Jump to content

Talk:Portrait of a Man (Self Portrait?)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Proposed rename

[edit]

I propose this article is moved to Portrait of a Man (Van Eyck). The current title with a question-mark is based on the NG catalogue qualification rather than the formal painting title. Fæ (talk) 14:00, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are several "Portrait of a Man (Van Eyck)"s (including one hanging right next to this), but only one generally thought to be a self-portrait. This is also exactly what the label in the gallery says, so I don't know where the distinction between a "formal painting title" and a catalogue one comes from. Johnbod (talk) 14:24, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fair point, though I suggest we consider any alternatives (such as just dropping the question mark) as the question-mark is a headache for links from other websites and invariably ends up as a hex code to avoid URL errors. Fæ (talk) 14:30, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that dropping the question mark after the title is a better choice, also the brackets, which just make this title informal. We can think about putting those in the introduction in the article. The name that National Gallery gives to the artwork also have a perspective thinking of attracting viewer. Following that "official" name is not a bad idea but it indeed makes this article weird, at least at the first sight.HillmanHan (talk) 00:40, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Appearances In Pop Culture

[edit]

I remember seeing this painting used as an album cover back in the 1990s. Anyone else remember it? The Sanity Inspector (talk) 01:27, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I found some mention of an association with Van Eyck for Carmina Burana (album) (Ray Manzarek, 1983), Definitely Maybe (Oasis, 1994), and Insomniac (Green Day album) (1995). But those seem to be referencing the Arnolfini portrait rather than this painting. I'm a bit surprised not to find more, since Van Eyck produced visually interesting work and the copyright rights are long expired. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 22:40, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 23 September 2024

[edit]

Portrait of a Man (Self Portrait?) → Portrait of a Man in a Red Turban – or Man in a Red Turban or Portrait of a Man in a Turban (reverting to the title before an undiscussed move in 2007 suggesting a right to naming deriving from ownership) or Man in a Turban, or at least Portrait of a Man (possible self-portrait) or Portrait of a Man (Van Eyck possible self-portrait). There are several problems in the current title. One is that the disambiguator appears to be a redundant alternative title rather than a type classification or context clarifier. Another is the question mark indicating a lack of confidence about whether the painting's title should be "Self Portrait" or not (or whether the painting fits into the self-portraiture category or not). We shouldn't be using question marks this way. The use of title case and the lack of a hyphen in "Self Portrait" also seem questionable. See also the previous discussion of the title from 2011–2017 on the article talk page. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 20:11, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. The current title is silly. Zacwill (talk) 21:00, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Note that although, as far as I know, this is the only painting commonly known as Portrait of a Man in a Red Turban, the turban is in fact a chaperone chaperon, and Van Eyck painted another portrait of a man in a somewhat similar looking red chaperone chaperon that is known as Portrait of Giovanni di Nicolao Arnolfini. He also painted another painting sometimes called simply Portrait of a Man (in which the subject is also wearing a chaperone chaperon, although not a red one), which has a Wikipedia article devoted to it that is called Léal Souvenir. Note also that there is no clear evidence that the painting is a self-portrait – that is just the impression that some people have gotten by looking at the painting and trying to interpret the ambiguous text painted on its frame. As far as I know, there are no other paintings that used Van Eyck as the subject, no preserved descriptions of what he looked like, and no writings by those who knew him who said that he was the subject or even that he had painted any portrait of himself. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 21:39, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose For the moment, the National Gallery still uses this, and we should follow them. Where do these made-up titles come from? We should not be inventing titles. Along with others, they may well be used in various sources, but there is no WP:COMMONNAME. Please alert the VA project. It's "chaperon" - chaperone is something else. Almost all RS think it is probably a self-portrait; dobn't let's get into OR tangles on that. Johnbod (talk) 23:13, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about the spelling error. I don't think any of the suggested article titles are "made-up titles" – as far as I know, they come from sources (except for parenthesized disambiguation terms, which are just context or category type descriptions that Wikipedia typically does not feel obliged to find verbatim in sources). —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 23:26, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Johnbod. We should follow the sources, i.e National Gallery. Of the sources I have easily at hand Craig Harbison includes the (Self Portrait?) and Till-Holger Borchert also includes (Self Portrait?), though he does mention a turban but not the color. Will try to check other sources & add relevant page numbers when possible, but as JB mentions, there isn't a common name. What does seem to be common is that scholars believe it's a self portrait but it's an old painting and because there are no other images of Jan van Eyck there's no way of knowing - hence the question mark. Personally am opposed to confusing with the Léal Souvenir or the Arnolfini portrait. Yes, of course he painted men wearing chaperons - that was the fashion of his period. Note that technically these are not titles but identifiers for scholars, collectors, etc. Victoria (tk) 02:09, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the comment that "these are not titles", the word "title" in this discussion refers primarily to the title of a Wikipedia article, not the concept of a title of a painting. Although these would often be the same, a Wikipedia article may, for example, contain a disambiguation term in parentheses that is not intended to be considered part of the title of the work discussed in the article. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 17:36, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Which is why the title assigned by the institution that's held the work for almost 200 years is the best. Victoria (tk) 12:59, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The pitfalls of OR: it isn't a frigging turban at all! It's a chaperon, with the dangly bits folded in, presumably to stop getting paint on them (a pice of evidence to support "self-portrait"). Johnbod (talk) 12:02, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The word 'turban' is coming from external sources, not from our own OR; no one is saying it's actually a turban. Unfortunately, we have not found sources calling it "Portrait of a Man in a Red Chaperon with the Dangly Bits Folded In". —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 15:13, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Which "external sources"? The article doesn't give any for "turban", except for Smart History in EL, and you haven't given any, which you really need to do to support a move proposal. Also please give the VA project a notice of the proposal. Johnbod (talk) 15:21, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) I note that Ham II also referenced a source (Grove Art Online) that says the painting is "traditionally known as the Man in a Red Turban" in a comment below. It's true that I didn't put the effort into identifying specific sources, but I don't think there's any real question about whether 'turban' is found in sources – it clearly is. If preferred, however, a title that doesn't use 'turban' could be something like Portrait of a Man (1433 van Eyck painting). —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 16:02, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Grove's article on van Eyck refers to "the signed and dated portrait of the Man in a Red Chaperon (traditionally known as the Man in a Red Turban, 1433; London, N.G.)." Meanwhile, an article on the website of the Staatliche Museen zu Berlin calls the work we call Portrait of Giovanni di Nicolao Arnolfini "Portrait of a Man in a Red Chaperon (presumed to depict Giovanni Arnolfini)". (But it's "Portrait of a man (from the Arnolfini family?)" on their online catalogue.) So an article title with Red Chaperon/Turban would arguably need disambiguation, e.g., (van Eyck, London). Ham II (talk) 12:35, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Good point. I think his headcover was generally referred to as a "turban" up to about WW2, and costume history becoming more developed, since when "chaperon" has gradually taken over. I don't think "turban" is at all acceptable in 2024. Johnbod (talk) 14:53, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • Campbell p. 212 says it was sold at Christies in 1851 under the title Head of the Artist, in a Red Turban. However, that was +170 years ago, and think we should keep the NG title (which Campbell also uses)....ie Oppose. Ceoil (talk) 19:56, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Man in a Red Turban or some such, per the book Jan van Eyck within His Art which says "The National Gallery in London catalogs it as Portrait of a Man (Self-Portrait?), and countless publications and other presentations have called it Man in a Red Turban." It's hard to see the Gallery's funny parenthetical as part of a title, even if it's their catalog entry, and it's particularly jarring in the context of WP naming conventions. Dicklyon (talk) 04:00, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Great, let's just make up a title for one of the best-known paintings in Western art! If you could be bothered to count the "countless publications and other presentations", you would find that pretty much all the high-quality ones are over 50 years old. "Turban" just doesn't work in 2024, though no doubt low-grade websites will go on using it for years to come, especially if Wikipedia encouyrages them to persist in this cultural appropriation (which actually does get some Asian people rather cross, rightly or wrongly). Johnbod (talk) 15:15, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm also very uncomfortable with the proposed lets "make up on the fly" a knowingly inaccurate title, because a fastidious we don't like the "?" in the official title. To my mind, Lorne Campbell is the overarching living expert here,[1] and he, like most other art historians in the last 30 years, uses the current article title. Ceoil (talk) 21:35, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. What some contributors here seem to be forgetting is that our titles are meant to disambiguate different things. How on earth is Portrait of a Man (Self Portrait?) disambiguating anything? It could be applied to umpteen paintings. It's completely meaningless in the context of an article title. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:03, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thousands of our paintings titles don't disambiguate adequately - the disambiguation rules don't allow them to. That applies just as much to the proposed titles. We wouldn't be allowed to add "van Eyck" or "National Gallery" in the absence of other titles of the same form, despite there being two van Eyck portraits of men in red "turbans", never mind plenty by other painters. Johnbod (talk) 11:34, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • There's not disambiguating adequately and disambiguating so poorly that it's laughable! Be honest, if you saw a title like "Portrait of a Man (Self Portrait?)", would you think "oh yes, that must be the Van Eyck self-portrait"? But if you saw "Portrait of a Man in a Red Turban" you might, if you knew something about art, at least have a clue what was being referred to. We're here to help our users, not to bamboozle them. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:04, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Man in a Red Turban. Firstly, I agree with Necrothesp. There are many portraits of a man and many self portraits (whether questioned or not). How on earth is Portrait of a Man (Self Portrait?) disambiguating anything?. While the current title may be the label the NG uses, there is a distinction between official name and WP:COMMONNAME. In selecting the best name for this article, we should be guided by how it is named/described in sources (plural) in balance with the naming criteria at WP:AT. Various searches of Google scholar (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7) indicate it is variously named/described as: a portrait of a man in/with a [red] turban by van Eyck (1433) and that it is probably a self-portrait. Alfred Acres here observes: countless publications and other presentations have called it Man in a Red Turban. Cinderella157 (talk) 23:30, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • The google search rather proves the opposite - your search in fact got just 22 results, not all using it as a title (and some I think about other paintings), but "self-portrait""van Eyck" gets over 4,000. And unlike men in red chaperons, there has only ever been one painting claimed to be a van Eyck self-portrait. Johnbod (talk) 03:36, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't understand what relevance there is to the number of hits for "self-portrait" somewhere near "van Eyck". Is that an article title suggestion? A look at the first couple of pages of those search results do not reveal any (with or without a hyphen in "self-portrait") that use that term as a title for the painting (and several that prefix the term with "so-called" or "presumed" or "alleged" or "supposed" or "likely" or "thought to be a", and others that have the term in seemingly off-topic phrases like "What seems to be yet another self-portrait of the artist ..." and "Van Eyck's vocation for self-portrait" and "the man behind Van Eyck's self-portrait in the reflection in the armor of ..." and "a self-portrait of the artist mentioned in inventories of the British Royal ..."). —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 20:37, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
          • No, of course it isn't "an article title suggestion"; was that a serious thought? I'm trying to avoid OR. What the search shows is that art historians mentioning the painting are far more likely to use "self-portrait" somehow, rather than "turban", for the reasons already discussed. Johnbod (talk) 03:21, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • "What seems to be yet another self-portrait of the artist ..." - hardly distinguishing. We are looking for how the painting has been titled. The search provided is not distinguishing this panting from others by Van Eyck. The number of hits in this search is not distinguishing "self-portrait" as a title v its general use in discussion. Cinderella157 (talk) 22:16, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        • You all maybe need to spend some time reading the sources. The page titled Portrait of a Man (Self Portrait?), which in my view is the title (the parentheses don't indicate a disambiguation but rather are part of the title) and is the only portrait that might be a self portrait. The google scholar searches pull up the various other glimpses of the artist, i,e the reflection in the armour in Virgin and Child with Canon van der Paele and the reflection in the mirror in the Arnolfini Portrait. Because we don't have a definitive answer as to whether this is a self portrait, scholars are interested in the reflections, beyond the fact that he even used those kinds of reflections (which hadn't been seen before), because they are interested in knowing what van Eyck looked like. Victoria (tk) 23:03, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: WikiProject Visual arts, WikiProject Arts, and the WT:MOSCAPS discussion list have been notified of this discussion. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 16:38, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like an argument of WP:OWN. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:24, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Randy isn't in anyway involved in the article but nice try at aspersions. Ceoil (talk) 03:17, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am characterising the argument as: let those that own the article make these decisions. Of course, that is not how WP works. Nice try at casting aspersions that I am casting aspersions. Cinderella157 (talk) 04:08, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ugg, I usually find myself agreeing with you at move discussions; most are interesting but I mostly don't care enough to comment. Here, though, with respect, you seem to be reaching and spinning - "casting aspersions that I am casting aspersions". Frankly I don't understand why from somebody as well versed in policy as you....the title is the holding gallery's title and that most often used by recent art historians? Ceoil (talk) 04:35, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The comment was made as a rebuttal to Randy's argument. I am clearly referring to the argument being made and not to conduct - and particularly not the conduct of Randy Kryn. Per WP:OWN: No one, no matter what, has the right to act as though they are the owner of a particular article (or any part of it). The corollary is that we shouldn't be giving anyone what might appear to be ownership rights. That is the intent of my initial post in this thread. No one else appears to view this as an aspersion against Randy. It is disappointing that you have misperceived this as my "casting aspersions" to the point of making that an allegation of conduct against me in this forum. WP:AGF. Yes, biting back in this forum was probably inappropriate. Cinderella157 (talk) 05:26, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, since if you look at the page history, the main authors aren't appearing here at all (probably they've left). But many experienced art editors are against the change. Ask yourself why that might be? Johnbod (talk) 22:42, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Some of y'all are sounding like you're beginning to bludgeon. A lot of the same arguments are getting repeated each time an oppose or support is made, and I trust that people new to the discussion are reading through it based on the more recent !votes. Please try to bring up new discussion points instead of rewording your initial arguments. Sennecaster (Chat) 17:23, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. That one party (a particular museum) has chosen to include a confusing "(self-portrait?)" phrase, while other sources do not, isn't a reason for WP to include (or capitalize) it. Prefer Man in a Red Turban per WP:CONCISE.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:09, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes it is - MOS:ART rightly gives a degree of precedence to the name used by the owning museum, and we normally follow this - the other way leads to chaos. Plenty of other sources do use "self-portrait" as shown above. "Turban" may be "precise" but it is precisely wrong, which is why the better sources of the last 50 years or so have avoided it! Since nobody has yet referred to it, let's hear what the MOS says on the subject: "Where there are several variant titles, preference is usually given to the predominant one used by art historians writing in English, and if this is not clear, the English title used by the owning museum. Few old master paintings had specific titles when they were painted." That applies very precisely here. Johnbod (talk) 14:50, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • [P]reference is usually given to the predominant one ... This does not inherently contradict the distinction between official name and WP:COMMONNAME. Acres (writing in 2023) as quoted above: countless publications and other presentations have called it Man in a Red Turban. We have a predominant name. Whether it is a turban or not is immaterial, in that it is nonetheless known as Man in a Red Turban. Asserting that the name is not now used is not evidence and goes against what evidence has been presented that it is still used. Cinderella157 (talk) 22:38, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        • "It was nonetheless known as Man in a Red Turban 50 years ago. The leading expert and main source I would rely on here is Campbell, who discusses the issue and draws conclusions in the 90s, which most have followed since. Ceoil (talk) 02:22, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes, they have called it several variants of Man in a Red Turban, but when? He doesn't call it that himself, and places that in the past. It is highly relevant that it is not a turban at all, and that is no doubt much of the reason why the NG (who probably have used a "turban" name at some point in the past) haven't done so for over 25 years. I could go on a riff about cultural insensitivity/appropriation, which is certainly part of the issue, but we all know we wouldn't be having this discussion at all if it wasn't for the question mark, which for some reason offends the sensibilities of some editors, though it is not actually against any policy that anyone has be able to point to. Editors working in the area know that many paintings have "old" names, which like this one are included as redirects, but not used as the article title. We should just follow the MOS, and use the more informative and up to date title. The evidence above (especially Victoria's references) show that the main recent scholars use titles with "self-portrait?", which is obviously more informative for the reader. Johnbod (talk) 02:09, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support primarily Man in a Red Turban, as that appears to be the overwhelmingly common name, but at the end of the day support almost anything besides the question-mark parenthetical. Seraphimblade Talk to me 10:01, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Portrait_of_a_Man_(Self_Portrait%3F)&oldid=1253504647"