Talk:Ecce Homo (García Martínez and Giménez)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It's not entirely the case that Cecilia Gimenez is seeking profits, and that she is asking for money from the Church[edit]

According to this article,

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/765605805/Disfigured-Spain-fresco-rides-global-fame.html

she is looking into the legal matter of what may be the exploitation of her own work (see the "ship of theseus" reference, below). She's not going after the church for money. The wikipediat article, as written now, paints (ahem) her in a less than flattering light than this article would. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paustin (talk • contribs) 11:48, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've rewritten that paragraph accordingly. Richard Keatinge (talk) 12:17, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The painting now resembles Alice the Goon from the Popeye cartoons[edit]

I do not know if Wikipedia will accept suggestions as to what the messed up painting looks like, but, the figure of Jesus now looks almost identical to Alice the Goon, created by E. C. Segar, that was visualized in the Popeye cartoons. Go to Google.com images and look up Alice the Goon Popeye. Good luck restoring it to it's original image. That would require a real miracle. 204.80.61.133 (talk) 18:26, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You really don't think of this? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XZaspo_g4BU --Razionale (talk) 19:48, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

now #1 tourist attraction of Borja, Spain[edit]

Hundreds of people a day are traveling to Borja to view the new Ecce Homo. Over 18,000 people have signed a petition requesting the modern Ecce Homo not be removed. Many of these visiting supporters are leaving flowers at the home of the amateur restorer. If this attention and popularity persists much longer restoration is likely to become impossible as the Church and the town need the tourist income. For these reasons I think this article should not be deleted at this time. Perhaps it will become a permanet tourist attraction? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.162.154.171 (talk) 02:23, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

AfD message[edit]

I removed the AfD message since there was actually no debate going on about deletion and I couldn't find a reason for there to be one. --Hugo Spinelli (talk) 08:35, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Title change?[edit]

The version by Elías García Martínez isn't what's attracting attention. Cecilia Giménez is the notable artist here. It's definitely too early to say what will be established as the normal term for this artwork, but in due course we should probably rename this article. Either to "Ecce Mono", or replace Elías García Martínez with Cecilia Giménez. Ideas? Richard Keatinge (talk) 11:14, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

True, but it's almost kind of a 'Ship of Theseus' situation. Giménez's work was intended to be a restoration of Martínez's original, not a new work in and of itself (da Vinci's 'The Last Supper' has been restored several times yet we still consider it to be a work by da Vinci, despite other artists having laid paint to it). Is this an entirely new work, or an admittedly very bad restoration of the original? To be fair, the original work was apparently not notable enough to have a wiki page of it's own. As far as deletion goes, I would say the work is _definitely_ notable enough now to have a page, so I would say the AfD tag should go. Jimduchek (talk) 15:54, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Context[edit]

I'm missing information about the context. Was Giménez commissioned by the church to do the restoration (and if so, why did she do such a bad job/why did the church do such a bad job in picking a restorationist?) or did she act on her own initiative in an honest attempt to "help"? How did the church react after they knew about the result? When exactly did all this happen (the article only states the date of the rising internet phenomenon, but gives no dates for the actual events)? etc. --::Slomox:: >< 15:48, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct. Her motives are not identified. When the story first broke, the reports were that she had informed the parish priest of her intentions and he did not object. He was not aware, however, that she had no training. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:19, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Irony[edit]

I'm sure mere coincidences are not notable enough to go into this article... However this incident is quite reminiscent of what happened to the painting in the movie Bean, and the theme to the Mr. Bean TV show started by singing "Ecce homo qui est faba". 71.82.152.28 11:44, 17 November 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.82.152.28 (talk) [reply]

Age of Ecce Homo[edit]

This article currently gives no date when the Ecco Homo was painted in the church. So I googled to find the year Martinez painted the fresco and came up with 2 possible answers. The Guardian says the work dates from the 19th century. [1] Fox News gives the year as 1930. [2] What should finally be written in the article's History section regarding this important detail? - Gilliam (talk) 10:57, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Since you have two sources of roughly equal reliability that claim different things, we should document both dates and note the discrepancy. Elizium23 (talk) 18:38, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The town's official page, http://www.borja.es/ayuntamiento/descarga-impresos/doc_download/191-informe-ecce-homo, says "about the year 1930". It's an official report and personally I'd suggest sticking with that. 1930 seems to be shortly before the death of the artist who however is often described as being "19th century"; this may account for its attribution to that period. Richard Keatinge (talk) 23:01, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ecce Homo (Elías García Martínez)[edit]

