Talk:David (Donatello, bronze)

blabla

Putting the image on the right solves the text wrapping problem, but now it looks as if he's turning his back on the article! This might seem a trivial point, but it's one of those things that bug me. I altered the image in the Rudyard Kipling article for the same reason, but using a mirror image wouldn't work on a full-length statue and I don't have a picture from the other side. Oh, why must life be so hard? :-/ Lee M 00:15, 24 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I think it throws things off to have the opening text of the article on the right, so when I'm floating left I put the image in front of the second paragraph, wraps better. I'm hoping Infrogmation thinks this change is OK. - Hephaestos 00:20, 24 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Looks good to me, anyway. Thanks for the help. Lee M 18:20, 25 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Commentary on the Hats

I thought one of the most interesting part of this sculpture was also the hats. David is wearing a Florentine hat and Goliath is wearing a Milan hat symbolizing the (perceived) dominance of Florence over Milan. Any thoughts to including this?

Which Mary McCarthy?

the mab we all know

Restoration

Apparently (from Rick Steve's web site)the statue is being restored currently and is viewable to the public. Is this the sort of thing we'd like to add here? Pthorson 19:20, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Suspicion leans toward Mercury and not Apollo?

He is depicted wearing a hat crowned in laurel, a tree sacred to Apollo, so why would Mercury be referenced instead? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.71.245.81 (talk) 06:17, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

The way he's dressed, the pose, and the general "feel" of the statue definitely align more with my image of Hermes rather than Apollo - there's also the whole "killing a giant with a stone" parallel. The most plausible explanation is probably that we don't have any sources for comparisons to Apollo, but if you want to look for a reference, go for it. 24.206.237.65 (talk) 22:50, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I question the ambiguity of the two clauses at and with respect to note 26: "However, this identification is certainly mistaken; all quattrocento references to the statue identify it as David." Regrettably I do not have the cited book to hand. What exactly did John Shearman write? Did he say, explicitly, that the identification as Mercury is _certainly_ mistaken? Or did he say that all the 15th-century sources identify it as David (which imo does not prove anything about later identifications? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.17.179.75 (talk) 16:01, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Too Opinionated

Is the Controversy section too opinionated? I mean it almost sounds like an art review, especially when it uses words like "bland." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.244.93.140 (talk) 00:45, 10 June 2011 (UTC) 153.10.242.1 (talk) 16:54, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Not only is it opinionated, it is over-emphasizing the "riskiness" of this statue, based apparently on a PBS documentary about this statue rather than academic scholarship. I'm going to come back and fix this later. User: El Dupe

Word use, clarity, and revision?

The following comments apply both to the section of the Donatello article that pertains to the bronze David and to the section of the David (Donatello) article that pertains to the bronze.

In the following sections, there are statements that could be judged as subjective, conjecture, or ambiguous. Also, some of the wording may need to be revised. I have noted comments and revisions in single brackets: [ ]. Discussion, of course, is welcomed. If needed, I will, after a period, change and rewrite those things that are noted below and provide citations.

The article reads: This piece was requested ["commissioned" may be the preferred term] by the Medici family to be placed in the centre of the courtyard of the Palazzo Medici Riccardi in Florence. This daring move showed that the Medici family thought that they could take ownership of David, a symbol of the city of Florence. [This comment is a bit subjective and ambiguous. Although David was a symbol of Florence and the Medici were a ruling family of the city, these facts alone do not mean the commission was an "ownership" of David. Perhaps, it would be better to state that such a commission represented an desire to be allied or associated with the ideals and principles of David the Warrior and Victor? This is a subject that has been discussed by scholars of Donatello and the Medici. Perhaps, if the author wishes to include the civic importance of this David to the Medici it may be of use to include: "The first free-standing nude bronze of the Renaissance, David the Victor or Warrior (to distinguish the imagery and meaning from David as Prophet or David as King) was commissioned by the Medici who wished to legitimatize, if only in popular opinion, their leadership of Florence. The meaning of this David would be implicit and clear to Florentines of the period." Similarities could be noted that David was a shepherd boy, the Medici wished to be perceived as of the people. As David did, the Medici responded to public outcry for the end of tyranny. As did David, the Medici defeated a mightier foe and became a recognized Hero of the people.]

The article continues: Because this was such a scandalous idea at the time, Donatello put some shifts on the subject matter that could explain away the identity of David as "just another sculpture". Goliath's helmet has a feather protruding that can be seen as attached to David's foot, and thus characterized as Hermes, the Greek god [Following the questionable premise of "ownership of David", the author goes onto make a logical fallacy: Ownership of David would be scandalous; therefore Donatello must subvert this. Also is the "just another sculpture" from an expert source or the author's own opinion. If the former, where are the citations? If the latter, author please explain further. It is doubtful that a Quattrocento sculptor, especially one who was a scholar of classic antique canons of proportion and meaning would have "put some shifts on the subject matter" but if there is something more please expand.]

The article continues: The David also has slight breasts which could classify him as a woman if seen from the side where his leg is blocking his testicles. [On viewing the David from the side in person and not reproduction- which may be the source of the misunderstanding- these do not seem to be the slight breasts of a woman; but, rather, those of a muscular young man. Donatello's bronze of David is based on a classic canon of proportions for a young hero. As stated before, Donatello was a scholar of classical canons of proportion. (a study that was begun in earnest when he travelled with Brunelleschi to Rome sometime in the early 1400's according to Vasari. Modern historians note lack of documentation for Vasari's account and cite the later date of after 1429 for his travel to Rome, with Michelozzo the sculptor.) Examples for "Heroes" employing ideal canon of proportions in antique imagery would include those of Praxiteles and the Riace Bronzes. Donatello would have been familiar with Alberti's canon.]

The article states that this David was without architectural setting. This is uncertain as some commentators, starting with Vasari, mention a pillar or fountain upon which the statue was originally placed. Easelpainter (talk) 00:25, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Issues persist

As others have previously noted, there are issues with this article, particularly the level of commentary. For example, the paragraph that begins "The marble David is Donatello's earliest known important commission..." is loaded with analysis, commentary, and conclusions with no apparent source. Frankly, it reads like it was copied from someone's undergrad Art History paper. The bit about the cocky arm is cited, and so is the quote that ends the paragraph, but the edit history of the article confirms that those cites are specific to those statements; they are not for the block of WP:OR that precedes them. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 12:04, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Splitting the marble piece

Earlier today, I boldly split the marble piece off into its own article, as it has substantial sourcing to sustain its own article. It is also very much its own piece with its own background and history.

If the concept of a split itself seems like something to object to, definitely feel free to discuss on here about that. A message was left on my user talk page that touched on discussing the idea of splitting the information and so I will link that user talk page discussion here for context/posterity.

I'll be getting to the more technical linking/cleanup actions of the split in just a second. Soulbust (talk) 03:29, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

The idea is you raise an idea this before before doing it! I boldly (and briefly) told you what I thought of your way of going about it on your talk, which you have taken exception to. Johnbod (talk) 13:53, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Lol no. You're not gonna misrepresent our conversation on my talk page.

I did not take exception with you raising a concern on my talk page. I've been able to constructively work through and compromise with other editors on any concerns they may have had in the past.

What I did take exception to was the tone you were speaking to me with (which was extended through the adjectives you used to describe my edits in your edit summaries), and your demands I don't make further edits.

If you don't plan on discussing the actual concept of splitting the marble piece from the bronze piece into its own separate article, and are just going to criticize my function of splitting it, then please kindly chill out. The articles can be improved over time, as I have already started the process of on the marble's page. Soulbust (talk) 19:34, 20 September 2024 (UTC)