Talk:Vitruvian Man

Analysis

The drawing has parts of a lion: at the stomach is a sketch of a lion head. By dragging the right parts to it, the lion will appear more clearly.</ref>https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10206865417492804&set=a.1250853470285&type=3&theater</ref>

Reliably sourced translation

If I understand them correctly, the translation of da Vinci's text currently (15 October 2020) in the article was done as a place-holder version by Justlettersandnumbers, a Wikipedia editor (see above). As Justlettersandnumbers requested, the translation should be replaced by one from an external source. I propose to use this one:

The span of a man's outstretched arms is equal to his height.

[deleted inadvertent copyvio]

[etc].

(Because of the way {{cite book}} works, I can't give the URL of the exact page, only of the chapter, but the text is just a few pages on from the start of the chapter, bottom of p213.) Unless anyone disagrees in the next day or two, I will change it. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 12:02, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

References

Thanks for opting to discuss this rather than just charge ahead, John Maynard Friedman. Certainly I wrote what I wrote in 2011, when I was a very new and inexperienced editor; I'm not sure that I agree with it now. I've two questions: are you quite sure that the text you propose to use is out of copyright? and are you sure that his translation is better than mine? I'm inclined to think that it is not, but perhaps I'm biased? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:10, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

@Justlettersandnumbers: Good question! I had just jumped to the conclusion that its presence on an open access system made it ok. But sure enough, the rubric is there "The publication, and the images and texts within it, may be protected by copyright; use of such materials beyond fair use or other exceptions provided under applicable copyright law may violate the copyright laws of the United States and/or the laws of other countries. Permission from the appropriate copyright holder is required to publish or reproduce." So no, we can't use it. Your translation is safe for another 50 years. Fortunately I hadn't gotten around to doing it. Thanks for saving my donkey. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 00:01, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Relevance of material on the Tuscan Order

@Ezio Fiorillo: the second part of the section Vitruvian Man#Textual analysis relating to body height and column modulation (that you contributed) discusses Paladio and the Tuscan Order of architecture. It is not clear to me how this material is relevant to this article? It seems that the justification for its inclusion comes in the last phrase of sentence On the other hand, the foot depicted in the Vitruvian Man instead measures 25.7 millimeters, equal to the seventh part of the height of 179.9 millimeters, in conformity with the rules of the Tuscan Order. which is uncited and looks like WP:Original research. Would you explain please? John Maynard Friedman (talk) 12:03, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Hello John Maynard Friedman. Now I understand why you corrected the term "Tuscanico" with “Tuscan". In his treatise Andrea Palladio calls in Italian the "Tuscan Order" the same order that Vitruvius calls in Latin "tuscanicis dispositionibus" (Liber IV, VI, 6 - at the end of the writing). In Italian, the term "Tuscanico" is the ancient form of “Tuscan". As is known, Leonardo was born in Vinci which is a citadel of Tuscany (region of Central Italy), which is why he chose as a fundamental model for architecture a purely Italic human body, which has the foot proportionate to height with a ratio of 1 to 7. As I quoted in Latin, Vitruvius writes "modulis delectati septem [...] columnae doricae" (Liber IV, I, 7). Palladio expressed himself in the same way: "seven modules "In his treatise (“sette moduli”, p. 16), as can be read in the illustration that I included in my contribution. For Vitruvius - as I have reported - the proportions of the Doric columns of the post-archaic period were identical to those of “tuscanicus” ordre.

Ezio Fiorillo Ezio Fiorillo (talk) 12:27, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

But the problem is that this appears to be your analysis and your conclusion. It is your assessment that Leonardo followed the Tuscan[ic] order of architecture. Yes, he did write that "the foot is seventh part of the man" but it is WP:SYNTH to make additional inferences. Beware of the post hoc fallacy. What Palladio did is irrelevant, the article is not about Palladio. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 15:56, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

To be honest, I am increasingly worried about the validity of the whole section because it seems fundamentally to be be about a 1:7 ratio that you have cherry-picked from various sources and ascribed to it a significance that neither Leonardo nor any reliable source has done. The issue of original research arises here too. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 12:53, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