Hello, hello. User:Walter Görlitz removed my link to Vandalism of art from Ecce Homo (Elías García Martínez). I thought it was very similar to the topic because it is described like this: "The object is usually exhibited in public, becomes damaged as a result of the act, and remains in place right after the act. This may distinguish it from art destruction and iconoclasm, where it may be wholly destroyed and removed, and art theft, or looting." I put it into "see also" because the act was not necessarily intentional vandalism, which I do not want to claim it was.--Razionale (talk) 18:02, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I also considered Accidental damage of art but thought this was less related. She knew it was art and the examples are very different. --Razionale (talk) 18:05, 24 April 2013 (UTC) Perhaps we can just add both?--Razionale (talk) 18:08, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The act was not vandalism. It was a failed attempt at restoration. The intent of the perpetrator is essential, not our interpretation of the end result. The accidental damage of art article is more appropriate. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:16, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Accidental damage of art article better? Done.--Razionale (talk) 18:20, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"2012 Works?[edit]

Can this be put under the category "2012 works" or "2012 paintings", because, face it, it might as well be a whole new painting. It looks like something you would find at MoMA, or the Tate Modern. 50.36.81.177 (talk) 21:59, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Only with a reliable source that it was a new work and not a botched restoration. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:28, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tongue in cheek[edit]

It really doesn't matter that much whether we include the phrase, but from the source I find: "such is the furor over the mishap that Guardian art critic Jonathan Jones suggested today, tongue firmly in cheek, that Borja's amateur art restorer be hired by other localities with worthy artworks that needed some international attention. It has to be mentioned, however, that the updated monkey-like Christ has a freakish new power all its own, and may be its own kind of metaphor for modern man. "

The suggestion that Cecilia be employed to restore other art works is indeed ironic. The more serious comments on interpretation of the Ecce Mono are not. I'll leave it a day or two and, if there are no more comments, remove the phrase from its present inappropriate location. Richard Keatinge (talk) 16:58, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's not at all inappropriate, and I'll be happy to take this to WP:THIRD opinion if you wish to dispute it. The only source that vaguely suggests a "serious" interpretation is the Forbes article, though more in terms of sociology and faith than artistic merit (the Forbes article is frank that this "work" and other works mentioned are "inept" and "amateur."
It's entirely misleading and implying that Wikipedia is "in on the joke, wink wink" to suggest there is serious artistic merit to Martinenz's "restoration." OhNoitsJamie Talk 17:18, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This image illuminates contrasts: a Church-approved, skilfully-reproduced, very dull image, tediously and academically supporting the human nature of the divine and the divine creation of humanity, has been replaced by a non-approved, crass, but very modernistic and very funny image, clumsily-produced, an unintentional parody of the original, connecting sacred humanity with nonhuman ancestors and implicitly questioning the very nature of divinity in general and the Catholic Christian version in particular. Nobody is suggesting that Señora Cecilia has produced a work of artistic genius or even skill, nor that she intended any of the above, but in its specific circumstances and surroundings, her work does amount to significant and serious art. I note that 23K plus people have signed a petition saying so. To imply otherwise, in Wikipedia's voice, is not good practice. At best, used in its weaker sense that the commentator is trying not to laugh, the "tongue-in-cheek" comment is harmless but un-necessary editorializing from us. Please get all the opinions you like, but I hope you decide to remove the phrase. Richard Keatinge (talk) 12:35, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As I've already noted, the phrase "tongue in cheek" is directly from your source, whereas your description above is your interpretation. As far as the petition goes, it's impossible to know how many of the signers did so as a lark and how many were serious. I added to the article a comment from the second source that conveys gist of that article. OhNoitsJamie Talk 18:20, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The term is, at best, un-necessary editorializing and at worst directly contradicting RS, and it should go. It's also a trivial issue and I shan't argue the point any further. Richard Keatinge (talk) 10:14, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ecce Homo[edit]

I see you changed a reference from "muscular atrophy" to "muscular dystrophy". I also see you are an MD so I'll defer doing the research myself, but the source says "muscular atrophy". And again, I'll defer doing research, but Wikipedia has separate articles for the two. Is it really proper to change atrophy to dystrophy when the source says atrophy? Marteau (talk) 08:14, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well spotted, and you're right. Muscular atrophy of course isn't a condition, whereas muscular dystrophy is a serious genetic disorder, and I don't doubt that "atrophy" is a minor error by the source, so I changed it. I've found another source that does say dystrophy, and inserted it; I hope that solves the problem. Thanks. Richard Keatinge (talk) 10:04, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Creationist[edit]

