Talk:Beethoven Frieze

Tate Liverpool Frieze

I haven't seen the exhibition, but I do know that it is a recreation, and the text added here was misleading. But where is this replica from? Was it made for the exhibition or is it on loan from somewhere? How good a quality is it, and when was it made? --86.130.147.166 (talk) 09:36, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

In answer to your question. The quality of the replica is superb and its hard to notice at all. Tate used the same methods and materials as Klimt did. The Tate Liverpool website has all the details of how this was done. Hope this was of some assistance to your question. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.208.194.50 (talk) 01:50, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Misleading picture title / caption

The title "Beethoven Frieze" above the picture is misleading, as it is only a small part of the entire artwork. An image of the entire work of art may not be available, but a more complete title and caption would at least reflect this. GeeBee60 (talk) 13:09, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Beethoven Frieze. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141224072042/http://www.secession.at/beethovenfries/geschichte_e.html to http://www.secession.at/beethovenfries/geschichte_e.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:01, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

subjective interpretation presented as fact

The third paragraph of the Description section begins with "The frieze illustrates human desire for happiness in a suffering and tempestuous world in which one contends not only with external evil forces but also with internal weaknesses." This paragraph is the only paragraph in the section describing the painting's content. It has a lot of subjective interpretations in it (such as the first sentence), none of which are in quotations, and there are no citations. For another example, "The journey ends in the discovery of joy by means of the arts and contentment is represented in the close embrace of a kiss." This sentence is unhelpful as a description; the only description it contains is "close embrace of a kiss." Furthermore, it is an subjective interpretation stated as if it was a fact. I think this paragraph should be completely reworked to be a more objective description. At the very least, the subjective parts should have sources to back them up.IDWChen (talk) 05:09, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Forced to Sell?

The following passage is tendentious and misleading: "In 1973, Erich was forced to sell the frieze for $750,000 (half of its market value) to the Austrian government in exchange for Chancellor Bruno Kreisky granting export licenses for the Lederer family's other Klint pieces."

This is how the attorneys of the Lederer heirs argued. However, what does 'forced' mean here? It was Erich Lederer's free decision to sell the frieze. He might have just kept it or sold it in Austria. Perhaps he decided to sell the frieze in order to get an export license for other works, which would not have been permitted to leave Austria due to laws preventing the export of important cultural property from Austria. Yet even in this case, this was just a business decision on his part. It is a normal practice of countries with a rich cultural heritage to impose export restrictions. 37.5.251.48 (talk) 16:38, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Of course, this does not settle the moral question of whether it was right in the first place to impose an export ban on works that had just been restituted after having been extorted from their rightful owners by the National socialist regime. 37.5.251.48 (talk) 17:57, 10 February 2024 (UTC)