John Maynard Friedman, I've already removed all of that content as unencyclopaedic original research, but you undid that change. Perhaps you'd be kind enough to again remove it until/unless there is consensus on this page that it should be included? Thank you, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 12:34, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

@Justlettersandnumbers:Unfortunately your reason for removing it "ill-written" was inadequate, since it is not an incoherent rant that deserves that peremptory treatment. We wp:don't bite the newbies and we WP:assume good faith. It is reasonable to allow Ezio Fiorillo a little time to defend his contribution. Admittedly, it is hanging on by a thread right now but he deserves another iteration. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 15:56, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Hello John Maynard Friedman. Since the stature has been found to be 17.99, then the seventh part inevitably turns out to be 15.7. This is a mathematical fact and not in my opinion.The original source of the 1:7 ratio was provided by Leonardo himself, when he wrote "il pie fia la settima parte dell'amo" (the pie is the seventh part of man, Part under the square, seventh line, already mentioned).

The apparent contradiction between the stature of six "feet" (Part above the circle) and seven "feet" (Part below the square) is widespread among art historians. I hope to have contributed to a clarification by comparing Leonardo's script with that of Vitruvius. I think it is very important. I abstained from expressing my opinion. I have offered analogies: conformity and non-identity, if not those declared by the literary sources. Ezio Fiorillo (talk) 12:54, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

I don't follow your Since the stature has been found to be 17.99, then the seventh part inevitably turns out to be 15.7. since 1/7 of 17.99 is 2.57? Yes, Wikipedia policies allow editors to do simple mathematics without citation. Any inferences from that definitely require citation. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 15:56, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Fate vobis. Ego subsisto Ezio Fiorillo (talk) 16:22, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

I will take that as meaning that you can't provide the independent analysis and conclusions as requested. With regret, I will cut it from the article and paste it here, in case a future editor can resolve the issues identified. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 18:30, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

There are no problems to solve. Other "1: 7" Vitruvian orders do not exist. I remove the article from the discussion. Many thanks for your attention. Ezio Fiorillo (talk) 08:14, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

The problem is that is you who have identified this 7:1 ratio as significant, not a subject expert. Yes, Leonardo remarked that the height of the Vitruvian Man is six times the length of his foot and that Vitruvian's square is seven times. But there is no evidence that Leonardo (or his pupils) went on to treat that as an essential artistic canon of body proportions in the way that the Canons of Polykleitos and Lysippos were for a very long time. We also know that the ratio is not accurate, at least not for 20th/21st century man.

Sorry but you don't WP:OWN any part of Wikipedia, so you may not remove it. When you registered to contribute, you acknowledge that you make all your contributions public domain, free for anyone to use anywhere for any purpose, including modification. The version below also contains my contributions. So, unless it is a breach of copyright, it cannot be removed.

Your text has a lot of useful material, much of it properly sourced. Another editor may be able to develop it further. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 09:30, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Salve John Maynard Friedman. Mi dispiace, ma ti sbagli. Io sono stato un professore di Scenografia presso l’Accademia di Belle Arti di Brera, a Milano, per 36 anni. Ho insegnato anche Stilistica e Costume. Non capisco le tue obiezioni: “Yes, Leonardo remarked that the height of the Vitruvian Man is six times the length of his foot and that Vitruvian's square is seven times”. Policleto e Lisippo erano scultori. Leonardo ha disegnato l’uomo in funzione dell’Architettura. I suoi allievi non erano architetti. Non ho scoperto io le proporzioni. Io ho solo messo in evidenza lo scritto del Libro quarto del 'De Architectura' di Vitruvio. Nessuno dei numerosi studiosi – da Carlo Pedretti a Pietro Marani – che ho consultato lo ha mai menzionato. Pertanto non possono confermare nulla in proposito, semplicemente perché l’hanno ignorato. Sicuramente Io ha letto invece Leonardo, giacché ha usato le proporzioni dell’Ordine Dorico o Tuscanico. Le misure parlano chiaro. I riferimenti non sono dichiarati dall’autore, ma le analogie le deduce l’osservatore. Avevo eliminato il mio articolo, perché ritenevo inutile cercare le prove al di sopra di un disegno misurabile matematicamente. Certamente, potete discutere del mio contributo tutte le volte che volete. Ritengo che nessun altro editore potrà sviluppare il mio studio, se non in peggio. Va tutto bene. Buon divertimento. Buona traduzione. Ezio Fiorillo (talk) 12:52, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Egregio Signore Fiorillo, salve. Google translate does an adequate job and I believe that I understand what you wrote. But your English is excellent so I guess you were pressed for time. It doesn't matter.