What creationist views of the Church? Since I am Catholic, and I believe in Theistic Evolution as well as the Big Bang Theory and indeed, to the best of my knowledge, so have the last few Popes, I would like to know why this is included in the article. I know very few Catholics that would agree with the Fundamentalist Protestant Views of creation, and creationism certainly isn't the teaching of the Church, so why is there nothing in this article that points this out? Adam (talk) 04:59, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your opinion is not official doctrine though. See http://www.catholic.com/tracts/adam-eve-and-evolution, http://catholicbridge.com/catholic/catholic_creationism.php and Catholic Church and evolution. Officially, "all that exists outside God was, in its whole substance, produced out of nothing by God." Sounds like creation to me. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:34, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Your opinion, Walter Görlitz, may, or may not be, highly questionable, but at least one of your sources is, and, as you put it "not official doctrine": Catholic Bridge is in no way a reliable source explaining or expounding Catholic doctrine. It is merely the interpretations of an individual Catholic, seemingly geared towards showing a face acceptable to, particularly, American Evangelical Christians, as his musical career is conducted predominantly among them.
I am not a Catholic (or Christian) myself, but your other, actually reliable, source Adam and Eve and Evolution explains their position:
"...the Church does not have an official position on whether various life forms developed over the course of time. However, it says that, if they did develop, then they did so under the impetus and guidance of God, and their ultimate creation must be ascribed to him. ... It allows for the possibility that man’s body developed from previous biological forms, under God’s guidance, but it insists on the special creation of his soul." (my emphasis)
Granted, not very science-y, with the whole God-given soul and guidance thing, but neither is it a belief in, nor requirement to subscribe to, "Creationism". (If that is understood as humans - and indeed all organisms - arising separately, each species in its final, and only, form).
That quotation you give, taken on its own, does sound like Creationism indeed, but in context of
" In the 1950 encyclical Humani generis, Pope Pius XII confirmed that there is no intrinsic conflict between Christianity and the theory of evolution, provided that Christians believe that the individual soul is a direct creation by God and not the product of purely material forces." [|Catholic Church and evolution]
sounds a little less like Creationism and, at most, more like evolutionary creation. 220.237.11.191 (talk) 14:34, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the usual version of theistic evolution does include special arrangements for the creation of a soul; your opinions may vary of course. The artwork can be taken - and seems to be taken by the authors whom we quote - as a comment on the relationship specifically between man and nonhuman primates. Richard Keatinge (talk) 13:32, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is entirely wrong to describe the CC's views as "creationist", but there may be 2,000 idiots in Spain who are unaware of this, or signed the petition as a joke (which it clearly was), or the Spanish may not mean quite the same as the English. Johnbod (talk) 12:20, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It would seem as though this thread has been rendered moot. The paragraph is no longer verifiable and has been removed. Elizium23 (talk) 01:16, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Blacklisted Links Found on Ecce Homo (Elías García Martínez)[edit]

Cyberbot II has detected links on Ecce Homo (Elías García Martínez) which have been added to the blacklist, either globally or locally. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed or are highly inappropriate for Wikipedia. The addition will be logged at one of these locations: local or global If you believe the specific link should be exempt from the blacklist, you may request that it is white-listed. Alternatively, you may request that the link is removed from or altered on the blacklist locally or globally. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. Please do not remove the tag until the issue is resolved. You may set the invisible parameter to "true" whilst requests to white-list are being processed. Should you require any help with this process, please ask at the help desk.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

  • http://www.change.org/es/peticiones/ayuntamiento-de-borja-zaragoza-mantenimiento-de-la-nueva-versi%C3%B3n-del-ecce-homo-de-borja
    Triggered by \bchange\.org\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:00, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done paragraph with reference link removed from article. Elizium23 (talk) 01:00, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Image[edit]

This article should include a picture of the botched restoration results. It's relevant to the notoriety of the painting. 64.114.25.147 (talk) 01:49, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that would be nice, and the article did include a picture, but it was judged to be under copyright, however ridiculous that might be, so we cannot host the image on Wikimedia Commons. Perhaps a low-resolution image could be claimed under a fair-use rationale. Elizium23 (talk) 02:31, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Ecce Homo (Elías García Martínez). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 11:21, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Name of the page[edit]

After a recent change we have the clunky title of "Conservation-restoration of Ecce Homo by Elías García Martínez". It strikes me as obviously unsatisfactory, not used by any sources as far as I know, and I doubt if it's the only "Ecce Homo" produced by this artist. I suggest that we follow the Spanish Wikipedia and rename to "Ecce Homo of Borja". Richard Keatinge (talk) 10:17, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • This title fits the titles of other articles in Wikipedia. The article is about the failed conservation-restoration of the painting, and not the painting itself -- this is what makes it notable. --RichardMcCoy (talk) 11:27, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'd suggest that the article is about the entire story. And that neither "conservation" nor "restoration" are what actually happened. This is about a tedious little painting, subjected to an artistic fiasco which has resulted in an artwork a lot more interesting than the original. Let's have a title that people might actually search for, and recognize when they see it. Richard Keatinge (talk) 12:31, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
this was absolutely a conservation-restoration project. But it was one that was not accomplished to critical success, but rather by most accounts complete failure. But it's being "good" or "bad" does not make it any less of a conservation-restoration project. --RichardMcCoy (talk) 14:56, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That has rather little to do with being a good title. Would you like to get a third opinion? Or shall I do it? Richard Keatinge (talk) 17:07, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is actually about the fresco, so i guess it should be returned to the original title. :) --Ąnαșταη (ταlκ) 18:32, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That was, " Ecce Homo (Elías García Martínez)". Better than the present title, but still not good; it specifically doesn't include Doña Cecilia's well-intentioned efforts. "Ecce Homo of Borja" has it all and is much more likely as a search target. Richard Keatinge (talk) 18:49, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Conservation-restoration of Ecce Homo of Borja describes the article and its intentions. --RichardMcCoy (talk) 19:41, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's an improvement. I apologize for repeating myself, but despite Doña Cecilia's intentions, she neither conserved nor restored the original version. She created something new and different. Richard Keatinge (talk) 22:25, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
While this may be an egregious example, it's not the first of such a mess ... --RichardMcCoy (talk) 22:41, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
:-) Indeed. The results have perhaps been unusually worthwhile in their own right, but they are indeed a terrible mess. Richard Keatinge (talk) 07:38, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • First of all, I would suggest to change the current title from "Conservation-restoration of Ecce Homo by Elías García Martínez" to "Conservation-restoration of Ecce Homo by Elías García Martínez" (italics only on the title). I am not sure of the technicalities involved and did not find how to do it myself, but I guess we can all agree on this. Also, if disambiguation even per artist is needed, [3] says that the correct form is "Work title (Artist, place of display)" so that would be "Ecce Homo (Martínez, Borja)". That obviously does not apply if the title refers to the "restoration" process in which case that would likely be enough disambiguation.
As for the matter, I agree with Richard Keatinge that the name change did not fully solve naming issues (and made the title more confusing). The problem is that it is hard to come up with a NPOV name for "Botched restoration attempt of...". (Maybe "restoration attempt of..." is enough? Still a bit POV since "attempt" implies it failed.)
In any case, I think that the subject of this article should be the restoration story, and not the work of art itself, since the latter basically inherits its notability from the event. Tigraan (talk) 11:53, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
OK... the current version, the one actually on display and in fact the only notable version of this work of art, is by Cecilia Giménez, so, to follow the guideline, we would name this page Ecce Homo (Giménez, Borja)? I suppose we could stretch a point and name it Ecce Homo (Martínez and Giménez, Borja). Otherwise it's back to Ecce Homo (Borja). Richard Keatinge (talk) 14:44, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I do not think any of those fit, though I do not really like my proposal "Restoration attempt of Ecce Homo (Elías García Martínez)" either (as I wrote, what was notable is the event around restoration and all, not the painting (before or after)). That painting, no matter who the author is, is not really notable in the usual art-y way and hence the naming conventions for art pieces likely do not apply.
If really it comes to that though, the "both authors" version is probably best since Giménez did not paint it from scratch either. Tigraan (talk) 15:43, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
So, Ecce Homo (Martínez and Giménez, Borja). Seems good to me, or at least the best we've come up with so far. Richard Keatinge (talk) 16:00, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I am fine with this title as well and was dismayed when the article was moved without discussion or explanation. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:06, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Would anyone object if the page is moved to Ecce Homo (Martínez and Giménez, Borja)? Richard Keatinge (talk) 08:41, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have done it. I hope this meets with general approval. Richard Keatinge (talk) 20:01, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reopen[edit]

