Talk:Body painting

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

overt commercialism?[edit]

Why are there so many Playboy-type pictures on this page. The cover of these magazines are not so ground-breaking. Can we please have something less commercial? Dandelion1 01:05, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree the majority of the images are of a "pin up" or "softcore" nature. I don't think ground-brakingness is key to the validity of the entry, however. Are there other or better photos available on Wikipedia for this entry? I'd say keep the Danni Ashe image, as it is less commercial than the Playboy images, if one of the two has to go. Glowimperial 18:09, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Avengerscap 10:09, 6 May 2007 (UTC)I don't know what the English fascination with breasts is, and these images should be blocked since anyone of any age can view them. At least show images of fully nude men as well if you want to be at least taken as a serious, instead of pathetic, pervert. The fact that there is nothing mentioned about Celtic war paint, however, reveals a further nasty bias of the Englishman who driveled up this article.Avengerscap 10:09, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

WP:NOT censored for minors, so nothing against breasts here. But I agree that the article could do with a bit more equality. I have lots of pictures of bodypainted men (almost as much as I do of bodypainted women), so maybe I could upload some. JIP | Talk 14:47, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Link rather than embed?[edit]

Because of the (painted) nudity, for this article I would suggest that the image of Danni Ashe should be linked rather than embedded in accord with this tentative Wikipedia guideline: "it may be preferable not to embed possibly offensive images in articles, but rather use a [[media:image name]] link with an appropriate warning. On the other hand, if the page title already tells the reader what to expect (e.g. Erotic art in Pompeii), such a warning may be unnecessary." Objections? --Flex 21:33, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

Would it perhaps make more sense to add the image to the Danni Ashe page and then only link to that? Michael L. Kaufman 14:23, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

Well, the image was recently removed from that page for the same reason as above. (See Talk:Danni Ashe.) I made the change on this article. We'll see how things go. --Flex 15:17, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

  • WP:NOT censored for the protection of minors. This image is needed to illustrate the section. See the breasts article--God_of War 06:12, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Asphyxiation by bodypaint[edit]

The current article states that completely covering someone in bodypaint will not cause them to asphyxiate due to obstruction of the pores. It is possible that this is true for modern noncomedogenic paints, but I am relatively certain that circus performers and other paint-clad artists (the Tin man in The Wizard of Oz (film) for example) typically leave a half-dollar sized area unpainted to prevent this. Can anyone (i.e. someone with experience in bodypainting) confirm this one way or another?

  • The Mythbusters tested this myth and proved it false. Dwp49423 00:06, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
    • I find this disturbing. What if it had been true? Would it have counted as killing? JIP | Talk 09:50, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
      • It wasn't true, so we may never know what it may have counted as... Ilikefood (talk) 22:21, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Speaking of Overt Commercialism[edit]

This is not your personal advertisement space. Attempting to funnel visitors to this article into visiting an article about your company that was created as an obvious advertisement violates Wikipedia's NPOV policy. --Khisanth 22:56, 29 April 2006 (UTC)


User:Dvnc-arts keeps putting links to his own site, and a picture that seems to be incompatible with the Wikipedia image submission policy (it has copyright information on the image itself) into the article. What should be done about this? JIP | Talk 07:20, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I find the lack of resources disturbing[edit]

I was wondering why there are no further body painting resources (i.e brands of body paints, different kinds of body paint.. etc) 13:56, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

  • I tried to add information about what types of paint to use and not use, as well as some resources for finding these products, but my info was removed.

I'm not sure how to have this information included without "commercialism", since we're talking about brands. I tried to mention several, (as well as what NOT to use, ie acrylic artists' paint) and add a link to a resource for a variety of brands, but my info was removed. None of what I mentioned was affiliated with my business or company- they're resources that I use myself as a body painter. Any input anyone? --Bodypainter (talk) 06:18, 29 May 2008 (UTC)bodypainter

Feel free to add links to such pages, as long as they pass WP:EL, but wikipedia is not the place to say "don't try this at home kids", it's an encyclopaedia, and it's important to keep the right tone. This isn't the place to list brands of paint, nor how to mix your own. -mattbuck (Talk) 10:56, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

  • What about descriptions of various kinds of face/body paint and their various qualities (ie more opaque, more creamy, easier to blend, longer lasting, etc)? A compare/contrast: water based vs cream based vs alcohol based and their properties and why one might be used over another in a given situation. I think this can be done without mentioning brands specifically. I am an expert on the subject, to be sure, but I'm also new to Wikipedia and I want to keep the correct "tone". I read the guidelines, but there are SO MANY to digest.... I'm still learning.
  • ALSO I'd like to add a bit about pregnant belly painting, which is a new development in the field with growing popularity. Any thoughts about how to do this correctly?
  • ALSO, another segment (which I've seen but haven't done yet) is people being covered w/ glued on austrian crystal rhinestones. Does this count as "body painting"? Would it fit into the subject, or be its own subject?

