| Revision as of 20:55, 30 September 2024 editSadko (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Rollbackers81,712 edits OneClickArchived "External links modified" to Talk:Henri Matisse/Archive 1← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 06:52, 10 January 2025 edit undoCewbot (talk | contribs)Bots7,700,605 editsm Maintain {{WPBS}}: 3 WikiProject templates. (Fix Category:Pages using WikiProject banner shell with unknown parameters)Tag: Talk banner shell conversion |
| (9 intermediate revisions by 4 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
{{Talk header}} |
|
{{Talk header}} |
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=B|vital=yes|living=no|listas=Matisse, Henri|1= |
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=B|vital=yes|listas=Matisse, Henri|blp=no|1= |
|
{{WikiProject France|importance=High}} |
|
{{WikiProject France|importance=High}} |
|
{{WikiProject Biography|a&e-priority=High|a&e-work-group=yes}} |
|
{{WikiProject Biography|a&e-priority=High|a&e-work-group=yes}} |
| Line 8: |
Line 8: |
|
{{OnThisDay|date1=2018-12-31|oldid1=876192546|date2=2019-12-31|oldid2=933337841}} |
|
{{OnThisDay|date1=2018-12-31|oldid1=876192546|date2=2019-12-31|oldid2=933337841}} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Henri Matisse's works entering the Public Domain on 1 January 2025 == |
|
==Lead section== |
|
|
The lead section could be improved, but I don't think that what is wrong with it is that it doesn't mention Marcel Duchamp. As far as I know—and our article does not suggest otherwise—Matisse had little or no personal relationship with Duchamp. According to ], "Apart from basic facts, significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article." Duchamp's importance (apparent mainly in the decades ''after'' Matisse'e death) is not a basic fact about Matisse; it's a fact about art history, and about Duchamp. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hi, is anyone planning to start adding images of Matisse's works to the article in January? A lot of previously deleted images will be restored on Commons; @] will most likely take care of that. ] (]) 10:57, 9 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
The source cited for Duchamp's inclusion here is a survey of British art professionals whose top five list puts Matisse behind Duchamp, Picasso, and Warhol. Surely Warhol doesn't need to be mentioned in the lead too? We have seen elsewhere that this kind of ranking in a lead section is contentious. It seems better to relegate it to the Legacy section where the context can be described. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:The article currently has images of at least 63 of his works. How many more are needed? And where would they go? Thanks. ] (]) 11:01, 9 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
Matisse and Picasso were self-conscious rivals as noted in the article, and this deserves mention in a well-developed lead. Our third sentence—"Matisse is commonly regarded, along with Pablo Picasso, as one of the artists who best helped to define the revolutionary developments in the visual arts throughout the opening decades of the twentieth century, responsible for significant developments in painting and sculpture"—is accurate and sourced. The careful wording does not seem to me to imply that these two stood entirely alone in defining revolutionary developments in the visual arts. If there's any disagreement on this point, let's rephrase to make it unambiguous—or separate Picasso from this sentence, and mention him elsewhere. ] (]) 04:48, 4 June 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
|
::The images that are currently displayed are hosted within English Misplaced Pages under fair use. Going forward, these will all need to be moved to Commons. Is someone taking care of this? ] (]) 11:38, 9 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::When moving images to Commons, on Commons they are newly uploaded. Please make sure they are all added this category: ]. Thanks! I will then make sure they get listed together with restored images on the 2025 Public Domain Day page of ]. ] (]) 11:45, 9 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
:Marcel Duchamp should not be mentioned in the lead because he was a very different sort of artist. We are not trying to confuse the reader and we are not trying to write nonsense. Marcel Duchamp opposed "retinal" art. That is a valid or at least well-established stance on art. But Matisse and Picasso did not ever adopt that stance. The difference between these two stances is so radical that a sentence such as "Matisse is commonly regarded, along with Pablo Picasso and Marcel Duchamp, as one of the artists who best helped to define the revolutionary developments in the visual arts throughout the opening decades of the twentieth century, responsible for significant developments in painting and sculpture" is nonsensical. We should not foist that on the reader. It is not that it is not true, in some sense, but the lead of the Matisse article isn't the place to spring this particular incomprehensible thought on the reader. ] (]) 06:08, 4 June 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::Essentially