@Richard Keatinge: @RichardMcCoy: @Anastan: @Tigraan: @Walter Görlitz:: Elías García Martínez is a Spanish name. García is the first surname and Martínez is the second. People is usually formally called by their first surname. When it is a very common one, the second may be used: Pablo Ruiz Picasso is known as Picasso, José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero is just Zapatero. In this case, both surnames are very common. The original painter would be Mr García Martínez or the full name would be used (Elías is not so common). In this case, this page would be Ecce Homo (García Martínez and Giménez). However almost nobody who knows about this image would know the surnames of any of the painters. So, I suggest that the page is moved to Ecce Homo (Borja). Unfortunately I just created it as a redirect, so deleting the redirect would be needed. Do you agree? --Error (talk) 14:17, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • I know next to nothing about Spanish names, so I defer to you about the need to replace "Martínez" by "García Martínez".
About place vs. artist name, I note that MOS:ART/TITLE says to disambiguate by artist, (most) of the artworks listed at Ecce_Homo_(disambiguation) are listed by artist and none by place. So I weakly oppose a move to Ecce Homo (Borja) (of course, a redirect is fine, and it would not be a huge deal either way), unless you have evidence that "the Borja Ecce Homo" is the WP:COMMONNAME for the "restored" painting. TigraanClick here for my talk page ("private" contact) 09:10, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Humm, I am quite sure that Ecce Homo de Borja is the most common name in Spanish, but I can't find a common name in English sources after a quick search. Most of them explain who and where rather than assuming the reader remembers what they write about. --Error (talk) 18:04, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ecce Homo (Martínez and Giménez, Borja). 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:

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

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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) 02:03, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Put opening in past tense[edit]

Elias Garcia Martinez's "Ecce Homo" *was* a fresco painting, it has been destroyed. What exists in its place is an amateur painting that bares no resemblance at all to his style, intent, or capabilities and is its own work, mockingly known as "Ecce Mono." Artists tend to take their names off of work when it is edited or defiled to the point that it doesn't represent their intent anymore. 173.70.187.220 (talk) 04:26, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Even destroyed, it is a Fresco. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:35, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
So can I change wikipedia to say that Michael Jackson IS a singer? 173.70.187.220 (talk) 06:34, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Different issue entirely. I'll let you think about it and then explain why. Walter Görlitz (talk) 10:58, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No it is *not* a different issue. Michael Jackson is not available right now to to sing or be heard singing, unless you listen to an old recording. He WAS a singer. Ecce Homo is NOT available right now to be seen, unless you look at an old scan or picture. It WAS a painting. You shouldn't need this explained to you. 173.70.187.220 (talk) 05:07, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
OK, clearly they don't teach logic in New Jersey, so let me spell it out for you: when a person dies, they are not longer a musician. The fresco is still a fresco, it has just been modified in such a way as it's no longer a well-painted as it was before. You shouldn't need this explained to you, but clearly you did. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:11, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If, however, someone had taken a wrecking ball to the wall and the fresco no longer existed, then and only then would it be appropriate to change the tense to past. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:14, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I see, "Walter," that multiple people explained the same thing to you. It's not an issue of "logic," by the way, but actually syntax and grammar. You didn't even understand the term you tried to bring in. 72.79.76.198 (talk) 22:16, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It is an issue of logic. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:35, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unless somebody can produce evidence the fresco is capable of being resorted to the original, the original fresco should be considered GONE. Hence, the past tense should be used to refer to the artwork in the opening, especially given the photo of the original you page 'maintainers' have plastered up there in the opening on the right. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Walter Görlitz (talk • contribs) 00:19, 10 September 2020 (UTC) I'm not sure why there is debate about this — you don't need a wrecking ball to destroy a fresco, you just need sharpie and a key to the church. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.24.24.150 (talk) 23:39, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

On 9/19, I will return to undo the vandalism and change this page back to the past tense unless somebody has provided some example precedent for referring to things which have been destroyed and removed from this earth in the present tense. In the meantime, the locked page's history shows a pattern of abuse by several users blindly reverting the public's changes without any effort to bring forward argument(s) of their own here in Talk. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 154.21.28.139 (talk) 23:42, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Please be aware that the block that was applied can be extended and the page block applied by Sro23 (talk · contribs) can easily be extended as well. As you can see from my points above, it is not gone not more than any other work that was restored is gone. The only difference is that this was an unsuccessful "restoration". If you can provide consensus from reliable sources that the work was destroyed and no longer exists, we would have a reason to continue the discussion. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:25, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Right. And if there's one more thing that Walter dudn't state; it can be protected even more for edit warring, and it can be even indef protected if the warriors war too much. ◊PRAHLADbalaji (M•T•A•C) This message was left at 14:28, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You've got it backwards. The WP:ONUS is on you for seeking to include disputed content, not on other editors to keep it the way it is. The consensus is to use the present tense, and it will remain in the present tense until (or unless) there is a new consensus. Bmf 051 (talk) 17:39, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think the IP editor, despite their ignorance of Wikipedia process, makes a good point. Anyone with working eyes can see that the original painting is unrecognizable in the current one. It'd be one thing if this was a minor touchup, but the entire nature of the painting has been changed . If I drew a mustache on the Mona Lisa, it wouldn't be the same work, but transformed instead (though maybe a philosophical issue to some).

Sources also seem to agree: The NYT and The Guardian refer to it as "ruined". The Independent outright uses the verb "destroys". Observer describes it as "smeared beyond recognition". Forbes even calls it "the Giménez Jesus". I would support using the past tense to refer to Martínez's original, and the present tense to the thing that's currently inside the church. Opencooper (talk) 04:00, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So you're equating "ruined" with "destroyed". And Forbes also indicates that it is "Ecce Homo, by Elias Garcia Martinez, before and after." We're not talking about an incomplete work, like Michelangelo's David that was actually started by another artist (Agostino) and then completed by the master, we're talking about a renovation, failed as it was. Consider this more like Leonardo's The Last Supper that has seen multiple restorations, yet we have not renamed it after the poor and failed restorers. The article on that work states, "little of the original painting remains today despite numerous restoration attempts". Your one point is that the original masterpieces are still recognizable as restored versions of the original, while this is not. That's not to say that a more skilled restore won't come along and return the image to its former state at a later time. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:18, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If in the process of attempting to "restore" the Mona Lisa, you accidentally set it on fire and burn it to ashes, the Mona Lisa would be gone. Referred to in the past tense. A failed restoration that causes the original painting in the artist's intended form to be totally unviewable is not a restoration, it's a destruction. Again, multiple people explained this simple concept to you. 72.79.76.198 (talk) 22:22, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Like comparing apples and home improvement. The paining was not reduced to ashes. I guess you don't understand that. But why bother. Find reliable sources that support your claims. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:35, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Include info about original source painting found later?[edit]

In 2016 a painting surfaced that seems to be the original used as reference by Martínez when painting the fresco.

This is relevant and interesting. I think it should be mentioned and ideally shown in this article. I'm hesitant to go wading in and adding a section without more research, and I haven't found a non-copyrighted image of the original painting.

Stay (talk) 19:06, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your link does not appear to be a reliable source. I don't doubt the story but it wouldn't merit inclusion at this time. Elizium23 (talk) 19:53, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 9 September 2020[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved(closed by non-admin page mover) Megan☺️ Talk to the monster 10:51, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Ecce Homo (Martínez and Giménez, Borja) → Ecce Homo (Martínez and Giménez) – I can't see why this needs two disambiguation methods, unless Giménez damaged another Martínez' Ecce Homo at another location. © Tbhotch™ 23:27, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support per supplied rationale Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:20, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support without a second thought. One dab is all we need. Elizium23 (talk) 00:33, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 00:51, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support move per above. O.N.R. (talk) 09:20, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. Bmf 051 (talk) 17:58, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Why does this even need both names? Giménez is not the original artist. It should just be at Ecce Homo (Martínez). Disambiguations are supposed to use the minimum needed to differentiate. Opencooper (talk) 18:57, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It was at Ecce Homo (Elías García Martínez), later it was moved to Conservation-restoration of Ecce Homo by Elías García Martínez, and then to the current name. I found it weird that Giménez is now credited in the title, but I assume it was because the artwork has now renovated copyrights. (CC) Tbhotch™ 23:13, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Padlock adding[edit]

you forgot to add padlocks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.138.19.236 (talk) 01:03, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Thanks. Opencooper (talk) 18:54, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Still not repaired?[edit]

So, as of 2024, has the thoroughly botched "restoration" still not been repaired, possibly because the ruined version is such a huge tourist draw? This seems like an insult to the original artist, however "insignificant" he may be. At any rate, it might be nice if the article concluded with something like, "As of the present day, the painting remains in its botched state." with a mention of any plans to address the problem, if there are any, so we know its current status, until such time as it IS repaired. 2601:545:8201:6290:95A6:8845:703D:169F (talk) 19:47, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ecce_Homo_(García_Martínez_and_Giménez)&oldid=1200560270"