Talk:Venus de Milo/Archive 1

Archive 1

Arms?

i would just like to know why it is that the Venus De Milo sculpture has no arms? Was she created with them but found without? Was she made without them for some reason? I would appreciate a response thanks! I'll be checking the site!

I'm fairly certain she was found that way. I know she was not sculpted without arms, but whether the arms broke off after her discovery or before I don't know. If they broke off afterwards, I'd think they would have been kept. —Frecklefoot 19:56, 2 Feb 2004 (UTC)

The first page listed in the External links section says that she was created with arms, but that they were already missing when she was found. So there you go. —Paul A 01:27, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Twelve days out of Touloun the ship was anchored off the island of Melos. Ashore, d'Urville and [fellow officer] Matterer met a Greek peasant, who a few days earlier while ploughing had uncovered blocks of marble and a statue in two pieces, which he offered cheaply to the two young men. It was of a naked woman with an apple in her raised left hand, the right hand holding a draped sash falling from hips to feet, both hands damaged and separated from the body. Even with a broken nose, the face was beautiful. D'Urville the classicist recognized the Venus of the Judgement of Paris. It was, of course, the Venus de Milo. He was eager to acquire it, but his practical captain, apparently uninterested in antiquities, said there was nowhere to store it on the ship, so the transaction lapsed. The tenacious d'Urville on arrival at Constantinople showed the sketches he had made to the French ambassador, the Marquis de Riviére, who sent his secretary in a French Navy vessel to buy it for France. Before he could take delivery, French sailors had to fight Greek brigands for possession. In the mêlée the statue was roughly dragged across rocks to the ship, breaking off both arms, and the sailors refused to go back to search for them. [1]

I think we may write something about restoration theories:

A study of the archaeological goddess of womanhood

Masterpieces of Greek sculpture, a series of essays on the history of art

Masterpieces of Greek sculpture, a series of essays on the history of art

维纳斯断臂之复原(Chinese)

Chris Sapayang (talk) 09:59, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Picture

I uploaded a picture at commons, see commons:Image:venus_de_milo_bs.jpg. It's an actual picture taken in the museum. I don't have an eye for aesthetics, so I'll let someone else replace it if they feel like it. CryptoDerk 05:11, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)

Nevermind. I found 2 better pics (which I've inserted) on commons. CryptoDerk 21:57, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)

I’m not sure who/what/when (it doesn’t really matter) changed the photo to the current version, but I don’t aesthetically see how the current picture is better than the one I uploaded. The color balance and resolution are poorer in comparison. This isn’t a competition, but I disagree with the photo change. --Mespinola 19:29, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, we're both talking about our own pictures so it's hard to be impartial. Regarding resolution, both are similar: my picture is 2250x3775 and weighs 3.54 MB; yours is 2000x3008 and weighs 2.57 MB. My picture has a yellow dominant; I controlled white balance with a grey chart before shooting. You used the auto white balance mode in a mixed light environment (natural light and tungsten), which explains a slight blue tinge on the hips of the statue (my monitor is calibrated). Your picture has less noise, mine is a tad sharper. All in all it balances out. I'm not the one who changed the picture. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 13:15, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I shoot RAW. I color balance post-production based on location metering, but the EXIF still shows auto because thats what I leave the camera set to when I take the shot. --Mespinola 03:51, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Trivia section

I deleted the trivia section. None of the points listed were significant or relevant to Venus de Milo. Such a famous work of art is of course referenced several times in popular culture, but to list every instance would be folly. If the reference to venus is important to the popular work in question, it should be mentioned in the article dealing with the popular work itself. However, many of the mentions in this section was to very minor (generally armless and female) characters, that do not merit mention anywhere on wikipedia. For those of you who disagree with me, please read Wikipedia:Trivia before reverting my edit. If you really DO wish to include a popular culture/trivia-section in this article, I suggest it be written in prose form on the general impact of this work on popular culture rather than as a list of meaningless trivia. However, such a section would likely be original resarch. Dr bab 13:25, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

COMMON; SCULPTURES OF THAT TIME PERIOD DID NOT PORTRAY HANDS!