• Regarding your academic qualifications: on Wikipedia, these don't matter unless you are a person of great notability (like, for example, the economists John Maynard Keynes or Milton Friedman). What matters in most is publication of a paper in a respected journal or a book published by a respected academic publisher. The author doesn't get special privileges though would be given more time to resolve problems. But specifically regarding your own experience, I'm sure that you would not accept a thesis that failed to show its sources or could demonstrate the author's peer-reviewed research. As I have explained at your talk page, your self-published book is ruled out by WP:SELFPUB: if you do succeed in getting an academic publisher to accept it, you still can't cite it (because of WP:conflict of interest) but an independent editor could.
• Regarding Polykleitos and Lysippos: they developed a set of rules of proportion that in English is a called a canon which, if followed, will produce a pleasing figure. That their medium was sculpture is irrelevant: the same rules could (and probably were) used for painting. My point was that there is no evidence that a "Canon of da Vinci" or a "Canon of Vitruvius" ever emerged, based on the 1:6 or 1:7 rule.
• You wrote Leonardo ha disegnato l’uomo in funzione dell’Architettura [Leonardo drew the man in the context of Architecture]. Did you intend to write Vitruvius?
• Concerning Pedretti a Marani you write Pertanto non possono confermare nulla in proposito, semplicemente perché l’hanno ignorato. [Perhaps they weren't able to confirm anything of this proposition, simply because perhaps they ignored it]. Or to put it another way, perhaps they didn't consider it significant. Nor has anyone else in the past 550 years. Which to me suggests that it is indeed not significant, it is just a curiosity.
• Do we know if any of da Vinci's architecture survives? The Doric, Ionic and Tuscan (Etrustcan) orders were well known at his time: is there any evidence to suppose that he extrapolated proportions from his version of the 'Man' into his architecture.

It seems to me that you are identifying this proportion in various antique sources and leaping to a conclusion that they are definitely related. I don't have the expertise to do a peer-review of your work and it would not matter even if I [as a Wikipedia editor] did: that is function of the editors of respected academic journals. When you achieve publication, please come back. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 13:50, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Egregio Signore John Maynard Friedman. Ho scritto in italiano perché mi sono accorto che non ci capiamo in inglese. Lei non mi ha fornito alcuna prova che il mio articolo non sia fondato su fonti sufficienti. Il suo giudizio è arbitrario. Lei mi ha attribuito affermazioni che io non ho formulato. Questa non è la sede per polemizzare comunicando con traduzioni approssimative. Io ho solo mostrato dei documenti storici, che non richiedono prove di diligenti eruditi insegnanti. Le esigenze di garanzia di Wikipedia vanno rispettate. Bene

Egregio Signore John Maynard Friedman. I wrote in Italian because I realized that we don't understand each other in English. You have not provided me with any evidence that my article is not based on sufficient sources. Her judgment is arbitrary. You have attributed statements to me that I have not made. This is not the place to argue by communicating with rough translations. I have only shown historical documents, which do not require proof of diligent scholarly teachers. Wikipedia's warranty requirements must be respected. Good Ezio Fiorillo (talk) 15:19, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

I am not questioning your sources and I have assumed that you have reported them honestly. The problem is that [I believe that] you have gone on to reach a new conclusion, which is contrary to policy WP:SYNTH. Is this not the theme of your book?

