Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Rahula - Google Art Project.jpg
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
File:Rahula - Google Art Project.jpg, featured[edit]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 May 2015 at 17:20:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media
Info created by unknown artist, uploaded by DcoetzeeBot, nominated by -- Yann (talk) 17:20, 27 April 2015 (UTC)- Info Rāhula is the son of Buddha. Tibetan art, 16th century. High resolution, high quality reproduction.
Support -- Yann (talk) 17:20, 27 April 2015 (UTC)- Support --LivioAndronico talk 12:58, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
- Support --Tremonist (talk) 16:17, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
- Support -- Pofka (talk) 13:52, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
- Support -- Christian Ferrer 17:19, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
- Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 22:31, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
- Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 05:06, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
Comment Tilted ccw and, in my opinion, the works by unknown artist(painter) should not be featured. I think if the quality is outstanding, that is valuable even it was created by unknown painter but that's not suitable for commons FP. --Laitche (talk) 17:20, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
- @Laitche: The author of Tibetan art work is very rarely known. More generally, before the 20th century, signing an art work is quite a Western tradition. Requiring the artist to be known would prevent almost any work from many places (Tibet, India, etc.) to be FP. Is that what you mean? Regards, Yann (talk) 19:38, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
- @Yann: I investigated about this image before I voted, and I think probably this image is Thangka,
but that is not the pointand I guess Thangka was a kind of mass-produced popular publications made by craftsmen so that is distinctly different from like this one. As I mentioned above If the quality is outstanding, that is valuable even it was created by unknown painter., that is my opinion but I think that kind of works(products) are not suitable for Commons FP, however if the category is changed to Commons:Featured pictures/Historical, maybe I can support this image as a history of Tibetan art, Regards. --Laitche (talk) 21:53, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
- @Yann: I investigated about this image before I voted, and I think probably this image is Thangka,
- @Laitche: The author of Tibetan art work is very rarely known. More generally, before the 20th century, signing an art work is quite a Western tradition. Requiring the artist to be known would prevent almost any work from many places (Tibet, India, etc.) to be FP. Is that what you mean? Regards, Yann (talk) 19:38, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
- Is it an answer to your question? --Laitche (talk) 22:00, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
- @Laitche: I think you are trying to compare apples and oranges. I don't think thangkas were more mass-produced that paintings in Europe at the same period. It is the most common form of Tibetan art which survived and is known to us. So as such, I don't don't see why thangkas are not suitable for FP. I think it is either discrimination or misunderstanding of Tibetan art. We put European paintings of that period in category "Non-photographic media", and I don't see why Tibetan art should be different. Regards, Yann (talk) 07:31, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
- @Yann: Oh, no! It's not discrimination of Tibetan art. In my opinion, thangkas are not works, those are products and the artists are not unknown, but the artists do not exist and that's the point thangas are different from European paintings. In this case it's like a kimono, if the quality is outstanding and artistic but that is not suitable for "Non-photographic media" and kimonos are not works, but products and artists don't exist. And about Ukiyo-e which made by woodblocks(some are not) is also mass-produced popular publications but definitely artists exist so that's different. Yes, that's right, apples and oranges that's the same as thangas and European paintings. And that's why thangas are not suitable for "Non-photographic media". But I can be mistaken of course, what do you think about? --Laitche (talk) 09:55, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
- @Laitche: Thangas are not mass-produced, so your comparaison is wrong. Kimonos are dresses, thangas are not. Regards, Yann (talk) 10:03, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
- @Yann: That's not what I meant. The artist, thangas artists are not unknown, but do not exist, that's the point and it's like a kimonos. Yes, mass-produced is too far maybe but the same thangas are made by different craftsmen, right? --Laitche (talk) 10:24, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
- @Laitche: Of course, thanga artists do exist. What you make less and less sense. Yann (talk) 10:28, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
- @Yann: But by your theory, kimonos artists exist as well, especially the famous craftsmen... and if you are not convinced, it's okay. That's just my opinion :) --Laitche (talk) 10:42, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
- @Yann: I've changed my vote to comment, Regards. --Laitche (talk) 11:03, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
- @Laitche: Of course, thanga artists do exist. What you make less and less sense. Yann (talk) 10:28, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
- @Yann: That's not what I meant. The artist, thangas artists are not unknown, but do not exist, that's the point and it's like a kimonos. Yes, mass-produced is too far maybe but the same thangas are made by different craftsmen, right? --Laitche (talk) 10:24, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
- @Laitche: Thangas are not mass-produced, so your comparaison is wrong. Kimonos are dresses, thangas are not. Regards, Yann (talk) 10:03, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
- @Yann: Oh, no! It's not discrimination of Tibetan art. In my opinion, thangkas are not works, those are products and the artists are not unknown, but the artists do not exist and that's the point thangas are different from European paintings. In this case it's like a kimono, if the quality is outstanding and artistic but that is not suitable for "Non-photographic media" and kimonos are not works, but products and artists don't exist. And about Ukiyo-e which made by woodblocks(some are not) is also mass-produced popular publications but definitely artists exist so that's different. Yes, that's right, apples and oranges that's the same as thangas and European paintings. And that's why thangas are not suitable for "Non-photographic media". But I can be mistaken of course, what do you think about? --Laitche (talk) 09:55, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
- @Laitche: I think you are trying to compare apples and oranges. I don't think thangkas were more mass-produced that paintings in Europe at the same period. It is the most common form of Tibetan art which survived and is known to us. So as such, I don't don't see why thangkas are not suitable for FP. I think it is either discrimination or misunderstanding of Tibetan art. We put European paintings of that period in category "Non-photographic media", and I don't see why Tibetan art should be different. Regards, Yann (talk) 07:31, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
- Is it an answer to your question? --Laitche (talk) 22:00, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
- @Yann: I think there are two types of thangkas especially in the early stages, that's more like artifact by divided work but there are lots of thangkas like painting as well, that was insufficient investigation and misunderstanding about thangkas so Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media is appropriate, I think, Regards. --Laitche (talk) 11:36, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
- Blocked for no real reviewing. Yann (talk) 12:20, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Non-photographic media
