Talk:Laocoön and His Sons/Archives/2023/December

Thanks

My thanks to those who have made improvements to this article. Adam 23:06, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Laocoon page vs Laocoon and his Sons page

Wouldn't the second, third, and fourth paragraphs (and the associated Virgil passage) not be better on the (rather anemic) Laocoon page, rather than here? Given that they're not particularly about the statue, that would (to me) seem the more appropriate place. Equally, the last 2 1/2 paragraphs from Laocoon can die, as the same material is covered (better) here. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 03:29, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)

That's probably true. I hadn't actually read the Laocoon page when I wrote this. I of course like having it all in my article, but I will try not to be too territorial if you want to reassign some of the content between the two articles. Adam 03:38, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Okay, I've moved that stuff over there, and fixed up both articles with modestly sized paragraphs summarising one another. As it was a more painful experience than I'd expected, I'd appreciate it if someone who didn't quit halfway through The Illiad could glance over both and check for nonsensicalities. Thanks. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 23:51, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)

"Landmark" Status

The Laocoon is listed as a landmark. It seems to me that landmarks are buildings and piazas and obelisks and such, not individual artworks. Sculptures that might qualify as landmarks might be ones that act as geographical markers or are so strongly tied to a specific location that they define it to some extent. Marcus Aurelius at the center of the Capitoline Piazza might be an example, althought it's probably less of a landmark than the piazza as a whole. I can't think a good example.

Forgery?

I removed the below paragraph, added by an anonymous user, because it seems a bit iffy. If anyone know anything about this, feel free to add it to the article. -- Ranveig

The Laocoon, the famous ancient Greek sculptural masterpiece depicting a priest and his sons struggling with a sea snake, is a forgery. It is not just any forgery, however. The forger was the famous renaissance artist Michelangelo. The sculpture is said to have been created by the ancient Greeks or Romans between the 4th Century B.C. and the 2nd Century A.D., and subsequently excavated in 1506.

CLick here for more info

There was another article about this in the New York Times this week "An Ancient Masterpiece or a Master's Forgery?" http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/18/arts/design/18laoc.html

Pure speculation, no real evidence at all. Adam 19:37, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

The forgery argument, made by an art history at Columbia University, is supported by evidence and is being taken seriously in the art history academic community. It should of course be mentioned in this article, according to ordinary Wikipedia protocol -- not as a fact -- but as a matter of current controversy. Someone who knows the field well should write a sentence or two -- it's significant and certainly interesting information. Here's a cite to a well-done piece of journalism on the issue -- [1]

potential mistake at the end of the first paragraph

"Both the Iliad and the Aeneid describe this as Poseidon's wrath for Laocoön's attempt to expose the ruse of the Trojan Horse."

Actually, the Iliad doesn't make any mention of Laocoon, and neither does the Odyssey. [anon comment]

I think that is correct. It's a long time since I did classics but I think the Trojan Horse and Laocoon's warning ("Timeo Danaos et dona ferentes") are in Virgil, not in Homer. Someone should check this. Adam 00:15, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Also, the mention that Poseidon's wrath is the reason for Laocoon's fate is an issue of speculation and debate among Classicists, as it is not described as such in the Aeneid. 19 March 2006

---

PROBLEM-----

doing a little research and i think that some clarity could be in order. this article dates the statue group roughly between 160 BC to 20 BC. with the later 42 BC to 20 BC being most likely based on the lives of the artists who made the statue. then at the end we are discussing that that homer doesnt mention laocoon, virgil does. however, virgils aeneid isnt published until around 19 BC, and even if just slightly before. i think its a big jump to think that artists are carving a monumental statue group before(??) or soon after virgil creates him in text. obviously im ignorant myself. just making a logic point.

we need more research jeff 19.01.2007

According to what I've heard, Virgil didn't create Laokoön himself, he just made a compilation of oral legends wich had been going aroud for centurys. The creators probably based their statue on the myth, not on the bundle made a few years later.82.169.64.164 (talk) 18:20, 3 October 2011 (UTC)3-10-2011

Rhodes copy

The article mentions that the copy in Rhodes still has the arm in the outstretched position. I'm no expert, but I was in Rhodes over the weekend and I have to disagree: http://chadandelisa.parry.org/album/showimg.php?file=/Honeymoon/Rhodes/IMG_0626.JPG.

Fair enough! I hope you enjoyed your honeymoon. Best wishes for the future. Paul B 15:23, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Problem in Influence section

The following statement is incorrect: "The influence of the Laocoön is evidenced in Michelangelo's Battle of Cascina: cartoons for this work show that he used several variants of the poses in the Laocoön group." The Laocoön statue group was "discovered" in 1506. Michelangelo was commissioned for the Battle of Cascina in August 1504 and by October he purchased the paper for the full scale cartoon in order to transfer the compostion to the wall, which is to say that by the end of 1504 he had come pretty close to fully realizing the Battle of Cascina. Thus it cannot have been influenced by the Laocoön which was not yet "discovered."Catterson 14:07, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps this is proof that M created it after all! I've deleted it. Paul B 18:54, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

More excellent detective work like this!--Wetman 23:36, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I need more information on loacoon —Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.176.103.250 (talk) 12:23, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

The influence section should point out, in a non-combative way, that very few art historians, sculptors or critics of the last hundred years, and probably not even a majority of the general public taking an interest in sculpturem, are as impressed with the group as Michelangelo, Rafael and Winckelmann were. It's safe to say that most people today see it as too contrived, implausible and emotionally cold and uncompelling. Nike of Samothrace and Hermes with the infant Dionysos, even some Roman portrait busts are much more admired today than Laocoön.Strausszek (talk) 18:25, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Not sure I'd agree with this. The piece is an interesting allegory presenting the idealized Laocoon as an avatar for the shining concept of "truth" that, in fact, doesn't conquer chaos (as expected) in this story. I'm sure someone has done an actual analysis--it would be interesting to have a reference. I'd also like to see a reference to a discussion of the peculiar style of the two sons, who are not children at all, but miniatures of their adult father. Very strange and, I think, unprecedented artistic choice. Rather than being "contrived, implausible and uncompelling", there is a lot of food for thought in this odd sculpture. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.229.135.30 (talk) 05:22, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Michelangelo section

I have removed the long, badly written and misleading Michelangelo section and replaced it with a discussion of appropriate length. The reference to "skeptics" in the plural is misleading, since this is all the opinion of our friend Catterson, and is marginal to mainstream art historical views of the topic. Paul B (talk) 10:40, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

dating Laocoon

The article places the sculpture in the BC or BCE period: "Various dates have been suggested for the statue, ranging from about 160 to about 20 BC. Inscriptions found at Lindos in Rhodes date Agesander and Athenedoros to a period after 42 BC, making the years 42 to 20 the most likely date for the Laocoön statue's creation." However, according to several sources, including the University of Virginia's Digital Sculpture Project: Laocoon <http://www.digitalsculpture.org/laoccon/chronology/>, the dates should be in the CE or AD period. 72.93.44.81 (talk) 19:51, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Not by much I daresay. That's a dead link. Johnbod (talk) 20:12, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

My apologies -- the url had a typo. It should be <http://www.digitalsculpture.org/laocoon/chronology>. The site gives 40-20 CE as the "probable period" in which the sculpture was made. These are the same numbers as in the article, but with CE intead of BCE. I'm not an art historian, but I was hoping someone knowledgeable would check this out. 72.93.44.81 (talk) 13:47, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

All changed now, using that source (very good) and others. Johnbod (talk) 15:14, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Notes

• Findspot map
• thumb|Another view
• Curran on the find
• Brilliant, My Laocoon
• Pliny
• L blind?

Johnbod (talk) 15:41, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Lead Sentence

"Exceptionally, it appears to be identifiable with a statue praised in the highest terms by the main Roman writer on art, Pliny the Elder."

This sentence is awful. Tried to change it to something readable, but got immediately reverted. I don't want to get into a back an forth about it. It just needs to read well. Suggestion:

"The statue is exceptional in that it appears to be the same as a sculpture praised by Pliny the Elder, a leading Roman writer on art."

Searine (talk) 03:06, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

I think that the "exceptional[ly]" could be dispensed with. The article doesn't show that Pliny's identifying the statue is exceptional. I think that your sentence, with "is exceptional in that it" removed, would be acceptable. I agree that the "Exceptionally, it appears to be identifiable" part of the first sentence is clumsy and at least needs to be reworked. Dhtwiki (talk) 04:17, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

It is not Pliny, but the survival of the statue that is exceptional, if not unique. Other individual works are mentioned by Pliny but now lost. But personally I can't see a problem with the sentence. What do others think? I prefer it to your alternatives, which are marked by blandness and imprecision. Johnbod (talk) 10:41, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

But what is the source for that? I didn't see it in the article. I think that it's the survival of a statue of such apparent quality (many other statues have survived), and well-known as such from a classical text, that make it extraordinary. That is what the sentence seems to say, but not well ("exceptionally" as a sentence modifier?, "appears to be identifiable" instead of "has been identified"). Dhtwiki (talk) 02:53, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