I agree that this discussion is not moving us any closer to a resolution so I will ask for further input from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Visual arts. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 16:09, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Hello John Maynard Friedman. I haven't come to a new conclusion. In fact, it is the same that Rudolph Wittkower expressed in 1964. My study was aimed at deepening one of my works of art. By chance I had to remove the veils of mystery that still surround Vitruvian Man. I encountered a myriad of absurd fantasies and hypotheses, such as the one about the golden section. I tried to draw attention only to the only text cited by Leonardo - there are no other reliable sources. If Wikipedia's policy is to report the current consideration and common opinion that has obscured the judgment of an eminent art historian, true or false, then I disagree. However, I was pleased to try to contribute, but it is not my goal to defend the truth of the facts. I don't like that anyone can be free to mess with their own edits on other people's text, without consent. I think it's rape. In serious encyclopedias, interventions on important items, such as those above the most famous drawing in the world, are signed and protected when accepted. Best wishes from the heart for your column on the Tuscan Order, or Tuscanico, with a philological term.

Io non sono arrivato ad una nuova conclusione. Infatti è la stessa che ha espresso Rudolph Wittkower nel 1964. Il mio studio era rivolto all’approfondimento di una mia opera d’arte. Casualmente ho dovuto togliere i veli di mistero che avvolgono tuttora Uomo vitruviano. Ho incontrato una miriade di fantasie e ipotesi assurde, come quella sulla sezione aurea. Ho cercato di riportare l’attenzione soltanto su l’unico testo citato da Leonardo – non ci sono altre fonti attendibili. Se la politica di Wikipedia è quella di riportare la considerazione corrente e l’opinione comune che ha oscurato il giudizio di un eminente storico dell’arte, vera o falsa che sia, allora non sono d’accordo. Tuttavia, mi ha fatto piacere provare a contribuire, ma non è un mio obiettivo difendere la verità dei fatti. Non mi piace che chiunque possa essere libero di pasticciare con le proprie modifiche sul testo prodotto da altre persone, senza consenso. Lo ritengo uno stupro. Nelle enciclopedie serie gli interventi su voci importanti, come quelli sopra il disegno più famoso al mondo, sono firmati e protette, quando accettate. Tanti auguri di cuore per la sua rubrica sopra l’Ordine Toscano, ovvero Tuscanico, con termine filologico. Ezio Fiorillo Ezio Fiorillo (talk) 19:30, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

“ ===Textual analysis relating to body height and column modulation===

Palladio, the Tuscan order

In his treatise, Vitruvius recalls the proportional principles which "the architect must scrupulously respect". To obtain a compositional balance, he must draw inspiration from the "perfect harmony of the limbs of a well-formed man". In the fourth Book (regarding the Doric order), Vitruvius explains that in practice the Greek architects, "having measured the footprint of a foot which in man corresponds to one sixth of his height (pedem sexta partem), applied this proportion to the columns and established that their height, including the capital, was six times the diameter at the base". But further on he reports that "posterity then developing and improving their taste intended for greater refinement and elegance preferred to adopt more streamlined canons, establishing that the height of the Doric columns was seven times their diameter". With identical proportions, in his later writing he imposes, as regards the columns of the Tuscan order, that the thickness of the base is the seventh part of the height. In agreement with the passage of the treatise, Leonardo da Vinci wrote (in the lower area of ​​the sheet, on the third line): "From above the chest to the birth of the hair both the seventh part", as well as "the foot is the seventh part of a man" (seventh line).

