Talk:The Disasters of War

Plate titles

1-38 [1]
2 With or without reason (Boime)
3 The same (Boime)
5 And they are wild beasts / And they fight like wild beasts (Boime)
7 What courage! (Boime)
9 They don't want to (Boime)
26 One can't look (Boime)
28 Rabble (Boime)
34 For having a clasp knife (Boime)
38 Barbarians! (Boime)
39 Heroic exploits! Against the dead! (Boime)
44 I saw this (Boime)
61 As if they were of another breed (Boime)

How come the final plate in this 82 plate series is plate no. 80. Were two lost. Ceoil (talk) 09:54, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

No, detatched - they are known, but have never been printed in a complete published edition - aren't they in the Dover book? Johnbod (talk) 00:20, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Perhalps they are. I dont have the Dover book. Ceoil (talk) 00:45, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Here are 81 & 82 btw, from proofs i think. 82 "This is the true way" per BM, is erm, interesting! Johnbod (talk) 01:01, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not in favour of individually citing the titles. No translation is pure anyway. Ceoil (talk) 12:14, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Im tempted to go for a 24 image gallery. Too much? Ceoil (talk) 18:57, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

No, but I think splitting it into 3 mini-galleries of 8 under the 3 "plates" sections is best. You might well want an influences (incoming & outgoing) gallery at the end - we know how those can crowd the text. Johnbod (talk) 00:20, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Since within the overall 82 etchings there are three sub-groups of etchings, we might want three galleries to demonstrate each sub-group of etchings...Modernist (talk) 00:28, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I meant. If they are just under the relevant text they are more likely to be viewed I think. But you know I like mini-galleries mid-text ... Johnbod (talk) 00:31, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I like that style too. The first group of etchings 1-47 however have the most compelling images and rather than evening out the galleries we should simply include the most vivid images...Modernist (talk) 00:38, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

War, famine and inquisition. I hope that once these sections are fully developed; they can carry a gallery of 12 images, each. Ceoil (talk) 00:42, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

ideas

• "...it is often impossible to tell for which side people are killing or dying. This was new in the history of Western art...

Goya is interested only in what people do to each other, in how chaos and war turn peaceful citizens into brutal beasts."[2]

• Re realism. A few pages later, the above opposes the idea that Goya "witnessed" much of this--"brutality and death fired his imagination"--essentially contradicting the Boime idea I added earlier. Outriggr (talk) 06:12, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
• Agustina de Aragón (plate 7) is the only identifiable person in the series. (Spanish wiki says Aragon or "Manuela Sancho") Outriggr (talk) 07:11, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

You might see what you can find on JSTOR if you still have access. If not, I'll ask a friend here who helped me out with docs for Lucy. Ceoil (talk) 09:57, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

[3]. Ceoil (talk) 12:48, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Interpretation

I've begun a section for interpretation, which will, I'm sure, be greatly expanded. Licht is my only source thus far, and I think he's great, though the material is 30 years old and the section will require additional input. Thanks for the invite, Ceoil... JNW (talk) 04:20, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

A few random jottings

The removal of the Prisoners was an editorial decision by the Academia de San Fernando as they felt the 3 pictures were "outside the set". As far as I can see there is nothing to suggest Goya's preferred set, so maybe we can reword that sentence to avoid implying initially published set is his definitive collection.

Do we know what the copied spelling mistakes were - if one of them is mugeres for mujeres that was not a mistake, as the spelling was with "g" at the time (at the time Goya wrote it anyway, by the time it was published it had shifted to "j") - and what alterations were made in the published copy? I think the editorial changes by the Academy would be an interesting insight.

Great deeds! Against the dead! is a poor translation. The BM has An heroic feat! With dead men! which is better. Yomangani^talk 15:11, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Licht has Great courage! Against corpses!. My Spanish was never so good as to ably distinguish between the choices, so please make the proper changes. JNW (talk) 15:32, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I found a translation in Enduring creation: art, pain, and fortitude By Nigel Jonathan Spivey which is literal (and which is what I would have put if I was doing OR translations), so I went with that. Yomangani^talk 11:11, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

• The Bermudez album should I think be considered definitive - apart from the handwritten title page, Goya signed the book on the page-edges (ie the other side from the spine). Bareau says it is "uniquely important ... because it shows the series as Goya must have intended to publish it, and the way he intended the plates to be printed". (p. 49) I'd better add that. The caption of Pl 69 was altered as "apparently ... too nihilistic" from Goya's "Nada. Ello lo dice" to "Ello dirá". (Bareau, 57). She just says (p. 49) "copying several mistakes in spelling, punctuation & [capital/lower case] ... [which] were corrected during the printing of the edition" - presumably giving different states. They never had the plates for 81 & 82 (p. 49) so their exclusion was not a choice. Whether they survived she doesn't say. I have understated how rude she is about the printing of the 1863 edition btw. Do we imply the 1863 was definitive? We should not, but the differences are not huge - they are largest in the printing. A Hyatt Major also says the proofs are much better than 1863, but blames the plates being stored for 50 years. Johnbod (talk) 16:21, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

• I wasn't clear - I agree that the Bermudez album probably should be considered definitive, but while the two prints omitted from the 1863 edition are generally included in discussion of the collection, the Prisoners aren't. We are constrained by what is generally accepted as "the set", but we shouldn't be second guessing Goya's intention in including the Prisoners which I think was how it read previously. I've changed it to be less definite. Yomangani^talk 11:11, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

More

1. Can anybody get hold of a copy of Nigel Glendinning, "A Solution to the Enigma of Goya's 'Emphatic Caprices', nos 65-80 of The Disasters of War", Apollo, CVII, 193, 1978? It has some interesting stuff on the influence of Giambattista Casti according to the Spanish Wikipedia.
2. We say the woman in plate 80 represents Spain (I added "or Truth"), but the NYT article only says "presumably" and I haven't seen this anywhere else; it's always Truth (and occasionally by extension, Liberty). Do any of the other sources say "Spain"? (If the answer is no, the DYK hook will need changing too).
3. This site has more details on the publication and a bit of history, but doesn't cite a source.
   • The plates passed to Javier when Goya left Madrid, then to Jaime Machén Casalins in 1856, then were bought by the Academy in 1862.
   • Plates 81 and 82 were discovered by Paul Lefort and acquired by the Academy in 1870, though not published until 1957
   • Another image intended for the collection, Infame provecho, is known from a preparatory drawing and proof, and "more recently another one has appeared" (though how we know they were intended for the collection other than by the subject matter it doesn't say). Yomangani^talk 11:11, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Bareau has "it has been suggested" that the figure in 80 has more to do with personifications of the Constitution (example) and of Spain (example) than of Truth. I can add. This may be Glendinning, who is in the bibliography, but she doesn't do notes. She also covers the plates being left with Javier, and passing to the grandson. Johnbod (talk) 15:56, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Horsing around

I can't locate which plate this refers to - while Hughes mentions the plate showing an ecstatic woman carried in the mouth of a horse,...(?)...Modernist (talk) 04:57, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I can't find it either. I'm inclided to trust Hughes thoug, perhalps its a background detail? Ceoil (talk) 10:32, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I think this is Pl 10 of the Proverbios/Disparates, his last series. The soldiers fleeing from a giant spectre sounds like Pl 2 also. Johnbod (talk) 11:27, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Bravo! That's gotta be it. If not ecstatic she sure looks surrendered...Modernist (talk) 11:38, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Hmm; I switched from "in the mouth of" to "in the grip of". I prefer the former, but I suppose we have to be factual, even if it means being less salatious. Good work Johnbod, that was fast. Ceoil (talk) 11:54, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Dali

Though I'm not a fan generally, I really like his Boiled Beans painting. Modernist, seeings as you have the broad konwledge and are best able to tie togeher artists and themes, can you expand this section, with the Dali img include. I have tried but cant find anything strong enough. Ceoil (talk) 12:11, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

It is a terrific painting, although it's a Fair Use image and Sandy's comment was to not use to many FU images [4]. JNW added it, hopefully he can expand on it as well, I'll see what I can do...Modernist (talk) 12:20, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

It would make 2 FU's. I think we are safe enough. I hope. Ceoil (talk) 12:55, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Measurements

I dont have anything on these. Ceoil (talk) 12:52, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Done, without size formatting stuff. Johnbod (talk) 13:28, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Fast. I think some of the intrepation section can be move to the pates preamble (note I moved the sexy stuff there and then back again). I'm not sure the intrepation section is coheriant yet, its still a gathering of various thoughts. I'm struggling to reconcille this, but I suppose it will come together over time. Maybe we just let it grow and reposition it later? Ceoil (talk) 13:37, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I like the sexy stuff there (in Interpretation) better...Modernist (talk) 13:41, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Publication

It appears that we have several separate references in the article re: publication, or lack thereof: that Goya never planned to publish then, intending them for personal expression rather than for political use; that he intended to publish them in 1814, and more broadly, never did for fear of political repercussion. None of the readings are definitive, so perhaps these various interpretations can be placed together for comparison. JNW (talk) 15:23, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

As we know, nobody knows. I think the remark in the lead implies rather more than the reference, which only says "a private journal of sorts", and shoulds be rewritten. The other bits are certainly somewhat speculative, but not incompatible, and could be pulled together, probably at the end of the Creation section. Johnbod (talk) 15:34, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I've combined the theories and moved them to the end of the Creation section. Further thoughts/changes welcome. JNW (talk) 15:56, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Musings regarding Goya's intentions: notwithstanding the expressive nature of the Disasters, unlike the Black Paintings they were executed in a mode that was usually intended for mass distribution, and consciously organized into sections. One likes the possibility that Goya was himself ambivalent, always working for himself yet politically expedient, sometimes considering publication but, wisely, never following through. More theorizing... JNW (talk) 17:03, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Thats sounds very plausable to me. Srill, its just not known what his intentions are. I think we need to state earlier and more forcefully that much of the commentry on the series is educated guessing and at the end of the day, openion. Ceoil (talk) 17:12, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Piranesi

You were correct in restoring the quote and reversing me, I was trying to work in the dates and the link to Piranesi who is somewhat obscure...Modernist (talk) 23:09, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I know it's all good faith, and it's minor stuff. And linking to Piranesi is great; I was really unsure on whether we can add parenthetical information to a direct quote. Thanks Modernist, and great work. By the way, I'm in their collection [5]; one day...JNW (talk) 23:20, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I do enjoy working with you, Ceoil, Johnbod, Yomangan, Outriggr, Liz weighed in too. I see that Stanley Boxer and clearly other good painters also need an article [6]...Modernist (talk) 23:32, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Right about Boxer, so a rudimentary article has begun. JNW (talk) 00:09, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Gardener's account

I've added the story told by Goya's gardener, though I don't know if it's held up or been discredited as romantic hyperbole. If the latter, input would be welcome, and the account can be removed. JNW (talk) 18:51, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Didn't this come up on Tres de Mayo? It doesn't seem there now. I think there's an issue that the written down version is "as told to" by the gardener's grandson or something. I think Connel covers it? Johnbod (talk) 22:19, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't remember it there, (although it might have been there), but it's a great quote...Modernist (talk) 22:37, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

It would be apt for the painting as well, but the final line places it nicely within the context of the Disasters. One sticky point is that some sources believe he didn't start the prints until 1810; the story suggests otherwise. Yes, I think I saw this referenced to Connel on the net today. According to Ferrari's essay, Don Antonio de Trueba interviewed Goya's gardener in 1836, but didn't commit the discussion to print until 1873, which, unless his notes were pitch-perfect, was long enough to allow for, as Ferrari puts it, "literary ornamentation." As it was, I left out passages about howling dogs and circling vultures. Still, short of evidence that it's a fabrication, it's a hard story to resist. