From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
WikiProject Visual arts (Rated B-class)
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Visual arts, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of visual arts on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
Wikipedia Version 1.0 Editorial Team / v0.7 (Rated C-class)
WikiProject iconThis article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the quality scale.
Checklist icon
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
Note icon
This article is within of subsequent release version of Arts.
Taskforce icon
This article has been selected for Version 0.7 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia.

Sections need reorganizing[edit]

Sections #1 & 5 should likely be combined. It makes no sense to be at the beginning of this wiki and see

   * 1.1 Gallery: Inserted self-portraits
   * 1.2 Women painters

'Women painters' is NOT a 'type' of portrait.

Then go through some history #2,3,&4, then return to types of self-portraits listed in section #5. There should be some historical overview and Gallery: Inserted self-portraits & Women painters should be rolled into section #5. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:11, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

French translation in progress[edit]

I've moved the translation in progress to Talk:Self-portrait/From the French so that there is a talk page available where it should be. - Jmabel | Talk 03:05, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, for starting that here, an article subpage is the place for that. I should have known. DVD+ R/W 03:24, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

(Seems to have been moved to Talk:Self-portrait/Autoportrait) - Jmabel | Talk 20:59, 25 October 2006 (UTC)


Merezhkovskiy is clearly This person, who apparently wrote a book Voskresenie Bogi ('The Forerunner', London, 1902) "which describes the life and times of Leonardo da Vinci". The linked page gives his name as "Dmitri Sergyeevich Merezhkovskiy". I would guess that the patronymic is a typo for Sergeyevich. Our article at Dmitry Merezhkovsky says that he wrote a novel Leonardo da Vinci (1896). Something seems slightly askew on those names and dates; I'll take it up there; meanwhile, I guess I should link him. - Jmabel | Talk 03:12, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Well spotted. DVD+ R/W 03:24, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Two pages on self-portraiture[edit]

Is there a reason that these separate pages on the self-portrait (the present one and [1]) not be merged? Also, there exists no access to a talk page for the other entry, only a duplication of the article. JNW 15:24, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

  • The other talk page had been set up as a redirect - this just needs removing (now done). Yes they should be merged. This would be relatively easy I think, as there is little direct duplication. Some de-Frenchification is still needed on the other one. Johnbod 10:31, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
I've de-Frenched it and Self-portrait/Autoportrait needs a talk page, but I think they are close and related but different. I'm not sure what comes next. Modernist 14:49, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Different how? Not as they are, but in concept. I can't see it. Johnbod 19:55, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Johnbod - I made a lot of changes to both, however I suspect that initially Jmabel and a Russian speaking editor DVD R W initially translated what is now Self-portrait - (which still has some untranslated Russian) into the basic article, and at one time Self-portrait/Autoportrait was roughly the french version erroneosly converted into an article from a talk page and abandoned. I found a very crude article that I put into the shape its in now, but no talk page. Similar but different. The two probably should be merged with sections put into the main article Self-portrait. I like both of them. I guess the original form was Self-portrait (article) and Self-portrait/Autoportrait (talk page) - one big difference is the Narcissus and mirror edits. Modernist 01:51, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
why don't you give a go, as you know the material? Johnbod 02:42, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
I'd start tonight but its been a long day, and I'm getting tired. I'll give it a shot tomorrow morning. Modernist 03:02, 7 September 2007 (UTC)


I've begun merging the two articles. Modernist 13:48, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Looking good - say when you've finished & i'll add some bits. Johnbod 14:54, 7 September 2007 (UTC)


Johnbod - Give it a shot Modernist 15:39, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Done some - more to do. we don't have anything on non-Western examples! Johnbod 03:24, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
There were probably early Chinese and Japanese self portraiture c. 12th-16th centuries, tough to find. I remember seeing something in an exhibition of Japanese calligraphy and Zen when I was visiting in New Orleans back in 1989. I'll give it some thought. Modernist 12:04, 8 September 2007 (UTC)


Its getting good, I think the progress is encouraging. - Modernist 15:54, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

fact or conjecture[edit]

such as (probably) Jan van Eyck in the Arnolfini Portrait, - please reference, I'm replacing the Titian comment because I think it has credibility. I assume that supposedly Jan van Eyck in the mirror inspired Velazquez to actually include a portrayal of himself painting, however is that factual or conjecture? Modernist 00:23, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

The Titian painting is already described twice, & both van Eyck points are from the National gallery catalogue, already referenced at the articles on the paintings. Johnbod 00:36, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Johnbod the article is getting really good. Please reference the comment. I agree the Titian is mentioned, if the Arnolfini comment is referenced I'll let it go. TY Modernist 00:40, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Done. The Arnolfini/Meninas link is of course conjecture, but not mine. As the note says, the Arnolfini hung (rather prominently) in the palace where Meninas is set. Johnbod 00:53, 10 September 2007 (UTC)


Bravo, I think the different galleries are really good ideas, although maybe Advertising should rather be called be Self-promotion. - Modernist 01:08, 10 September 2007 (UTC) :)

Just a quick glance, but you both have done a great job with this. My quibble with the 'advertising' (or self-promotion) section is the inclusion of Eakins. The portrait was his presentation piece upon election to the N.A.D., and doesn't look much like a sample for commissions. Any problem if I move it to the gallery, and find a piece that might be more applicable? JNW 01:14, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not an expert on Eakins but my sense is he is out of place there, my feeling is that Sargent (who hasn't been included yet) might be more apt in the role of advertiser or self-promoter of his skills as a portrait painter. Modernist 02:20, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
I replaced Eakins with a much more flamboyant Chase, then put T.E. in the main gallery, where he fits chronologically, but oddly, between Picasso and Matisse. JNW 02:48, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
The idea, which was not very clear yet perhaps, was that some painters promoted themselves, and others, like Eakins, Cranach etc, did pictures that look just like their other clients. Hence the two rows out of chronology (no - I hadn't got that far yet). The only Sargent SP's I've seen have been surprisingly restrained. Johnbod 03:46, 10 September 2007 (UTC)


I think we are getting near having too many pictures - at some point we will have to trim. But we are still short of sculpture - only 2 I think, though both pretty good. We need more interesting ones, which most are not really. What is the fair use situation of this [2] of 1435, from the NGA, Washington? Johnbod 01:05, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I think we are almost filled up, yes, perhaps soon. Sculpture might be the last, and then maybe some contemplation. Modernist 01:14, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
That Ellenrieder looks like a b/w photo of a painting to me? Johnbod 02:05, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
I really am not sure, I looked closely and the background is soft, like a drawing. I'll try to research it. It is very close to the painting, what gets me though is the brightness of the ground in the B&W versus the painting where the ground is clearly of a lower value. They are very close and its possible that it is the painting. Modernist 03:26, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
The more I look at the two, the more I think they are close but different. Modernist 04:02, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
It's certainly not the same painting as used above, but I think another one. Does the source say anything? even if it is a print, it might be a reproductive one by someone else. Johnbod 04:06, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
All I can figure is in 1818 she made at least two similar self-portraits, this work I've seen dated as 1819 and as 1818, I thought it was a copy, close but slightly different of the 1818 painting. Her work of 1818, 1819 seems to be her best period, in my opinion. I'm not committed to it, we can replace it if something like a great Holbein drawing were to appear, or a Matisse. Modernist 04:29, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Image selection[edit]

These have been carefully placed, don't remove unless discussing on the talk page first. - Modernist 02:14, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

More on images[edit]

It is almost never acceptable to use non-free images in galleries because of WP:NFCC#8 (which is a policy, not just a guideline). Each non-free image which is truly useful in the article needs to be mentioned in the text (not just the image's caption) along with some allegation of how the image is important to the topic of Western pointing, and that statement (e.g. "Dali's Crucifiction helped usher in the surrealist movement") needs to be sourced so that it's not original research. – Quadell (talk) (random) 23:58, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Your claim that " Each non-free image which is truly useful in the article needs to be mentioned in the text (not just the image's caption)" is new to me. I understand that just giving a title and artist name in a caption does not amount to discussion, but see no reason why a longer caption commenting on the work should not do so. Please clarify what you are saying, and produce policy references if you are indeed saying this. Johnbod (talk) 12:35, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
As you probably realize these images are important to these articles especially 20th century visual art articles. I will very carefully go over the text and reference and specify and coordinate the text to those images over the next few days. Modernist (talk) 00:16, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Great, thanks! – Quadell (talk) (random) 00:21, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
No problem, although it's gonna take me a few days. Modernist (talk) 00:41, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Logic and common sense tells us that these images illustrate style, tendency etc. For instance the Robert Mangold painting is used as an example of a style - Minimal art whose characteristics are discussed and placed in historical context. Is it that particular Mangold that is specifically discussed no - as in WP:UCS we are using examples of style. Franz Kline and Willem de Kooning demonstrate particular tendencies in Abstract Expressionism, etc. I will add text and reference only where logic and possibility make it viable. Modernist (talk) 02:48, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

There are a number of experienced and conscientious arts editors in Wikipedia:WikiProject Visual arts, willing to attend to these issues. It would be helpful, before images are deleted, to raise problems first of all on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Visual arts, so the particular case(s) can gain attention and evaluation. The Foundation has specifically mentioned contemporary art as a genre where non-free images will often have to be retained. Regarding WP:NFCC#8:

Significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding.

Visual art is the parmount place where this applies. The understanding is in the seeing, and no amount of words can substitute for that. Template:Non-free 2D art states that the use of non-free images for critical commentary on

  • the work in question,
  • the artistic genre or technique of the work of art or
  • the school to which the artist belongs

are all legitimate. The description of changing modes and ideas in art is critical commentary, whose meaning can only be properly comprehended by literally seeing it. Tyrenius (talk) 03:50, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Question for you[edit]

at Talk:Western painting please reply there: Your claim that " Each non-free image which is truly useful in the article needs to be mentioned in the text (not just the image's caption)" is new to me. I understand that just giving a title and artist name in a caption does not amount to discussion, but see no reason why a longer caption commenting on the work should not do so. Please clarify what you are saying, and produce policy references if you are indeed saying this. Johnbod (talk) 12:35, 20 December 2007 (UTC) Thanks Johnbod (talk) 12:38, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

FUR and PD[edit]

Removed the tag, I've checked all the images and they seem ok to me. Modernist (talk) 01:26, 21 December 2007 (UTC)


I removed Rodchenko - not a self portrait [3]...Modernist (talk) 19:09, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

File:Jan van Eyck 091.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion[edit]

Icon Now Commons orange.svg An image used in this article, File:Jan van Eyck 091.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Other speedy deletions
What should I do?
Speedy deletions at commons tend to take longer than they do on Wikipedia, so there is no rush to respond. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs.

A further notification will be placed when/if the image is deleted. This notification is provided by a Bot, currently under trial --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 12:34, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Frida Kahlo[edit]

Hi Crisco 1492, in regard to your deletion - and thanks for your question. This issue was discussed at length in 2010 and it was agreed that the image would remain on only those three articles. At the time it was long discussed with many of the members of the project who focus on fair-use. The image was deemed to satisfy this Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding. and was voted acceptable in those select cases. Kahlo was an important painter who was known for her self portraits in particular and she is especially important to the history of painting. I am going to return those fair use rationales and images to those articles. Thank you...Modernist (talk) 23:47, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Here's a link to the discussion (going all the way back to 2007) - [4]...Modernist (talk) 14:52, 11 November 2015 (UTC)


"More often than with men, the viewer wonders if the clothes worn were those they normally painted in."

This seems not only sexist, but presumptuous. The writer would have to be psychic to know what the viewer is "wondering". Even if true, it would be impossible to prove. (talk) 20:08, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Add a link to Selfie to the "See also" section?[edit]

I'm asking this here due to my desire to not disrupt the grade of this article: Should a link to Selfie be added to the "see also" section? Given that this seems to be a "new version" of doing self-portraits, I'm thinking it may need to be, given that some readers my look up this article instead of the other, and vice versa. Steel1943 (talk) 19:15, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Self-portrait. 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) 03:25, 30 December 2017 (UTC)