I agree with the above by both Ewulp and Bus stop especially regarding the fact that Duchamp was not an important factor in 20th century painting and sculpture as were Matisse and Picasso. However regarding Dada, Found objects, the Anti-art movement, conceptual art, installation art, performance art and other 20th century innovations Duchamp along with Matisse and Picasso were the 3 major influences on 20th century art. Although as an afterthought in my opinion, Duchamp's influence has faded while the influence of Matisse and Picasso continues to grow...] (]) 11:16, 4 June 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Just to note, in the lead of the M. Duchamp article, it is written "Duchamp is commonly regarded, along with Pablo Picasso and Henri Matisse, as one of the three artists who helped to define the revolutionary developments in the plastic arts in the opening decades of the twentieth century, responsible for significant developments in painting and sculpture." (4 sources are given). There is no mention of Matisse in the main body of text. The quasi-same sentence used to be in the Picasso article, but is no more, following an extensive edit exchange this past January. I'm agnostic either way on keeping or removing this. But if it stays in the lead of either, it should be discussed in the main body too. ] (]) 05:33, 8 June 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
::::I'm close to agnostic on it too. The article (in each of the three cases) is on an individual artist. Therefore I ask myself why we should be pontificating about which artists "helped to define the revolutionary developments in the plastic arts in the opening decades of the twentieth century"? That is not the topic of the article. Information of that nature might more strongly belong in an article on art history or art theory. Adding the three of them (Picasso, Matisse, and Duchamp) in one sentence creates a potent contradiction in terms, in my opinion, and it upends what should be a straightforward delivery in an article on one artist. This is because unlike Picasso and Matisse, Duchamp espoused a view that was strongly "anti-art". That view has become accepted and normalized over time but the contradiction remains that Duchamp for instance chose objects for Readymades based on his "indifference" towards them, and he aimed to avoid what he termed "retinal art". I could overlook the statements made by artists about their own work, except if those statements seemed on target, which they do in the case of Duchamp. Therefore the reason given by Ewulp seems correct, that ''"Matisse and Picasso were self-conscious rivals as noted in the article, and this deserves mention in a well-developed lead."'' The inclusion of Duchamp in the lead would create a logical inconsistency, in my opinion, therefore we should avoid it. Another possibility is to also omit mention of Picasso in the lead, and I don't think this would be a bad idea. This would be precisely because we are omitting mention of Duchamp. It is inarguably a fact that Duchamp has been influential, perhaps very influential. My only objection is that Duchamp has been influential in a way almost diametrically opposed to the way in which Matisse (and Picasso) has been influential. ] (]) 13:43, 8 June 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::FWIW The interaction between Matisse and Picasso was undeniably important to both artists and to art history; while the interaction between Matisse and Duchamp was negligible at most, although the interaction between Picasso and Duchamp was clear and relevant to the direction each of them took. Both Picasso and Duchamp approached found objects in their own unique ways...] (]) 14:03, 8 June 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::As you say, their ways were unique. Picasso attempted to substitute found objects for things they looked like. For instance a bicycle seat and handlebars to replace aspects of a ], and "two toy cars forming the female baboon's head, a pottery jar for its body, and an automobile spring for its tail" in ]. The thing is that Picasso's use of found objects is not in opposition to art. Duchamp has said that the word "art" is a "discredited" term. Unlike Picasso, Duchamp presented found objects that seemed to utterly lack value as art. ] (]) 14:26, 8 June 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::Although to give Duchamp his due he managed to broaden and redefine our definition of art by essentially demonstrating that ''it is art because I say it is''...] (]) 11:34, 9 June 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::Furthermore a found object can be an absolutely stunningly beautiful thing. This is aside from the use of found objects by Duchamp or Picasso. Picasso incorporated found objects into more traditional sculptures. Duchamp chose found objects for his indifference towards them; they were neither beautiful nor ugly. But the use of found objects also involves looking for beauty in unexpected places. The history of an object is often alluded to in its appearance, and that in turn is oftentimes unavoidably beautiful. I am looking, right now, at a piece of steel, folded, pitted