Andrea Palladio shows a graphic example of the Tuscan order, according to what Vitruvius says, imposing that "The columns with base and capital must be seven modules long". By module, he means an entity of variable extension in proportion to the whole. In the most elementary dimension of the column it coincides with the human foot, which however could be confused with the Pes (Roman foot). If "only a unit of measurement were considered, it would be a foot with a considerable length of about 29.57 centimeters". This normative measure was adopted by Leonardo, indicating the submultiples. In the Vitruvian Man drawing, at the base of the square equal to the height of the body, the line of the reference graduated scale is divided into four segments, equal to four cubits. In the first he wrote the relative fractions: "fingers ..... palms" and in the last "palms .....fingers", "that is, that 4 fingers make 1 palm, and 4 palms ago 1 foot", "consequently a foot is sixteen toes", according to what was written by Vitruvius, that is to say "the height of a person it is defined by the number of six feet". On the other hand, the foot depicted in the Vitruvian Man instead measures 25.7 millimeters, equal to the seventh part of the height of 179.9 millimeters, in conformity with the rules of the Tuscan Order. Leonardo worked in perfect accordance with Vitruvius, adopting the human foot as a function of proportional module; "wherever the soul turned to difficult things, he easily made them absolute".

”

Vitruvius Pollio, Marcus (n.d.). De Architectura [Concerning Architecture] (in Latin). (De Architectura was composed between 27 and 23 BC. The Latin text is taken from the volume Zehn Bücher über Architectur: Ūberster und mit Ammerkugen versehen von Curt Fensterbunsh (in German). Darmstadt: Wissenschaftlicht Burchgesellschaft. 1976.)

References

Further comments

If the above is the proposed text, then it has no place in this article. It is WP:OR based almost solely on primary sources, which is not permitted. If Mr. Fiorillo is using their own self-published publication, this makes the case even less convincing. I'm not sure what else there is to say. Aza24 (talk) 18:58, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Maybe it's just that I'm posting this after a 12-hour drive, but if the above proposed text has a point, it is not apparent to me through all the verbiage and quoting and "but this measurement of this, and this other measurement of this other thing is that". I agree with its removal. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:30, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

I concur. Citing An anthropometric study of 1197 North American adult Caucasian males in an article about a work of art is a red flag for synthesis. XOR'easter (talk) 18:36, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

@XOR'easter: To be fair, it was I who added that anthropometric citation, in the course of trying to validate the text that read "a foot with a considerable length of about 29.57 centimeters". And by the way, it is not a citation, it is an explanatory footnote. Further, anthropometric statistics have been used in studies of the Canons of Polykleitos and Lysippos.

In fact I did a lot of work to try to get to the essentials of the contribution: originally all the citations were parenthesised in running text making it virtually impossible to form a coherent view of what was being said, so at least it now complies with WP:MOS. I'm afraid I still haven't managed to understand fully what is being said, which is why I invited more expert eyes. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 19:16, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

I can understand the drive to explicate, but if clarity can only be found by bringing in a study that hasn't already been brought into the subject by the existing literature, then I think it's an indication that the text we're trying to fix is not text we should include. Even setting that aside, this section looks like it is drawing an original conclusion. XOR'easter (talk) 19:39, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Section on In Contemporary Culture or Controversies?

It looks like Vitruvian Man is the center of controversy: The Italian Museum That Owns Leonardo’s ‘Vitruvian Man’ Has Successfully Sued to Stop Production of a 1,000-Piece Puzzle Based on the Work.

Maybe the articles should include a section on it?

---

From the article:

An Italian court has blocked the German toy company Ravensburger from producing puzzles featuring Leonardo da Vinci’s iconic Vitruvian Man drawing.

Ravensburger was brought to court by the Gallerie dell’Accademia in Venice, where the real Vitruvian Man lives. The museum claimed that it was owed financial compensation from the puzzle manufacturer, even though the 500-year-old artwork in question belongs to the public domain.

At the heart of the case is Italy’s Cultural Heritage and Landscape Code, which grants public institutions in the country the ability to request concession fees for—or outright bar—commercial reproductions of important artworks, regardless of their copyright status.

Last fall, the Court of Venice sided with the Gallerie dell’Accademia in the case, ruling that Ravensburger must cease production on its puzzle and any other pieces of merchandise featuring Vitruvian Man.

The court rejected Ravensburger’s argument that the Cultural Heritage Code only applies in Italy, and has now ordered the toy company to pay the Gallerie dell’Accademia a fee of €1,500 ($1,626) for each day that the puzzle has been manufactured since November 17, 2022.

Jeffrey Walton (talk) 18:50, 3 April 2023 (UTC)