Talk:The Death of Procris

A fact from The Death of Procris appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 10 May 2009 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that Piero di Cosimo's painting The Death of Procris (pictured) may contain allusions to the practice of alchemy?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2009/May.

Wikipedia

Visual arts

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Visual arts, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of visual arts on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Visual artsWikipedia:WikiProject Visual artsTemplate:WikiProject Visual artsvisual arts articles

London Low‑importance

	London portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject London, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of London on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LondonWikipedia:WikiProject LondonTemplate:WikiProject LondonLondon-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

A card and a sealing on the back of the panel have the stemma of the Guicciardini, Geronimus notes (p. 83). Shouldn't the attribution be noted as "securely attributed"? There's no doubt, no alternatrive attribution. It just lacks a signature. How many cassone panels are signed? --Wetman (talk) 17:47, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Piero never signed anything it seems. From Gould the Guicciardini marks seem very late - they had it in the 19th century. Johnbod (talk) 08:53, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Name of the work[edit]

This article is called "The Death of Procris". But the first sentence of the intro calls it "A Mythological Subject" as if this was the name of the painting. It is not the name of the painting. It is simply a gallery or catalogue description of a work the true title of which and true subject matter of which is either unknown or open to speculation. Treating this descriptive term as if it was a real name is a mistake. The same description could be applied to numerous Renaissance works, as well as the decoration of many Greek pots, Roman friezes, Indian Temple sculpture and Australian Aboriginal dot paintings. It isn't a name, so defining it in the intro is pointless. Ill have a go at fixing it.

Amandajm (talk) 02:45, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pitilessly cropped[edit]

When Commons eventually gets an image of this painting that doesn't crop the main subject, it should be substituted for the current ruthlessly cropped image.--Wetman (talk) 08:32, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]