with rust, entirely corroded along one irregular edge, of a beautiful rust color, having been run over by countless cars on a roadway, and containing a perfectly circular hole near its center—probably somehow relating to its former use, in better times. There is passion in found objects, especially those that have been kicked around. One sees these things when one tunes one's eyes to seeing them. Duchamp's point that ''it is art because I call it art'' is very relevant to the point I'm trying to make, because it is not just the artist that makes it art, but the setting in which it is seen. Placing a frame around an object of course underlines its status as art. But even more so, it is the clean, flat walls commonly seen in contemporary art galleries that accentuate the message that the viewer is encouraged to try to see this as art. In conclusion, I would say that art is a frame of mind. I know this diatribe doesn't belong here, but I doubt if any administrator will block me for it. After all, I'm only talking about art. ] (]) 16:51, 9 June 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
To say that it is just about the artist and not where they stand in art history is exceedingly myopic. History reads as history reads and the reversal of what was or is deemed to be art is historic. To |
|
|
write someone out of history where they belong and make your own rationalized assessment is wrong. The reader can just click on the link and figure it out. Do we expect nothing of our readers? Tp learn is it just supposed to be that simple learning is not that simple you are altering the truth.] (]) 19:07, 19 June 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
:To be clear - Duchamp is not an important influence on 20th century painting and sculpture; although both Matisse and Picasso were. However that said, Duchamp did influence the notion of ], as well as the notion that painting is dead (although it is still alive and well). Duchamp is an important influence on 20th century art; his influence is of major import to ], ], ], ], ], ] and various other modernist and post-modernist directions in advanced art...] (]) 21:02, 19 June 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
*All I have say now as you introduced that second sentence to include Duchamp and then removed him from it is that you have committed a stupendous act of politically expendient hypocrisy glossed over with a veritable glossary, this is a battle for another day I surrender for now.] (]) 16:37, 20 June 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
*Lol I'm just telling the truth...] (]) 17:25, 20 June 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
*Its not the truth its an inaccurate accounting of what occurred. A sentence you composed to include Duchamp (who by the way I am not an acolyte of ) as a very fair solution to the problem now stands without him and mirrors the earlier one, so this riffs of some kind of deal that was made. He clearly belongs in the second statement which was entered so as to explain to clarify and now just stands as if those were the only two whose radical work changed the state of art when we all know Duchamp is an important part of the story but i cannot win this argument but the way in which you switched sides is very puzzling indeed.] (]) 17:43, 20 June 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==Lead image== |
|
|
Comments from editors requested. The choice is between: |
|
|
|
|
|
<gallery>File:Henri Matisse, 1913, photograph by Alvin Langdon Coburn.jpg|Henri Matisse, 1913, photograph by Alvin Langdon Coburn (1,093 × 1,299 pixels, file size: 647 KB, MIME type: image/jpeg) |
|
|
File:Portrait of Henri Matisse 1933 May 20.jpg|Portrait of Henri Matisse, 1933, by Carl Van Vechten (707 × 925 pixels, file size: 157 KB, MIME type: image/jpeg)</gallery> |
|
|
|
|
|
Until then the 1913 image will remain in the article. ] (]) 12:42, 17 December 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
*I think we should use both of them. I added or rather switched the Van Vechten with the other Van Vecten that wasn't as good...] (]) 13:31, 17 December 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==Vandalism 2?== |
|
|
Since the previous title was already under the name of ''Vandalism?'' I decided to name mime as a second one to disperse between the two. So, there is an . I can't request page protect but would like to know what will the rest of community think?--] (]) 20:34, 26 April 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion == |
|
|
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion: |
|
|
* ]<!-- COMMONSBOT: discussion | 2019-01-11T01:07:15.126444 | Costumes dHenri Matisse pour le chant du rossignol (les Ballets russes, Opéra) (4550388400).jpg --> |
|
|
Participate in the deletion discussion at the ]. —] (]) 01:07, 11 January 2019 (UTC) |
|
Hi, is anyone planning to start adding images of Matisse's works to the article in January? A lot of previously deleted images will be restored on Commons; @Romaine will most likely take care of that. Gnom (talk) 10:57, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
level-4 vital article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
