Talk:Nude, Green Leaves and Bust

Wikipedia should not steal

I added a link to the Christie's Auction house photo of the painting. No need to steal the photo. This is Wikipedia, not Stealopedia. Assorg (talk) 06:04, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

What do you mean by 'steal'? Are you saying there is a copyright issue? FFMG (talk) 06:31, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Christie's has copyrighted the photo. A link to the photo is fine. Stealing is not. Assorg (talk) 05:37, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Use appears to be acceptable in this case under the Wikimedia Foundation's fair use policy. As Wikipedia's servers are based in Florida, we partake of US copyright law's provisions for Fair use. If you want to contest the image's Fair use rationale, you can post on the non-free content review board. Blanket accusations of theft aren't going to get you anywhere. Lithoderm 10:19, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

How sad

We have an article on the painting, but what a disappointment - a single line on the painting itself and a whole paragraph on its sale. A sign of the times, I suppose. Can someone who knows about it write something about the painting, its inception, creation, symbolism and pre-2010 history including critical reaction? I'm sure all that will be far more interesting than the result of an auction and its 2010 monetary value. 81.156.124.135 (talk) 06:41, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

The article is brand new, it was created on the 5th of May, I am sure that in a few days more editors will add to it. Yes, it is sad that all there is currently is about the auction, but I have no doubt that more will be added as time goes by. FFMG (talk) 06:45, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Btw, we can't add "its inception, creation, symbolism and pre-2010 history including critical reaction" if there aren't any references to back it up. Though, I'm surprised there isn't that kind of info about it in the news reports. Some of the articles I've created about pieces that are going to auction have a fair bit about the history. I'll go and have a good look now for some more info about this piece. - JuneGloom07 Talk? 16:56, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Honestly, there isn't that much literature on the painting- the name is what is selling it, not it's importance in Picasso's oeuvre. The most we can do is a verbal description, anything beyond that is original research. Lithoderm 17:08, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Would "research" include a mention of the familiar Sleeping Ariadne motif from Hellenistic/Roman sculpture, mentioned in Haskell and Penny, Taste and the Antique?--Wetman (talk) 19:22, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately it probably wouldn't, unless Haskell and Penny specifically refer to Picasso's work in the 1930s. Another thing that could be mentioned is the place of the painting in the context of Picasso's 1930s work, in general. Lithoderm 22:39, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

LOL: "when inflation is ignored"

How shocking that wikipedia should ignore the inflation between February and April 2010! 72.228.177.92 (talk) 09:48, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Try reading the article, you might understand. --91.32.94.81 (talk) 10:56, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

The point is that at some point in the past there may have been a sale that, while not record-breaking in absolute numbers, would be worth more after inflation calculations. APL (talk) 13:52, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

my bad. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 15:46, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

"won the rights"?

Re the sentence: "Christie's won the rights to auction the collection against London-based Sotheby's."

I'm curious about the wording "won the rights". Does this mean anything more than that Christie's was asked to auction the collection? Was there some kind of contest which Christie's won over Sotheby's?

Thanks, Wanderer57 (talk) 03:28, 6 May 2010 (UTC)