Discovery

The story of the discovery of the statue branches out in the middle with an anecdote of the statue being dragged over rocks and into the ship. The story resumes with the statue in possession of the original discoverer. The two need to be sorted out for truth and placed into a proper narrative, they seem to conflict in terms of the facts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.12.222.117 (talk) 17:38, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Accent

If the name has to be written in French, there should be an accent, Vénus de Milo. Or should it be Venus of Milo? 83.199.114.12 (talk) 22:28, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Name

If this statue is Greek, why is it called by its Roman name? Emperor001 (talk) 03:38, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I wanted to ask the same question..can anybody answer? - Sthenel (talk) 19:02, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Sometimes Roman names are just better known, cf. Hercules. I'm curious, though--while it makes sense to call a statue found in the ruins of a Greek civilization by its Greek name, both "Aphrodite of Milo" and "Venus de Milo" are modern appellations. I'm not sure the former is any more legitimate, even though as a person of Greek descent, I tend to favor Greek names over Roman. --BDD (talk) 22:41, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Even though the prevailing term is "Venus de Milo", in all other situations the correct spelling of the name of the island is "Milos", according to the ELOT 743 transliteration standard in rendering Greek names in Latin characters. Please also note that the term "Melos" is commonly used when referring to Milos in antiquity. Spelling it this way cannot be considered wrong, but in any case, the trailing 's' should never be omitted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.198.82.32 (talk) 13:50, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm surprised to find in the name « Ἀφροδίτη τῆς Μήλου, Aphroditē tēs Mēlou» written in ancient greek. Maybe modern greek should be better, more usefull? «Αφροδίτη της Μήλου, Aphroditi tis Milou»--NoFraJe (talk) 12:13, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Fame

I see that the claims of this paragraph are not supported by bibliography.14:49, 25 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Metsobon34 (talk • contribs)

Louvre link

THE LINK "LOUVRE MUSEUM" in the first paragraph is erroneous — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.73.33.101 (talk) 17:41, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I fixed the link there and also in the Infobox. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 19:50, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Note: this problem arose because someone changed Louvre to redirect to louver. This was an extremely bad decision, as almost two thousand articles link to Louvre, and almost all of them are intended for the museum. I have reverted that to restore the more logical redirect. Thanks again to the IP for pointing out the problem. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 20:14, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Vandalism problem

Look at the second line and compare it to what it says in editing mode. Someone who despises the TMNT namesake character has hacked this article!

Ian Fairchild (talk) 12:34, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 16:07, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

I might have been flipping my lid. I went back to the article today to check it, and the word is no longer there. Sorry to trouble you all. Ian Fairchild (talk) 19:29, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

ok so im kinda scared and i need you guys help XD what is this about? i've looked at the articles but still dont get it plz edit this and tell me thnx and i am interested in greek history thats why i am here :) to learn about greek gods :) and the photo is creepy — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.21.68.83 (talk) 16:22, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

"Presumably"

"Upon learning of the reversal of the sale, Nicholas Mourousi presumably had the chiefs whipped and fined."

This use of the word "presumably" makes it sound like pure speculation. Any evidence to back this claim up? David (talk) 10:35, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Venus de Milo. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110108063847/http://www.louvre.fr:80/llv/oeuvres/detail_notice.jsp?CONTENT%3C%3Ecnt_id=10134198673237785&CURRENT_LLV_NOTICE%3C%3Ecnt_id=10134198673237785&FOLDER%3C%3Efolder_id=9852723696500817&bmLocale=en/ to http://www.louvre.fr/llv/oeuvres/detail_notice.jsp?CONTENT%3C%3Ecnt_id=10134198673237785&CURRENT_LLV_NOTICE%3C%3Ecnt_id=10134198673237785&FOLDER%3C%3Efolder_id=9852723696500817&bmLocale=en/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:53, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Venus de Milo. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111207111428/http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/12/01/41876.htm to http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/12/01/41876.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.louvre.fr/llv/oeuvres/detail_notice.jsp?CONTENT%3C%3Ecnt_id=10134198673237785&CURRENT_LLV_NOTICE%3C%3Ecnt_id=10134198673237785&FOLDER%3C%3Efolder_id=9852723696500817&bmLocale=en%2F

