Talk:Mary Cassatt

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

"and later exhibited among the Impressionists" sounds as if she did not belong to the movement.[edit]

Make sure that the wording is used in such a way as not to diminish her accomplishments.

links to National Museum of Women in the Arts[edit]

There have been repeated additions and removals of a link to the Mary Cassatt page at the National Museum of Women in the Arts. The museum's page seems to be useful additional background, but I'm not going to restore the link given the volatility of the page. Could someone who knows the work of this artist better than I do please assess whether the link (and links from articles on other women artists to their pages on the National Museum of Women in the Arts web site) are appropriate or not? TruthbringerToronto 00:30, 14 June 2006 (UTC).

Edgar Degas[edit]

I heard in a lecture that she met him in 1876, so maybe that 1874 date should be confirmed. Schnozzinkobenstein 09:34, 10 July 2006 (UTC).

--24.251.65.123 (talk) 19:29, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Google day ?[edit]

Just a note to expect heavy traffic as her birthday is today's Google logo. David Ruben Talk 00:59, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Should it be temporarily semi-protected? There's been a lot of unwanted edits already. peterl (talk) 01:03, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
I agree, can any administrator protect this article for awhile? It have been vandalized for so many times. --98.154.26.247 (talk) 06:17, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

# Redirect & Early life title[edit]

there was a code bug I removed it —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.124.30.83 (talk) 05:46, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

No, the bug is still there, and Early Life title still isn't showing properly. Can anyone fix this apparent problem? (I don't really know what caused this) --98.154.26.247 (talk) 06:08, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

mary paint[edit]

i would like to know where can i found her paint —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.99.34.175 (talk) 09:07, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

File:Under the horse chestnut tree2.jpg to appear as POTD soon[edit]

Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Under the horse chestnut tree2.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on March 8, 2011. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2011-03-08. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :) Thanks! howcheng {chat} 17:58, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Under the Horse Chestnut Tree
Under the Horse Chestnut Tree (1898), a drypoint and aquatint print by Mary Cassatt, an American painter and printmaker who lived much of her adult life in France, where she first befriended Edgar Degas and later exhibited among the Impressionists. Cassatt often created images of the social and private lives of women, with particular emphasis on the intimate bonds between mothers and children, on which her reputation is largely based. In recognition of her contributions to the arts, France awarded her the Légion d'honneur in 1904, but she never had as much success in her homeland, having been overshadowed by her brother, railroad magnate Alexander Cassatt.Restoration: Lise Broer
Sucks loads and loads IMHO. There's a very nice Google Art Project version from the Museum of Fine Arts, Houston, and the Terra Foundation has a nice example as well. Why do we have to put up with this dark and murky Library of Congress photoshopped version? Coat of Many Colours (talk) 13:25, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
I can add that despite the vey large 57 MB TIFF source file, the resolution is not a patch on the Google Art Project 4 MB file. Compare the highlights in the mother's hair for example. In the circumstances I feel justified in substituting the Google Art Project file. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 15:39, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Gallery[edit]

3or 4 max works best with all computers...Modernist (talk) 00:14, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

I believe this is an obscure reference to the "perrow=" attribute. Rigidly specifying 3 or 4 pictures per row does not make sense when some readers have widescreen displays, and others have tablets or mobile phones. It is not true that "all computers" have whatever display you happen to be using at this time. Do not specify a fixed grid arrangement, unless you are making specific comparisons between rows that require it. Reify-tech (talk) 04:00, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Relationship with Edgar Degas[edit]

An editor is persisting in transferring material concerning Cassatt's rerlationship with Edgar Degas from Little Girl in a Blue Armchair to this article. I have already spent significant time explaining the rationale of these edits on the Talk page there. Cassatt's relationship with Degas was but an episode of her life, adequately covered here. A discussion of her relationship with Degas properly exists elsewhere, but not here.

I have no idea why this editor is persisting so. I can see no evidence of this editor otherwise contributing to the Visual Arts. I ask her to cease her wholly unwelcome intrusions and I apologise to the editors here where I have only made minor edits in the past. I hardly know what else to do faced with this. I am so very sorry. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 01:41, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

If placed in this article the section looms rather large and creates an undue emphasis problem, but it doesn't fit well in the Little Girl in a Blue Armchair article either. E.g., the two artists' disagreement over the Dreyfus affair in the mid-1890s, or Cassatt's remarks at the end of her life about Degas' 1884 portrait of her, are not really part of the story of a painting she completed in 1878. I'd suggest dividing the material; about 1/3 of it properly belongs in the bio. Ewulp (talk) 03:08, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Much of the material probably belongs here if it belongs anywhere. Putting it in the Little Girl in a Blue Armchair article amounts to burying it in an obscure location unlikely to be seen by all but the most obsessively thorough readers. If it gives undue weight here, it perhaps should be spun off as a separate article, and summarized here. Reify-tech (talk) 04:00, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────

I have nothing to add here. I made my edits in good faith with a view to expanding Wkipedia's coverage of Mary Cassatt. At the outset I determined that her article here was an extremely adequate one plainly contributed by experts, or at the very least by knowledgeable enthusiasts, and one moreover with a rather more able grasp of the English language than I can muster. Other than a few minor edits I felt no need to expand it, though I did spend some time providing fresh links to better images.

The situation is exactly as I set it out on the talk page of the other article. That material was always readily accessible from this page via a hat-note and from the Navigation box via a link "Relationship with Degas".

Placing this material here imbalances the article and is a considerable disservice to Cassatt. I am extremely sorry to see this. I hope and trust that a disinterested editor at a later date will revert the intrusions made here by editors with no history of editing the visual arts and whose motivation and sense of self-entitlement frankly baffle me. Like all new editors to Wikipedia, or so I gather, I find myself pondering once again whether it can be worth continuing to contribute to the project in the face of intrusions like this by its City Hall elements. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 10:59, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

That response is wrong a several counts. First, one needs to ask whether the content is important enough to retain at all. I don't feel strongly about that at all. The content we are talking about is not very well written, and it borders on "original research." (I know it is actually cited information, but it has cites to the commentary of scholars' original theorizing and judgments.) So, maybe trimming would improve the article overall and avoid this little dust-up. As the errant editor notes there is another reference to the fact that a relationship existed between the two artists in another section of this article (not a hat-note), but it is way, way less information. Maybe, however, collapsing those two things and hitting a middle ground of details would be satisfactory to all? Second, let's ASSUME that most of the material deserves to stay. If so, WHERE should it be filed? The woman who describes the situation above is motivated by editorial leanings and not usefulness. She says in the talk section of the other article that she wants to move this to that; she wants to up-play female artists and thinks that talking about Degas overwhelms Cassatt's own entry. She doesn't take issue with the truth of the matter, just its POSSIBLE impact on some reader. But that is wildly inappropriate for an objective entry. Besides, Degas' relations WAS important; it is even the subject of the second sentence of this very article! If that relationship overshadows Cassatt's own information, then, as I've already tried to encourage her to do to no avail, she should concentrate on adding useful information about Cassatt that doesn't involve Degas here. But, that aside, here is the most important thing. Ask yourself this: ASSUMING that the material is worth retaining, where would it be most useful? That is, if I came to Wikipedia and wanted to learn about the relationship between Cassatt and Degas, WHERE would I start my search? And what would my second and third choices perhaps be? I guarantee that absolutely NO ONE would ever say, "Hey! I know. I'll read an article about a random painting that Cassatt painted after having met Degas!" That is just silliness. Information needs to be helpfully located, and placing a page and a half of information about a personal relationship between Cassatt and Degas in an article about one specific painting is about as unhelpful a placement as I can imagine. It would be like removing information about the Medici family's history of art patronage from their entry and inserting a long section in an article about some specific work they paid for. It makes no sense.ProfReader (talk) 14:21, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
As I say I have nothing to add. Regarding "original research" however, it was nothing of the sort. The sources of course do discuss the nature of their relationship. I was merely marshalling several such sources. If you actually were to edit at visual arts, you would certainly know that an on-going bone of contention is the extent to which editors may pass judgement on works of art (the equivalent of "original research" if you will). I am scrupulous in avoiding that, always citing a commentator's opinion and not my own. I'm sure I don't need to, but I note your opinion on my literary skills, which indeed I don't rate highly myself. But if it's all the same to you, I should be glad if an editor capable of "She says in the talk section of the other article that she wants to move this to that she wants to up-play female artists and thinks that talking about Degas overwhelms Cassatt's own entry" refrains from copy-editing my own poor efforts. Do feel free however to correct my numerous typos. At my age I have impaired vision requiring special assistance and I am always grateful for extra help. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 14:55, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
The UNDUE link you included has nothing to do with this dispute. That very clearly lays out that the undue weight has to do with emphasizing a minority view over a majority view. It doesn't have to do with emphasizing one legitimate aspect of an article over another. For example, if the "Moon Landing Was a Fake" viewpoint were given five times the space as the "Man Actually Walked on the Moon" in the Apollo XI article, then that guideline would come into play. That isn't the debate here. No one is debating between two different versions of the truth. This discussion would be a lot more similar to a subentry on the first moon landing devoted to the food that was eaten of 50,000 words in an overall article of only 75,000 words. The objection to that isn't that it places undue influence on the diet of the astronauts; the objection is that discussion of an astronaut's food just isn't worth including on Wikipedia. (And, no, I'm not arguing that. It's an analogy.) But, let's look at this case. Degas and Cassatt were friends and impacted each other and their work. No question about it. And, Cassatt's relationship with Degas opened some professional doors for her. There is no real debate about that either. You seem to think that the relationship with Degas is less important than her own artistic contributions, and I agree. But, that doesn't negate the significance of her relationship with Degas. As I've said repeatedly now, the solution to this is to add content about her own unique contributions to art, not to remove things which you think leave the wrong impression about her. As said above, there are two questions: (1) Is this material worth knowing at all on Wikipedia? (2) If no, then delete it. But if so, then where does it belong? And, assuming we get to that last question (that is, it is worth knowing), the polestar for editing should be usefulness to the reader. Again (and as others note too), putting this information in an article about a particular painting makes no sense at all, especially when that relationship could be said to have influenced many, many paintings she did. If you specifically wanted to know about the personal influences on Cassatt, how would you navigate from the home page to an entry about that one particular painting? An entry on one particular painting is not the place to discuss collateral, personal matters that apply to that one painting and many others. (Also, please note that I have added my missing semicolon. I trust that you can now decode the points I was making.)ProfReader (talk) 17:28, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
As I've mentioned before I don't really have anything to add here. I'm prepared to defend my edits against imputations of illiteracy and original research and the like, but after that I'm not interested in commenting further and indeed our code of etiquette forbids me to do so. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 18:25, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
On a point of accuracy, having stealed myself to at least glance at the above, Cassatt did not influence Degas' work in the slightest way. Her input in the relationship was to further his name amongst her rich art-collecting friends and relatives. Cassatt and Degas worked together very briefly over a period of a few months while Cassatt was learning her craft as a printmaker, but he let her down badly over the project they were collaborating on together. She distanced herself from him following this, and by the end of the decade from the whole movement. The greater part of her work, fully two thirds of it, her images of maternity and childhood by which she is judged today, lay ahead of her. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 18:46, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
I respect your thoughts on that. It is an interesting relationship to be sure, and I applaud your efforts to document it (albeit here and not in that other place). There was just recently a very good exhibit at the National Gallery of Art (running through October 5, if you live nearby) that focuses on the pair. I agree that the influence between them on art was not balanced, but I wouldn't write it off entirely as a one-way street. Indeed, there is an excellent review of the Cassatt/Degas show in the LA Times that even states that the point of the show is to investigate their influences on each other: "Comprising 70 paintings and prints, a third from the National Gallery and the rest from other museums, the show, which attempts to demonstrate the influence of each on the other, will go nowhere else." In the report from NPR about the same show, the reporter commented thusly: "Cassatt's influence on Degas can be seen in a painting with an unusual mixture of media — pastels, oils and metallic paint. Cassatt was the first to use metallic paint on canvas; ordinarily it was for decorating crafts. Jones[, the curator of the National Gallery of Art,] believes Degas saw Cassatt's metallics and decided to try it himself." The National Gallery of Art's own page, written by experts, I presume, goes on about the mutual importance of their friendship.Here is the link. I throw that all out there not to say that it is true or false (a point I'm not really interested in), just that there might be conflicting thoughts. With that, I'm done commenting on this whole thing since I think we can agree the positions are staked out very clearly by now. I'll simply close by agreeing that, by volume, there is a LOT of weight placed on the relationship in an article about Cassatt. As I've said from the get go, my objection is NOT that the material has to be HERE, but that it does NOT belong in a write up about one particular painting out of many that could report the same information. Others have suggested a spin off article. Perhaps a general discussion here of the people, events, and movements that influenced her and her work with a separate article about their relation tied in directly at that point? But, the influences on an artist deserve treatment in the article about the artist absent some other article about those relationships that stands on its own. It's far too important to just file away somewhere where others would easily miss it.ProfReader (talk) 19:36, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for that. I am (necessarily) aware of the NGA exhibition (note its catalogue front piece is Little Girl in a Blue Armchair). I don't normally edit here, considering the article essentially complete. No doubt its editors will make such adjustments as they feel are required. I really can't imagine I need to hear from you again. Thank you. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 20:54, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Pronunciation of Cassatt[edit]

Why is the pronunciation of Cassatt given as /kəˈsæt/? I have never ever heard it that way. I have always heard it as given on the Oxford Learner's Dictionary website: http://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/us/definition/english/mary-cassatt I would fix it but I've never done an edit. GattoDanny (talk) 13:27, 8 August 2014 (UTC) August 8, 2014

I actually don't know how anyone knows where she placed the stress on her name. Or for anyone else who lived before Thomas Edison! Maybe George Washington pronounced his name ZHOR-sh Wash-ING-ton? But seriously, I agree with you that 99.9% of the population would pronounce her name the way you have suggested. The best rule of thumb is to have a citation to some source before making a change (other than for source-less changes to things like organization of articles or layout or grammar). Here is one. Here, the original material has no cited source for that pronunciation, so I'd say that it would be fair game for a revision. After all, that's the whole point of Wikipedia. If someone disagrees and can offer a source for his or her own view, then there can be revisions and further discussion.ProfReader (talk) 17:54, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

work appearances[edit]

Hi, would it be helpful for readers to have a section about where her works are housed, exhibited, and publications in which they have appeared, notable of course, or is external links enough? I ask this as I have a number of publications in which her works appear. thanks, Coolabahapple (talk) 06:04, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Mary Cassatt. 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.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • 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) 18:13, 4 June 2017 (UTC)