Talk:Homage (arts)

---

Image

The joke image of people paying "homage" to Hugo is inappropriate for a number of reasons

1. They are not actually paying homage to anyone, it is a joke, and it is a puppet.
2. The text of the article is mainly about the historical use of the term, the image is of out place. It is applying the term homage in a pejorative manner to make a statement about backwardness of Hugo Chevaz.
3. It is disrespectful of Hugo Chávez - if the puppet was of, say, George Bush, with a bunch of laughing people paying "homage" to a gross characterture of Bush, it would be removed on POV grounds. It's a political satire with a clear message, more than just a neutral example of homage, and as such POV.

-- Stbalbach 02:01, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

---

As you can see from my contributions, which are extensive, I don't put up "joke images"
1. Circus Amok is a National Endowment for the Arts funded, award-winning production. Within the show they pay homage to the Socialist South American leaders, including Michelle Bachelet and Evo Morales; not uploaded is Kirschner. How would you know it is a joke unless you were there? I was, and trust me, the message was very pro-socialist, since Jennifer Miller is a Socialist herself, and it is her award-winning piece.
2. The first line in the article is "Homage is generally used in modern English to mean any public show of respect to someone to whom one feels indebted." This production meets all of that criteria.
3. It is not "disrespectful" of anyone, as I make clear above. You can Google "Circus Amok" if you wish to see what its message is about. It certainly does not fall under satire.
You seem to be confusing POV with "everything is neutral." Editors on Wikipedia aren't allowed to insert their points of view, but we are allowed to illustrate other people's points of view. Most of your assumptions based on the photograph are incorrect; if you took some time to research them you would find this to be the case. I put Chavez up as opposed to Morales or Bachelet because he is more familiar to English-speaking audiences. But Bachelet or Morales would work equally as well - take your pick from the links above; but I feel strongly that since I have several images portraying the concept of homage, especially in an NEA-funded piece of theater, that an image should be placed on the page. I would also like to remind you to assume good faith in edits, especially from well-established editors. --DavidShankBone 04:59, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't put up "joke images" well that was not clear just looking at the image. None of those things you mentioned are clear from the picture itself, with laughing people bowing down in front of a characterure of Hugo. As the author of the picture you've tried it in various articles throughout Wikipedia. It was rejected from the Hugo Chavez article as being inappropriate, maybe elsewhere. Lets put it up for a straw vote and see what other people think if it should be in this article also. -- Stbalbach 15:35, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

The Hugo Chavez page rejection of the image has no bearing on its merits here. Laughing doesn't connote disrespect; especially since in this case there was nothing but respect accorded. Like I said, the other two images work just as well and seem to take care of this "disrespect" issue you seem concerned the image portrays. --DavidShankBone 15:45, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

It at least appears like it's somewhat of a joke, being in a circus with laughing supplicants wearing pink. As such, it is a poor example of "homage", even assuming that the circus-members intend to pay homage. —Centrx→talk • 17:00, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I will take the advice and replaced Chavez with the Morales homage that seems to better portray the deference and respect the performers accorded to the South American leaders in their performance. --DavidShankBone 17:15, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Straw vote

This is a straw vote to see if the circus picture of Hugo Chavez should be in this article. Keep or Delete.

• Delete. Stated reasons above. Context of picture is too complicated and easily mis-understood. Current events political situation, good for activism, but not a neutral depiction of "homage". -- Stbalbach 15:35, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Stated reasons above, and offered two alternative homage images above, as well. --DavidShankBone 15:43, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Agree with Stbalbach, this is not an appropriate or illustrative image for the homage article. None of them are.--Cúchullain ^t/c 21:23, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Homage vs. ripoff

A worthy addition to the article would be the rather regular arguments that arise over movies/TV shows/video games, over whether a given "homage" is actually just a "ripoff", with the purpose of gaining attention or praise, rather than having the purpose of showing respect. Tempshill 18:55, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

"An homage" or "a homage"?

The text has both. It seems commonplace to use either way, depending on the opinion or origin of the user, the point here is the inconsistency. Shred-69 (talk) 05:29, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm English, and I pronounce the h. So therefore I say "a homage". However, I have also heard some people say it as if they were speaking French, where the h would be silent ("omage") - so in those cases they need to use "an". I guess it depends on whether the person pronounces it as in English or in French. EuroSong ^talk 08:49, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

In English, we say "a homage", but many Americans seem to be under the impression that it is a French word, and try to pronounce it accordingly. — Chameleon 07:53, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, homage is a French word. I believe it was first used in the English language in about the 13th century AD. I'm not American by the way, I'm an Aussie. --AussieLegend (talk) 09:10, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

As this is the english version of the page, we will go with the english version of the word, which is pronounced hah-midge.