On Feb 4, 2008 10:31 PM, Rich Holton <richholton(a)gmail.com> wrote:
I was too sweeping in my post. Depictions, for
example, of Jesus in an
article on Renaissance Art would be fine. A photo of Michelangelo's David
would be appropriate on [[Michelangelo]], on [[Depictions of David]] (or
similar), and of course on [[David (Michelangelo)]], but not on [[David]].
I don't see how any depiction of someone that is not based on that someone's
likeness can possibly be encyclopedic in the article on that someone.
Ideas of what someone looks like are sometimes just as important as
his or her actual looks. We include pictures of Greek mythology in
articles about Greek mythology even though Renaissance painters
probably had a very different conception of how things looked than
those who first told those myths. As long as we attribute our sources
for these depictions I don't think it is a huge problem at all.
Johnleemk