 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||
Sixtus does not have six fingers in this painting. The sixth finger (the last one on the pinky side) is an illusion caused by the poor quality of the image in this article. If you look at a high resolution icture of this painting, it is clear that there are five fingers only.
- Indeed, the "sixth" finger is only the ride side of his upper-palm, this is clearly visible when the image is viewed in a high resolution. Since there is now reference either, I shall remove the information. Anrie 20:24, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
- Unfortunately the lower half of the image with the hand of Sixtus doesn't download for high resolution. It's not just with this article, but it's a widespread belief that he has 6 fingers. Also the name of the person and of the painting lead to that thought, especially those who come from non-Christian background. So I am keen to check, but the PC doesn't allow it. Gantuya eng (talk) 13:05, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
- If look carefully, that "excess finger" has a different, lighter colour, than the other fingers. This way one can realise tha it's the ride side of his palm. But still it would be interesting to be able to see the higher resolution image. I can't go to the museum in near future. Gantuya eng (talk) 11:57, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
This page needs the attention of a historian. There is wealth of information on the history of the painting during WWII that needs to be updated. See John and Carol Garrard's book, "BONES OF BERDICHEV: The Life and Fate of Vasily Grossman". Cellomathen (talk) 16:58, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
Cherubs edit
This article says "cherubs" throughout when discussing the winged figures at the bottom, but winged children in Renaissance paintings are properly known as putti, whereas a cherub is a high-ranking angel in the angelic hierarchy, described by Ezekiel as having four faces and four wings. I know that in everyday language people call winged babies "cherubs", but shouldn't Wikipedia be more accurate? Orlando098 (talk) 21:17, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
- Wikipedia reflects what reliable sources say about subjects. In this case, I'm afraid, they generally are referred to as "cherubs", even in the explicitly cited quotes. (See also [1]; [2] (p. 4); [3].) One of the limitations of a tertiary source. :/ There's a tantalyzing suggestion of relevant information at this source (the snippet I can see says "Putti like these are a type of angel, which made their first appearance during the Renaissance...." but, alas, I don't have access to the book). If we can get ahold of a source that explains that in spite of common language these babies are not cherubim, that would certainly be a great thing to add to the article. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:07, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
- The first post is correct, the two figures at the bottom of the painting are putti, not cherubs. Shouldn't the article reflect the terminology used in the art history community? There is also no need to note the misconception, it is already noted in the putto article. I think a lot of the confusion on this would be cleared up by using art history sources and more up to date sources - anything older than 20 years is just too old (unless there for a specific purpose). A more reliable source would be this one: [4] (History of Italian Renaissance Art - Hartt and Wilkins). This specific painting is referred to on pages 561 and 562 of my 5th Edition. Pg. 561 states "At the bottom, two putti lean on a wooden ledge and gaze upward at the vision". Nkalx (talk) 15:09, 12 December 2011 (UTC)