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:18, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Italic title

The title of a work of art is usually italicized. I checked the article by Luca Leoncini (BnF Notice de personne) in The Dictionary of Art and Haskell and Penny's entry (catalog "89. Venus di Milo," pp. 328–330) in Taste and the Antique (Yale University Press, 1981). These articles are by recognized art historians, and they both italicize the name in the body of their articles. The entry in the online Encyclopædia Britannica also italicizes it. I don't see any discussion here that argues against it. --Robert.Allen (talk) 04:10, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Leaning towards support, per the italicization of Winged Victory of Samothraceper, WP:ITALICS, as well as its acquired common name. Many ancient statues are not italicized, and others are (statues named after their site of discovery not always italicized). This one's extreme fame and accepted name may overcome the ancient-artwork italics hurdle. Why not leave a note at the Visual Arts and Sculpture wikiprojects for more comments, and will ping Another Believer who does major work on statue pages. Randy Kryn (talk) 04:32, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Randy Kryn, Italics seem appropriate. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 13:52, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Will leave a note at the visual arts wikiprojects talk pages, seems to need more input. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:56, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Seems enough time has gone by, so italicized. Thanks again Robert.Allen for the idea and discussion. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:31, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Author?

Louvre states that the author is unknown. Should we leave Alexandros of Antioch as the author?--Green fr (talk) 14:38, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Restore the actual name of the statue?

Although it's mentioned in the article, I think the article should be called "Aphrodite of Milos" and anyone searching for the Venus title should be redirected to this so that this historical injustice could be made right. Onoufrios d (talk) 21:24, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia's article naming criteria consider the common name of a topic to be one of the primary factors in deciding what the title should be. In this case, Venus de Milo is by far the most commonly recognisable name. Wikipedia is not a place to right historic wrongs or campaign for a particular position. Whether or not "Aphrodite of Milos" would be a more historically appropriate name, while Venus de Milo continues to be the name the work is known by in English-language sources (both specialist and lay) then that is the name we should use for the article. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 09:50, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Left arm

Voutier's sketches, 1820

I have cut the claim that early sketches following the statue's rediscovery show part of the left arm and the plinth, though not the missing left foot, intact. Voutier's drawings from the discovery look to me to show the arms as they are today, with the upper-right arm intact but the left arm entirely missing, broken off at the shoulder – though Voutier's drawing does show more of the left part of the plinth than currently survives. Gregory Curtis' Disarmed (p.7) says that when the Venus was originally discovered, a marble hand holding an apple, [and] a piece of badly mutilated arm, but he doesn't even explicitly say that they were the left hand and arm, and it seems to be disputed as to whether they should be associated with the Venus at all. The claim that the left arm was originally discovered intact seems to come from an 1874 article by Jean Aicard, which Curtis discusses (pp.109-117) and concludes is entirely nonsense.

It seems as though Aicard's claim had a long enough afterlife that it's probably worth discussing in the article, but it doesn't seem as though we should be uncritically accepting it as true! Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 09:59, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Front views of the Venus de Milo.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:57, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

This is the important opening image of the page, nominated with hundreds of images. A baby=bathwater situation in the making. Randy Kryn (talk) 02:08, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

world war II

My dad took a photo of Venus de Milo when they occupied a French Chateau they German soldiers DID occupy this chateau and they saved this sculpture from them! the photo shows that the German put a German soldiers hat and gun belt on her If anyone would like a copy of this photo please respond 8.25.157.166 (talk) 13:30, 16 April 2023 (UTC)