Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:The Theotokos Glykofilousa (16th century; Богородица Умиљења).jpg

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

File:The Theotokos Glykofilousa (16th century; Богородица Умиљења).jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Sep 2021 at 04:57:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

The Theotokos Glykofilousa close-up (16th century)
  • Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media/Religion#Christianity
  •  Info Close-up of icon (painting) The Theotokos Glykofilousa (16th century) by unknown author. My photo -- Mile (talk) 04:57, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support -- Mile (talk) 04:57, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment Nice detail, pretty sharp at 60%, but do you have a picture of the whole painting? If you do, please link it. I personally feel that details are of limited use, most of the time, and that it's almost always better to look at a reproduction of the whole artwork, but that could easily be a bias as a result of having a painter for a father. He felt that way because the composition is perceived by looking at the entire work, and his opinion was that detailed views aren't intended by the artist. Of course in this case, you are the artist, but I still think it would be best for you to also provide a link to a photo of the whole work, so that we can see the context. Others may well disagree. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:23, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Daniel Case (talk) 05:03, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Highly interesting detail for me. Ikan’s comment is very important and reasonable, but I have to confess that I feel the other way around. I have grown up between many books about art, but most of them offered only photos of complete artworks and no details; and in museums it is not always allowed to get close enough to study and appreciate the fine details of paintings and sculptures. So it felt like a revelation to me when, in the late 1990s, I discovered some newer art books that also showed detail shots of paintings, so I could finally see facial expressions more closely and study brushstrokes; and I was even more thrilled when more and more high-resolution photos of paintings appeared on the internet. I think both are important: photographs that show the entirety of a work of art, so you can grasp the composition; and detail shots that allow you to study important parts, such as faces, and to judge the care of the execution of the artwork. --Aristeas (talk) 08:28, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment I don't disagree that details can be a useful tool, but much like excerpting a piece of music for the purposes of focusing on a section to analyze it, the excerpt/detail is not usually a great composition by itself. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:00, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment True, true. Many museums put a protection line or the rope too far and you cant see details. Often I see more from the photo than observing beside the painting. Ikan Kekek Mel Gibson would not agree. He took details for Icon Productions, i made some comparison. Shouldn't be the logo on en.Wiki on PD ?! Now is Non-free media. --Mile (talk) 12:48, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 4 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:43, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:The_Theotokos_Glykofilousa_(16th_century;_Богородица_Умиљења).jpg&oldid=588296694"