Jump to content

Talk:Portrait of Toulouse Lautrec, in Villeneuve-sur-Yonne, with the Natansons

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

Re: Euphemism

[edit]
Lautrec was also fond Misia, and in addition to painting her, was also known for his affection towards her.

As you can imagine, I had to be careful here, because I wasn't sure how to phrase "Lautrec enjoyed tickling Misia's feet with his paintbrush". This is a continual problem whenever I write about Lautrec. Viriditas (talk) 11:20, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like Misia's memoir goes into some detail about this behavior. Frèches-Thory (1994) includes the description of the behavior. Viriditas (talk) 21:00, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, Misia was greatly fond of Lautrec (as friends) as well, so this behavior was allowed and seen as favorable by Misia. Just noting this for our modern readers. Viriditas (talk) 21:01, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Current location?

[edit]

Various niche art sites indicate that this painting was in the possession of the Stedelijk Museum Amsterdam after 2003. It is unclear where its current location is today. Viriditas (talk) 21:51, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

However, the exif of the image indicates it is now at the Musée Toulouse-Lautrec. Why is the Stedelijk Museum listed as the holder of the painting in 2006?[1] Viriditas (talk) 21:55, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's something odd about all of this. Yes, one of the Commons editors confirmed the image was at the Musée Toulouse-Lautrec in 2021, but I cannot find a single thing in the literature after 2003, until 2006, when it is suddenly said to be at the Stedelijk Museum. It wasn't deaccessioned, so what's the story? Also, many of the more modern and current works on Vuillard seem to ignore it. I find that you can often understand a lot by what is not said than what is said, and there's something strange going on here. Obviously, there's a bit more in the biographical literature, particularly in terms of exhibitions, but almost none of it is online and resides in archives and microfilm. This is weird, since the painting appeared in 1930 out of nowhere, was published in Joyant's book, and resurfaced in 1966 in the new edition. Even the 2003 CR says it is one of Vuillard's most popular paintings. Viriditas (talk) 00:48, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To do

[edit]
  • Jane Grigson, Vegetable Book
    • There is some agreement that Lautrec is using the oven to bake lobster in this painting. For some reason that I do not understand, Salomon & Cogeval (2003) write about this in the CR in an unusually skeptical way, casting some kind of unnecessary doubt on the authenticity of Thadée Natanson's recollection, which was published (or republished) in 1951. There's clearly an implicit undercurrent here, even though everything points to Lautrec baking lobster. I will address this later.
      • Natanson says this is 1897. Salomon & Cogeval (2003) say it is between 1897 and 1899.
  • I wish I could say more about the medium of cardboard. I once met an artist in San Francisco who painted exclusively in this medium, and it had an interesting quality that one doesn't see on canvas. Of course, it's far too flimsy and fragile and mostly ends up being ephemeral art, but there's a unique look to the finished product, and we see that here.
  • I would prefer to go with the shortened title, but I went with the long one instead for accuracy. If someone thinks it could be moved to the shorter one within the title guidelines, I wouldn't mind.
  • I left out (you can see how I removed it in the page history) the specific information about Lautrec's clothing from the party. This is because I discovered, quite strangely as a matter of fact, several competing accounts. One says he wore an American flag as part of his costume (jacket or shirt), while still another says he wore a Union Jack not a US flag. After seeing these accounts at odds with each other, I removed it entirely, but I think it's worth having another look. It's such a famous scene that it deserves being discussed provided I have the right sources.
  • There's far more to say about his culinary background and preferences, but I thought I might overdo it so I held back. But re-reading the article, I now think it's possible to add more info.

GA Review

[edit]
Passed. Matthew Yeager (talk) 03:37, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion 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.

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Portrait of Toulouse Lautrec, in Villeneuve-sur-Yonne, with the Natansons/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Viriditas (talk · contribs) 20:20, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Matthew Yeager (talk · contribs) 18:48, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
Excellent work creating and consistently improving this article. Your efforts have shown through by how digestible something this specific can be! I have an ask in the Lead Section, and two pieces of feedback in the Reference section. Looking forward to hearing from you about your thoughts in the below areas.
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
    Tight lead section. Is there something more direct to state about the significance of this work as it is explored throughout the article?
    Yes, the lead needs to be expanded. I don't know why I didn't do this. I will expand it by tonight.
    I took a crack at it. Viriditas (talk) 01:01, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable, as shown by a source spot-check.
    a (reference section): b (inline citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
    High quality reference, but even more impressive has been the excellent copy editing and tone throughout the article which pulls from the resources.
  • Many of the references require registration to access the contents. Would you convert them to {{cite web ... }} so that it may be indicated? Reference 2 "Cogeval, Guy", 3: "Warnod, Jeanine", 6: "Russell, John", 7: "Naudin, Jean-Bernard", 8: "Mack, Gerstle", 9: "Frey, Julia", 10: "Sugana, G.M.", 11: "Leaf, Alexandra", 14: "Wright, Christopher".
  1. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
    Clearly about the artwork and expands to help the reader understand the significance of this style, setting, and subject.
  2. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  3. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  4. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
    Inspiration as well as other pieces by this artist during this time help add context for readers.
  5. Overall: Thank you for your efforts to address my concerns!
    Pass/Fail:
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.

Did you know nomination

[edit]

(
)
  • Source: Salomon, Antoine; Cogeval, Guy (2003). Vuillard: The Inexhaustible Glance: Critical Catalogue of Paintings and Pastels. Volume 1. Skira. pp. 504-505. ISBN 8884911192. OCLC 218543633. (registration required)
Improved to Good Article status by Viriditas (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 33 past nominations.

Viriditas (talk) 00:44, 22 December 2024 (UTC).[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Portrait_of_Toulouse_Lautrec,_in_Villeneuve-sur-Yonne,_with_the_Natansons&oldid=1264440246"