I am open to other more precise alternatives. I think my problem with the sentences structure is that it forms a compound garden path sentence. "Exceptionally, it appears" leads the reader to believe the sentence will be about the one statutes appearance. "it appears to be identifiable with a statue" then makes the reader have to re-parse the sentence to now understand it as being a comparison to another statue. "it appears to be identifiable with a statue praised in the highest terms by the main Roman writer", okay not another statue, we have to re-parse it a third time to know that we are now comparing it to a description of (likely) the same statue from antiquity. We then have to parse though the adjectives applied to Pliny, to learn that it was Pliny who described it. This is confusing, and inefficient in my opinion. Searine (talk) 22:15, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

I honestly don't see what's wrong with the original sentence. Sure anything can be improved, but "awful", no. Paul B (talk) 10:46, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks to whoever fixed the talk page. I'm new to this, excuse the faux pas. I think it is "exceptional" that a work of art was able to be linked to a ancient document, and is worth mentioning. In general I think the content of the sentence is fine. This is just an issue of phrasing. Searine (talk) 16:13, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

I've adjusted to "Exceptionally, it is very likely to be the same object as a statue praised in the highest terms by the main Roman writer on art, Pliny the Elder." Hope that works for everybody Johnbod (talk) 16:05, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

What you're trying to say but don't is:

"It is very likely the same object as a statue praised in the highest terms by Pliny the Elder. It is an exceptional instance of an extant work of ancient art being so linked with an extant ancient text."

What the "exceptionally" now says is that it's unusual that a particular piece of statuary is so linked to a particular description by a certain author, which goes without saying. However, I again ask for support for the latter claim, as I didn't see in the most recently added reference, nor in the article, although I'd agree that it's most likely true. Also, Pliny was a proto-Wikipedist who copied what others wrote, and whose writings on art are most of what's extant. That doesn't necessarily make him the "main Roman writer on art". Note also how the second instance of the verb "to be" in your sentence is unnecessary. Dhtwiki (talk) 21:13, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

He is most certainly the "main Roman writer on art". If not him, then who? The competition was not stiff. That doesn't necessarily mean that he had tremendous expertise or understanding. But he had a huge impact as an authority on both ancient and Renaissance & Early Modern thinking. No, I don't note that, though "it is very likely the same object" might be ok in some American contexts. "Likely" is a much abused word over there. I don't think your idea of what exactly is "exceptional" is correct, in fact. There are plenty of "extant ancient text"s that mention surviving works, such as the triumphal columns, but hardly any that contain anything that could remotely be called art criticism about them, unlike Pliny here. Johnbod (talk) 22:45, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Theories of abandonment?

How does such a treasure come to be buried four meters below ground? Was it purposefully buried? Was it left in an abandoned building, which over the centuries became covered with four meters of sediment? Was it left outdoors, where it became covered with four meters of sediment? (Unlikely, because it would have been looted if left outdoors for any significant length of time. It's not like Rome was an intermittently-inhabited city.)

Surely some archeologists have speculated about this. The article should describe one or more theories of abandonment.

(Just imagine what other treasures might be uncovered if all of Rome could be excavated to the same depth, or deeper.) GPS Pilot (talk) 05:59, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

The sources are somewhat vague, so not covered. The exact find-spot, as covered in the article, is a very recent rediscovery. Most likely, maybe, is "left in an abandoned building, which over the centuries became covered with four meters of sediment". Remember that the whole ancient ground level, in Rome as elsewhere, is now well underground, especially in cities, though 4 metres is I think more than usual. Johnbod (talk) 14:51, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Picture

I think that my image (File:Laocoön and His Sons in Vatican museum.jpg) is quite good. my image of Laocoön and His Sons is a zoomed out picture so people who see my picture can see not only Laocoön and His Sons figure, but also the background. With it the people can image the Laocoön and His Sons in Vatican Museum setting. However, another editor disagrees and removes my image: [2]. I think we need a third opinion.--Berlinuno (talk) 04:47, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Third Opinion

A Third Opinion has been requested. There has not been discussion on an article talk page between the two parties. I am removing the Third Opinion. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:18, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks - there was "discussion" in the edit summaries. We already have many images, and one showing more of the wall behind (though a decent pic in itself), does not really add to the article. Photographers should be cautious pushing their own work given WP:COI. Obviously, this is one of the most famous and photographed statues in the world. Johnbod (talk) 13:00, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Don't like

This has to be the fuggliest thing i've ever seen, — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.51.217.118 (talk) 18:35, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

This is not a forum for discussion about the statue itself. This page is reserved solely for discussion regarding improvements to the article. Your personal opinions about the statue's aesthetic qualities are irrelevant here. --Katolophyromai (talk) 20:59, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Darwin's comment

Currently, in the second paragraph of the lead, there is an awkward parenthetical mentioning a comment Darwin made about the statue. The paragraph reads:

The group has been called "the prototypical icon of human agony" in Western art,[4] and unlike the agony often depicted in Christian art showing the Passion of Jesus and martyrs, this suffering has no redemptive power or reward.[5] The suffering is shown through the contorted expressions of the faces (Charles Darwin pointed out that Laocoön's bulging eyebrows are physiologically impossible),[6] which are matched by the struggling bodies, especially that of Laocoön himself, with every part of his body straining.[7]

The issues I have with it are: 1) it is irrelevant to the paragraph - it is not discussing the realism of the statue, but simply that it has become an iconic piece of art for its depiction of emotion. Throwing in a comment about how it's physiologically impossible adds nothing. 2) it gives undue weight in the lead to a comment that Darwin made about the piece. This is a famous statue that many people have commented on - why is Darwin's comment featured in the lead? Further, there is no evidence of the significance of Darwin's comment. 3) It is poorly formatted and awkward - why is there a parenthetical randomly thrown into a flowing paragraph? It seems that someone simply wanted that information in the lead and threw in a parenthetical without considering the format of the article ... etc.

Overall I don't understand how it fits there at all. Ultimately I added it to a lower paragraph re the reception of the statue, but apparently that is not good enough. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 21:45, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm having great difficulty understanding this complaint. The first time it was just removed completely. Contrary to how "it seems" to El cid, el campeador the point was added (by me) as part of the comprehensive & near-complete rewrite of the article in 2013. It seems fully relevant where it is, in a sentence dealing with the most striking aspect of the work, the very contorted poses of the figures. Note that Nigel Spivey also thought the comment relevant - that I suppose is the "evidence of the significance of Darwin's comment" which is, pretty oddly, demanded. Best to ask what others think, which I've done at the projects. Johnbod (talk) 23:40, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Forgive me, but it does seem a bit odd in the lede. Darwin is a wonderful source, and not to be discounted, but he wasn’t an art historian. I think the comment is valuable, but perhaps doesn’t belong in the lede? Or perhaps it could be better integrated? It does belong, but it doesn’t fit well currently. Kafka Liz (talk) 00:17, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

I'd retain it either by making it a footnote or by adding a few lines to the "Subject" section and incorporating it there. Ewulp (talk) 00:56, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

I agree that Darwin's comment is inappropriate. I don't recall that Darwin was a noted expert in human physiology or art, the physiological impossibility isn't discussed in detail (IIRC), and this feature's importance to the statue's overall effect isn't discussed (again, if I recall correctly). Dhtwiki (talk) 03:39, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

I came here because of the message at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome. My first reaction is, what's in the lead should be a selective summary of what's below. So, if Darwin's comment is notable, it should appear below, where there would be room to say in what context he gave this dictum. Well, the context is important: he was writing about expression of emotion in humans and animals (not principally about sculpture or art, and not as a criticism of this sculptor's work). I doubt if that context makes his dictum, true though it might be, sufficiently relevant and important to allow it more words in the lead than it currently has. Without more words, it's puzzling and not very helpful in the lead, so I'd delete it from there. Andrew Dalby 10:48, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

The phrase Laocoön's bulging eyebrows are physiologically impossible is very useful in conveying the extent to which the facial expressions are contorted. I'd retain it in the lead, rephrased and not in parentheses, and only attribute Darwin until further inserting a mention and expansion in the article body, which it most certainly deserves. Ceoil (talk) 22:39, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

@Johnbod and Ceoil: - admittedly early consensus seems to be that it is misplaced as it currently stands in the lead, but that it is perhaps suited for the body. Do either of you have strong objections to its inclusion further down rather than where it is now? ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 14:51, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

I'll let this run a while, then move it if necessary. Johnbod (talk) 14:53, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

@El cid, el campeador: I also found the mention of Darwin jarring in the lead, but would keep the phrase "physiologically impossible" there, and expand in the body. Are you in agreement on this. Ceoil (talk) 23:22, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Johnbod, you should probably just go ahead, rather than prolong this, imo silly and needlessly confrontational, mountain out of a molehill. Ceoil (talk) 21:46, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Dating / Discovery

Current Art History student here. I can't help but wonder if there aren't more resources regarding the dating of this piece. Understandably with the significant amount of restorations, this would prove to be somewhat difficult. That aside, we have nailed down the stylistic influence and period of the piece. I'm quite curious and intrigued to discover new ways to identify the exact year the piece was forged. At that, I feel there should be dated segments regarding the initial creation of the piece, the damage / restorations before it was discovered, and finally when it was formally introduced into a more Westernized context.--2601:409:8500:B750:959:A9E7:B407:147E (talk) 08:28, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

It seems that you would better spend your time reading sources than asking the internet for help. Ceoil (talk) 21:10, 4 October 2020 (UTC)