) 08:50, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support —kallerna™ 13:41, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Alvesgaspar, I find it very curious that you oppose the display of flags and religious symbols alleging ideological considerations, that is, the ideas or ideological meaning of the symbols. Well, with this one you hit a very raw nerve, consciously or unconsciously. The sculpture itself is loaded with an ideology that is offensive to a large part of the world and a one sided interpretation of history. What you refer to as maritime discoveries, for example, is no such thing. Encroachment, conquest or invasion are more descriptive terms, and so many adjectives can be added to them. Brutal, at least, having those “discoveries” by Portugal and Spain caused the death of millions of people and the destruction of their cultures. In modern terms it is called a holocaust. Nothing short of that. The heroic, pious or resolute poses, and thus ideological driven monument, is just that, an ideological monument that negates the other half of history. As a sculpture, it can be said that it has “technical merit”, but nothing that I would consider a work of art. Photographically speaking, a mediocre photograph. So I oppose on ideological grounds and lack of artistic relevance of the sculpture. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 14:43, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment -- So much displaced rage! The whole monument has the shape of a stylized caravel and the sculpture is loaded with symbols of technical, scientific and artistic achievements, which were the main Portuguese contributions to the Renaissance revolution: the caravel, the marine astrolable, the quadrant, the armilar sphere, painter utensils and even some verses (the verses of Luiz Vaz de Camões). I see nowhere symbols of hate, invasion or conquest, unless we consider the sheathed swords and the Christian cross as such. Neither do I perceive any heroic or resolute poses in these known historic figures. Please note that the conquistadores, who were responsible for the slaughter of many and the death of a civilization, are your ancestors, not mine. As for the mediocrity of the photo, maybe that is so. We will see.-- Alvesgaspar (talk) 17:33, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment LOL!!!! Take no offense Alvesgaspar…. Appreciation of history is a tricky thing… but if my humble education does not lie to me, Portugal, with its contributions that you mentioned, was also very responsible for the slave trade, using with dexterity the wonderful advances in navigation that you mention. Had it not been for the church´s limitations on the “discovered” territories (which had been previously discovered and populated beforehand anyhow, but somehow western history regards those people as mere “things”. Remember that there was even a debate at the time about whether they were human or not) perhaps Portugal would have taken a little bit more of the American continent other than Brazil…. Anyhow, history cannot be turned back, but the interpretation of the historical act is still possible. I wonder why they did not include slaves in shackles in the sculpture? Anyway, don´t take it personal…. This is just a rethorical, friendly exchange… --Tomascastelazo (talk) 18:45, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose The photo needs more on the left. And a slightly high angle. Reshoot please. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 10:17, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Does this have valid encyclopaedic content? Yes. My only hesitation is, as has already been said, some doubt about the composition having so obviously more figures off the lower left hand side. And Tomas, if we followed your comment about "one-sided interpretation of history" etc., then far more images in Wikimedia, and articles in Wikipedia, would have to go. In the nature of Wikipedia as "open source", there is much inaccuracy there. Just as there is in other publications, not least Al Gore's film, which has both made him much richer, and been challenged in a British court case which showed it to be full of errors. Whether or not this sculptor reflects an accurate account of history is not the issue here. Encyclopaedic content - that this exists - and photographic merit are the issue. Yes, I would like to see another version of this showing the figures to the left. But it is certainly no worse than the official photo of Barry Soetoro, which I think did get voted to Featured Picture status in spite of generally uninspiring colours, and his left shoulder being cropped by the White House photographer. -- Robert of Ramsor (talk) 00:43, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose I like the angle (it's all about the glorification of the so-called "explorers," so the angle from below fits perfectly; besides it's the well-known/famous perspective) and even the composition with the left cut off "does it" for me. I'm just not convinced by the light. I haven't been there, but I believe to have seen sunlight on it on other images? --Ibn Battuta (talk) 01:55, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
result: 6 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. —kallerna™ 15:02, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:Padrão_Descobrimentos_April_2009-1b.jpg&oldid=20382153"