--Bodypainter (talk) 17:07, 29 May 2008 (UTC)bodypainter

The rhinestones/pregnancy stuff sounds fairly useful, though make sure it's not original research. Again, a compare and contrast, or at least stating the situations where one is preferable, might be useful, but it would require third party sources. That's the unfortunate thing about wikipedia - it's fine to be an expert in a field, but you have to have sources to back up whatever you say. -mattbuck (Talk) 17:20, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
  • do you cite your sources in the article? Or include a bibliography? Do you paraphrase from someone else's website? How is it determined that a third party source has been used by a poster? meanwhile, I'll look into third party websites for info on these subjects.

--Bodypainter (talk) 00:57, 31 May 2008 (UTC)bodypainter

Whole-body painting[edit]

I discovered that Wikipedia had an article about whole-body painting, which is exactly similar to the body painting described here, except that the resulting artwork is on an external canvas and not directly on the model's body. This should perhaps be merged into this article. However, I think the terms are too similar and do not accurately reflect the distinction, as both kinds of painting are done on whole bodies, the only difference is what is presented as the final artwork. JIP | Talk 07:15, 1 May 2007 (UTC)


I recently broke my photographing frequency record at a body painting show in Sello: 293 pictures in 12 hours' time, and that's only the pictures I kept. There were three female models, two in their underwear, the other topless. Should I upload pictures, assuming I get the models' permission? JIP | Talk 22:14, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

If the pictures are encyclopedic and will contribute to the quality of Wikipedia, go for it! :-) Ilikefood (talk) 22:20, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
293 in 12hrs? Pathetic. I can crank twice that out in a day if I have a big enough memory card :p -mattbuck (Talk) 22:21, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, during the last World Bodypainting Festival, I took almost 2000 pictures over four and a half days' time. This year I plan on taking at least as many, because this time I have a Zen Vision W with me, which can store five times as many pictures, so I don't have to worry about conserving storage space. JIP | Talk 19:33, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Famous people with facepaint[edit]

I would love to alphabetise the "Famous people with facepaint" subsection, but unfortunately it mixes real names, stage names, and names of teams or bands. Is there any way to sort this out? JIP | Talk 20:43, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Maximum Ride[edit]

Hey, if the books are so popular, how come no ones getting the word that they are making a new movie? I's kinda silly. If no one hears about the movie, no one will watch it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:35, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

What the heck does this have to do with body painting? JIP | Talk 18:39, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Lead Picture[edit]

I'd rather like to get a good lead picture which doesn't contain nudity. While wiki is not censored, I'd say that generally there is no need to have nudity right at the top of the page. -mattbuck (Talk) 23:11, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Does female toplessness count as nudity? If so, then we have very few pictures available in the article that would both present body painting and avoid nudity. The closest thing is maybe the men with the letters on their chests, which doesn't really show the full extent of body painting. JIP | Talk 04:09, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, you have a point there. I'd personally say it does, although I admit to finding female nudity generally more pleasing than male nudity. There are a few we could use, if edited a bit I guess. I made a gallery of generally possibly useful ones, for this page in general.
Damn people desirous of showing off their painted genitalia :p -mattbuck (Talk) 10:31, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
I do have many more pictures of bodypainted men, and I think I have a few of bodypainted women with their breasts covered as well. I could upload them if needed, but I would have to ask the artists' permission for publication first. JIP | Talk 17:10, 7 April 2008 (UTC)


I HATE this sentence, but I have no idea how to change it because I don't understand what it means. Is it an "art" thing or a "non-native English speaker" thing?

"Body art today evolves to the works more directed towards personal mythologies, as Jana Sterbak, Rebecca Horn, Youri Messen-Jaschin or Javier Perez."

Can someone help? (talk) 15:39, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I'll take a wild guess. "Body art today has evolved into the direction of works more directed towards personal mythologies, such as those of Jana Sterbak, Rebecca Morn, Youri Messen-Jaschin or Javier Perez." I'd bet on the "non-native English speaker" thing. I have often had to rewrite English sentences written by other Finns, who follow the Finnish sentence structure, which is very different from the English one. JIP | Talk 19:01, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Further: "More subdued form of face paints for everyday occasions evolve into the cosmetics we know today."

Is this true? I know that eye shadow was originally used in Egypt with the belief that it protected from eye disease. The coloration of lips has been associated with making them resemble vaginal lips (consider the gibbons whose bottoms become inflamed during periods of fertility). Does anyone have a citation for the supposition that the daily attempt to enhance appearance is descended from ritual body painting?TychaBrahe (talk) 15:49, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Body painting as an artform verses the commercialism depicted here[edit]

Since 1979, I have been working with metalic makeup to produce the effect of having a silver, copper, or gold human statue come alive in front of my camera. I've been published world wide and am the most published metalic MUA/photographer in the world.

I find it troubling that none of the work accomplished by pioneers such as Jon Stevens and myself -- unless I missed that -- are even mentioned here. We were the ones who devoted more time to the artistic efforts. Indeed, we created human statues and sculptures.

I devoted much of my time and will continue to devote time to my work until I die. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Redwar2006 (talkcontribs) 06:26, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Women painted topless[edit]

Why do so many female body painting models (not all of them though) go topless while being painted? The idea is to present the most of one's body to be painted, not necessarily all of it. They're already wearing panties while painted, surely a thin top covering just enough of the breasts to be decent wouldn't hurt the effect that much? JIP | Talk 00:55, 5 July 2008 (UTC)


A talk show host asked what gender invented Face Painting and make up.I said it was a combined effort of both,and from numerous cultures.The introduction of face painting was used by meso American cultures,in ceremony and war,and that was by the male gender.The European female adopted that concept and furthered it's use,as we know today.Here is another cosmetic example,wigs were worn by English nobility as a token of authority,yet females adopted it later for style conversions. Now on the other hand jewelry was thought up by viking women as well as men,because it was easier to carry their wealth where ever they go,because of their transient lifestyle. Hair clips were worn by Samaria warriors to keep their hair out of their face,women today use the same innovations.Tattoo's were invented by women in Norwegian cultures to identify themselves, The tattoo would name their husband,their favorite flower,etc, today men use that concept as well.So my answer to the talk show host,the answer is not A or B,it is a combined effort of both, and many cultures over long time spans. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:31, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

"Orca tattoo"[edit]

Someone added this image to this article, and it was quickly reverted. The description of the file doesn't make it clear whether this is a tattoo or body painting, in other words, does the ink go under or over the skin. JIP | Talk 16:56, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

The PETA photo[edit]

Two body painted women in a PETA protest against the fur trade.

I'm sorry, but I am going to remove this image again. It is a lousy image to use as an illustration of body painting. The two women are too far away to be seen in the size allocated. In fact, what it looks like is two women wearing bikini bottoms, a red cape, boots, cat ears, and carrying cardboard signs in front of them. I have no problem with using images from a PETA protest, I remember seeing some excellent ones of women in cages or even the controversial billboard campaign that they ran a few years ago that would be great examples. But the image that is currently included doesn't work as an example of body painting.---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 20:14, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

If the only problem is the size of the image, then I could (at some point in time) edit the image to cut away parts of it so it focuses more on the women. Then I could upload the new version and replace the old image with that. I was the who took the original picture in the first place, so uploading an edited version shouldn't be a problem. JIP | Talk 20:42, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
I MIGHT be able to support that... assuming that it is clearer that they are in fact wearing body paint. Looked at the image, the art is nice, if you can see it. As is, it looks like they are wearing boots and a red cape... personally, I like the images from here and I know that there was a huge controversy a few years ago dealing with billboards and what I thought were body painted people. But I can't find it anywhere. (I also think there are too many images on this page right now... perhaps a gallery might be helpful? I don't have time to work on it right now... but I think we need to clean it up some. Right now, my favorite images are the butterfly girl, soldier, the Hoyas image (because it purely fans), the Demi Moore image (probably the most famous body suit ever), and the Saints fan (again, it shows the extremes that fans will go to, it's not as polished as some, but is still probably done by a pro.) Any of the others, could IMHO be removed. The PETA image, in its current condition, is the worst of the images. (Again, I am not criticizing the art or the cause or even the image itself, but the image for the purpose of illustrating Body Painting.)---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 21:41, 18 September 2010 (UTC)


This recent edit claims that the mention of medieval Dalecarlian body painting was vandalism. Up to this time, I had merely thought it was a historical curiosity. Can anyone either verify or deny it was vandalism? JIP | Talk 20:38, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

 Read here.````  —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:09, 11 December 2010 (UTC) 

Muddling structure[edit]

Looks like people have started disrespecting the structure of the article. About halfway down the last paragraph of facepainting, glitter tattoos pop up for no rhyme or reason. Vpundir 02:17, 1 September 2011 (BST)

Blatant commercialism[edit]

In last paragraph of facepainting, in the discussion around glitter tattoos, it is mentioned that these are made with the "original pink glue"...this is an overt plug for a specific brand. What the article SHOULD say instead of "Original Pink Glue" is cosmetic-grade glue. Vpundir 02:17, 1 September 2011 (BST)

I completely agree, and I wish I had spotted it myself. Looks like it had been there since December 2009, but no one noticed. JIP | Talk 20:35, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Too many photos - cleanup required[edit]

There are now more photos in this article than stands to reason. On most high-resolution screens, the articles is visually unappealing and even disturbing due to the ragging caused by numerous pictures that don't fit into their respective sections. Vpundir 02:17, 1 September 2011 (BST)

I have to say I'm a bit guilty in that myself, having added both images taken by me and images taken by other people. But images of body painted people are nice to look at, so I guess people got carried over. Perhaps the article could do with a bit of critical screening about the images. JIP | Talk 20:35, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
I hafta agree... I just took a look at the page and realized that we have way too many photos... and are missing at least one key type (wrestling). I'm going to work on cleaning up the photos starting tonight---unless somebody wants to get started sooner.---Balloonman Poppa Balloon 22:21, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
Go right ahead, they definitely need thinning out. I'd recommend keeping, the soldier/cammo one, the Demi Moore one and the warrior face paint ceramic one. The rest are pretty much up to personal preference and how many you think the article can support. --GraemeL (talk) 22:27, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
I agree with those... I'd like to see a few more removed (cut out at least two of the sports images, I just don't know which ones---Hoyas, Saints, or FIFA.) And add two more images (ideally one from a traditional usage... I'm thinking American Indian, India Indian, or some Pacific Islander of some sort.)---Balloonman Poppa Balloon 23:27, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

The top photo[edit]

Has anyone noticed that the top photo is of a man who is naked with his wang visible, and kids are watching it? What the hell, first of all why would children be allowed to view this, and why is it allowed on Wikipedia? Are we sure we need of a photo of such content? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:33, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm sure this has been discussed previously. Wikipedia is not censored. Sure children can see the image of a body painted man with his penis visible, or they can scroll down and see images of body painted women with their breasts painted. So what? The same children can type "penis" or "breasts" in the search bar and see even more shocking images. Wikipedia is a site for everyone, not a site primarily for children and their parents. We can't let people who get all Helen Lovejoyish set rules for everyone else. JIP | Talk 20:51, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
I think the images should be removed/replaced/penis cropped out/placed further down the page mainly because apart from the top half of the photo the rest isn't really so relevant because the top shows all the bodypaint the rest is just a bit "cock for the sake of cock". Also there are way too many pictures on this article as well. That issue should be addressed also. I would write in the "Too many photos - cleanup required" section but whoever is likely to change it will read this section as well.

On the issue of Wikipedia is not censored (well I believe it is too some extent as arguably trying to keep a neutral point of view is in itself censorship but thats beyond the point) that doesnt mean images which are irrelevant should be kept just to show you are against censorship. Eopsid (talk) 10:44, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, I understand the issue with the man in the top photo having his penis bare, and understand your point about "cock for the sake of cock". But then again this article has few enough pictures of body painted men as it is. Removing the top photo would make it even more gender-biased. I think there are more pictures of body painted men on WikiMedia Commons, I'll have to see if I can find a better picture. JIP | Talk 21:26, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

It has been discussed before... but never in much depth... my suggestion is to go ahead and change it and see if anybody cares. My guess is no, that people won't care one way or another.---Balloonman Poppa Balloon 22:30, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

I have replaced the lead picture with a picture that shows both body painted men and body painted women without showing any penises or breasts. If someone wants to change it again, be my guest. JIP | Talk 17:52, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
I don't like that image. It's blah and the artwork isn't that inspired. I am leaning towards the Vanity Fair issue with Demi Moore on the cover. While it shows "breast" you can't really tell due to the art work and it is probably the most famous piece of body art ever produced.---Balloonman Poppa Balloon 22:24, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
Trouble is that it's a non-free image. We can probably justify it in the section that it's mentioned in. I don't think it would fly in the lede though. --GraemeL (talk) 22:30, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
That might be a valid point... I think it is by far and away the best image for the lead. It is the single most famous work of body art ever, but if there is guidance on non-free images in the lead, you might be right. I know that we can't use non-free images on the Main Page, Do you happen to know for a fact that non-free images can't be used in the lede?---Balloonman Poppa Balloon 23:29, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
I asked ESkog (talk · contribs) for an opinion as he/she seems to be experienced with the ins and outs of fair use rational as it applies to images. The opinion I got is that we can justify it in the section that mentions it, but should use a different picture in the lede.
We also need to add a fair use rational to File:Coversvanity demi.0.jpg as one doesn't currently exist for this article. It's against policy to use non-free images without a noted rational.
Since you were dealing with the image cull, I'll let you do the necessary and only follow up if you seem to have move on to something else. --GraemeL (talk) 16:01, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
Too bad, I really thought it was the best example to go in the lead as it is truly the best known example of body painting. IMO it is probably the image that helped get body painting noticed; before that most people didn't realize how sophisticated body painting could be. But I replaced the image with the Saints girl---she is just so over the top that it's great.16:41, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Image changes:[edit]

1) Moved the Demi Moore Vanity Fair cover to the lead position as this is perhaps the most famous example of body paint ever. Due to questions of non-free images in the lead, this image was moved back to the section that dealt with Demi's Birthday Suit. So I moved the image of the Saints Fan to the lead.

Guests arriving at the 2009 Life Ball.

2) Removed the recently added image as it is not that great of a quality image and the art is pretty basic.

File:Full Body Painting.jpg
Nude body painting with a tiger motif

3) Removed image of tiger motif'd lady. The girl with a butterfly on her chest is a better image IMO and has been on the page much longer, didn't feel like we needed both.

Body painting in a carnival at Loulé, Portugal

4) Removed image from Carnival. Image is small and person in image is hard to see, hard to tell what the body paint really is.

Two men with painted faces, for the charity event Children in Need

5) Removed image as it is a dark image and hard to see. Better images elsewhere.

6) Removed image as it is just scary ;-) While I would love to have images of body painting for "spritual purposes" I don't think this is the right image. I think the ideal image for this purpose would be one of an indigenous population that is wearing body paint.

7) Moved the boy with the tiger face down to the section dealing with popular face painting examples.

8) Moved picture of girls down to give space.

World Bodypainting Festival in Seeboden

9) Removed image from WBF Seeboden. Image is too small with the two body painted figures occupying so little of the image. Hard to see the body paint. Better images already on the page.

10) added image of Sting to the Wrestling section. Sting is probably the most famous wrestler with face paint... but there are others who would be equally good.

I feel like we need to remove one or two of the following sports related images:

But I'm not sure. I like the Saints image because it is so extravagent and out there. I like the FIFA image because it shows that face painting isn't just an American thing. I like the Hoyas image because it is so simplistic. But I don't think we need 3 images related to sports. What are your thoughts on these three images?

I think we need at least 2 more images: 1) Of hand art. 2) Of a traditional usage for spriitual/historic purposes.

Up to you on the sports images, I agree with everything you said (copout). The Saints image is very good, the World Cup one is international and the hoyas one is the only one with a team name written across multiple bodies which is quite commonly done. So it's up to your personal choice.
I also fixed the fair use rational on the Demi image page, the template was case sensitive on the article name. --GraemeL (talk) 17:15, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
Camouflage body painting at WBF 2010 cropped.jpg

I see your point about the camouflage body painting image, so I made a cropped version of it, which shows only the body painted women. However, as the women are standing back-to-back with their arms outstretched, they form more-or-less a square shape, which forces the image to include a lot of the background also, as the human body is quite oblong-shaped. I hope this is not a problem, but if it is, I could make a further cropped version by cutting part of the women's legs off the picture, seeing as the legs aren't painted. But I'd much rather not do it though, as I prefer full-body shots when I photograph people. JIP | Talk 23:26, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

