Talk:Guercino

Two "The Return of the Prodigal Son" by Guercino?

So, are these two paintings both titled "The Return of the Prodigal Son", and both by Guercino, or not?

• 
  Guercino 005.jpg (Kunsthistorisches Museum, Vienna)
• 
  Guercino Return of the prodigal son.jpg (Diocesan Museum, Włocławek)

--Pipetricker (talk) 01:05, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

seems so. why not? Johnbod (talk) 01:26, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Ok, I see. I have reverted the changes on the basis of this, and the failure to find any other evidence. Johnbod (talk) 01:42, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

So the answer is Yes – thanks. File:Guercino Return of the prodigal son.jpg had been removed from this article's gallery with the comment that it's by the other Francesco Barbieri (il Legnano), and I was about to revert that, and then I noticed there was still a painting by that title left in the gallery, so I posted here to clear that up. @Jananteen. --Pipetricker (talk) 01:54, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Return of ... or The return of ...?

Apropos the above: Should the English title of both these paintings begin with the definite article The, or not? --Pipetricker (talk) 12:46, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Well, that's what they might put on the gallery label, but WP article titles, and references in art history books generally omit "the" in standard religious subjects. Mythological and unusual subjects are rather different. See eg Category:Adoration of the Magi in art, where some have a "the" but really shouldn't. Johnbod (talk) 15:17, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Well, I wasn't thinking about Wp article titles, but mostly about the captions in this article's gallery, where one of these two paintings currently is "The return of ..." and the other is "Return of ...". --Pipetricker (talk) 17:08, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

I'd drop the "the". Johnbod (talk) 17:44, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Workshop?

Caravaggio's influence is apparent in this canvas Christ and the Woman of Samaria

Given that the Detroit Institute of Arts, to which this painting currently belongs, catalogues it as coming from the "workshop of Guercino" [1], I'm provisionally moving it here (from the main text of the article). Discussion welcome. 86.186.120.202 (talk) 21:18, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

No, best thing to do. Is it a workshop version, with a prime version elsewhere, I wonder? Johnbod (talk) 00:47, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Even if Guercino (possibly) had no hand in making it, but it's from his workshop, that's an aspect of his work worth representation. It shouldn't be under "Works", but could be shown in connection to mentioning the workshop. --Pipetricker (talk) 11:02, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Ah, yes indeed. Thank you, John! My mistake. According to the Guercino expert David Stone, interviewed here (obscured in Europe, but fully squintable here via Google Translate and a hovering cursor :), there are at least six workshop (or similar) versions around. He would seem to consider the recent Kimbell acquisition to be the prime version, and that's what the museum clearly thinks. So I'll undo. 86.186.120.202 (talk) 11:05, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Best to replace it with prime version, if we have a pic, or choose another. Since workshop versions are generally very close to the prime, but a little less good, it isn't generally worth illustrating them in short articles, imo. Johnbod (talk) 12:49, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Ok, this is the Kimbell version, now anyway, not Detroit. Johnbod (talk) 12:51, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

(sorry John, I should perhaps have outlined the details of my oversight a bit more fully :). Agree about prioritization of prime versions, and I also agree that the productivity of his workshop deserves some mention. 86.186.120.202 (talk) 14:04, 10 February 2019 (UTC)