Talk:The Swing (Fragonard)

Renoir painting

What about the Renoir painting "The Swing (La Balançoire)" of 1876? Could we somehow set a disambiguation for this here in the article? --Philipp Grunwald (talk) 12:24, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Position of the man

Hello, all.
I understand that from his position, the man in the painting might have had an occasional glimpse of the genitalia of the woman. However, we REALLY need a citation for the assumption that his arm held straight out represents an erection, however subtle it may be. If anyone can find a (pardon the pun) solid source for this, that would be MUCH appreciated.
Venku Tur'Mukan (talk) 17:28, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, shoot. Pretty much that entire description needs citations. I'm now curious about the shoe. Maybe she just... kicked it off, y'know? Anyway, PLEASE find a good source for these things.
Thanks.
Venku Tur'Mukan (talk) 17:31, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Framed

Hi User:Philafrenzy, thank you for your interest in this topic. I reverted your addition of an image, showing the painting in its frame hanging in its exhibition setting. I felt that this image didn't support MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE, because it didn't add new information about the painting. You seem to feel that showing the painting in its setting to be worthy of interest, somehow. I would concur, if there was some description of the significance of its setting in the museum or significance attributed to the frame. Otherwise, it doesn't help one see the actual picture, which the first image does. I feel that it just is adding an image because one exists. I would also feel differently about adding images of other versions of the picture. Perhaps you have a different insight on how the image contributes to the subject in an encyclopedic manner. Cheers, User:HopsonRoad 23:46, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I changed the pic to one with a greater context. I didn't grab the details of the accompanying pics when I was there but will add that. Curators certainly give a lot of thought to how and where a picture is displayed as it can change its meaning and reception. Hope you agree that the new pic is useful. Philafrenzy (talk) 23:49, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the new picture. It shows the size of the painting in the context of others and the wainscoting on the wall. User:HopsonRoad 23:52, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, the light wasn't great. I will try to visit again on a brighter day and get a better version. Philafrenzy (talk) 23:54, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think we're OK. I corrected it for perspective and blown-out areas on the wallpaper. User:HopsonRoad 03:46, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Great. The main advantage of the wider picture is it shows how much smaller it is than one would think from looking at the unframed picture. Philafrenzy (talk) 11:20, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sailin' Shoes

Here's another source for the allusion, of the cover of the Little Feat album by Neon Park, from The Encyclopedia of Popular Music by Colin Larkin: [1]:

"The former introduced the distinctive sleeve covers of artist Neon Park that would grace the rest of the band’s output, with the design on Sailin’ Shoes an allusion to Fragonard’s The Swing. Park's surreal landscapes proved the perfect visual foil to George’s increasingly quirky lyrical forays, which shone through on the title track of Sailin’ Shoes and ‘Kiss It Off’ and ‘Fat Man In The Bathtub’ from Dixie Chicken."

But I guess that's just Larkin's own "personal opinion and speculation"? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:13, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks you for finding this, Martinevans123. The "The Encyclopedia of Popular Music" seems to match the standards given in Wikipedia:Reliable sources checklist. So, you could cite Larkin's observation with something like: "One reviewer of music suggested that the album cover of Sailin’ Shoes is 'an allusion to Fragonard’s The Swing'."(provide proper citation—from the encyclopedia, itself, not the oldies.com website!). Cheers, HopsonRoad (talk) 15:19, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Leg length issues in the painting

Has anyone else noticed how long the lady's right leg is compared to her left? It looks like her femur is twice the length of her tibia in order to bend her knee so far away from the swing. I'm no anatomist, but generally based on the length of legs, shouldn't her knee would been encased in the fabric of her dress? I believe Fragonard purposefully stretched her right leg to show the impact of the kick of the left one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sabinal17 (talk • contribs) 15:24, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 15 May 2020

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: Page moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Jerm (talk) 20:59, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Swing (painting) → The Swing (Fragonard) – as Pierre-Auguste Renoir also has a painting of the same name. See MOS:ART/TITLE: If the title is not very specific, or refers to a common subject, add the surname of the artist in parentheses afterwards, e.g. Reading the Letter (Picasso). It is generally better to disambiguate by the artist's name than by medium, as there may be other paintings or sculptures of the same name by other artists. Sharper {talk} 18:48, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support, makes sense. Note: there are also paintings of the same name by Percy Tarrant, Franz Stuck and Myles Birket Foster, amongst others. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:13, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support for reasons given. HopsonRoad (talk) 21:42, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support as per MOS:ART/TITLE. ~Amkgp ✉ 03:31, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support per MOS:ART/TITLE, & the need to disam. Johnbod (talk) 03:34, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 19:57, 16 May 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.