It is improved as it is now cropped and the art stands out a little better (I think you did the same thing with the Peta picture a year or two ago.) That being said, I'm not entirely convinced that we need that image. I think we still have too many images as is and having two images on the same line really looks bad on some monitors. You end up having more image than text on a screen. That being said, *I* won't remove it... I did the first cut... I'd be interested in what others think.---Balloonman Poppa Balloon 03:07, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Painting in music[edit]

Shouldn't there be a section regarding painting within the world of music? Some examples would be Blue Man Group, glam metal bands like Kiss and Black Veil Brides, and some black metal and extreme metal bands. Nothing huge, but a mention would be adequate, would it not?

Thatemooverthere (Talk) 01:17, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Image war?[edit]

Phoenix Rising.jpg 
Bodypainting Saints.jpg 
Starry night body painting.jpg 

Is there some kind of edit war going on about which picture is better for the top of the article? Wouldn't it be possible to simply have both? JIP | Talk 06:00, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

The article is already verging on cluttered, and having more than one image in the lead seems like a bad idea. The current image (File:Phoenix Rising.jpg) seems needlessly complicated for encyclopedic purposes. The flame background is just as prominent as the bodypainting, and the pose is very dramatic, but not clearly understandable, especially as a thumbnail. The costume wings only makes this worse. It's also kind of telling that the caption lists the photographer, but not the model or the person who did the painting. This underlines that the image is more about artistic photography than it is about clear explanation. The main photo should show bodypainting in clearly, without ambiguity or other distracting elements. The previous version was not perfect, but it was much more appropriate for an encyclopedia. So... do we need to do a WP:RFC for this or something? Grayfell (talk) 07:35, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
Phoenix Rising has now again a watermark. I removed that watermark by uploading a version without, but that seems not possible. Would be better in my opinion to use an image without a watermark. --Hannolans (talk) 10:22, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
The watermark is too crass and is yet another distraction. The image might be usable at Karl Hammer, but not here. If we really want something with a more artistic focus, how about moving the Starry Night one to the lead? There's much less room for confusion and the thumbnail reads clearly. Grayfell (talk) 01:18, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
It seems the watermark issue is by now turning into an obsession for some where it becomes bigger and more problem each time it is disccussed. The watermark is a pity but not too crass. Hammer explained elsewhere to Hannolans why it was legally not possible to release an image without the imprint. In anyway I see rather the professional bodypaint art work with a watermark (Rembrandt and other artists signed his name too) than the amateur starry night. So its a choice for content quality of the article. Elfrieb (talk) 08:57, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
Please don't get snarky, every one of your edits has been about this topic, so rather than try and figure out who's "obsessed", comment on edits, not editors. This is not about the image's inclusion in Wikimedia Commons, which is irrelevant, this is about its use as the lead image in the article. Aesthetic considerations must take a back seat to relevance and clarity. Per Wikipedia:Image_use_policy#Content "The relevant aspect of the image should be clear and central". This image is not a good representation of the topic, because it is has too many other elements. Grayfell (talk) 09:28, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
Dear Elfrieb, I know you as a big fan and I appreciate what you are trying to do, but I would even more appreciate it if there is less negative discussion surrounding my work. It's only wikipedia, not a trade magazine or otherwise professional resource. Karl Hammer (talk) 07:48, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Since there has been no development, I've switched to the Starry Night one. Regardless of which image is used, it would be a very good idea to credit the body paint artist, since that's the topic of the article, not photography. Grayfell (talk) 01:06, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

This article has just acquired three images of work by Paul Roustan which seems a little WP:UNDUE and fails to provide the variety required by MOS:PERTINENCE. One is now the lead image, superseding Grayfell's use of Starry Night without any discussion here. I suggest we limit the images to one per artist, and switch the lead back to Starry Night unless consensus is reached for one of the new images to be in the lead. In addition the newly-added paragraph about Roustan is written in the promotional style of a press release and appears to need editing for WP:TONE. - Polly Tunnel (talk) 16:24, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
 Done as no comments received. - Polly Tunnel (talk) 18:21, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Body painting. 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:

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

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:41, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Body painting. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:08, 19 May 2017 (UTC)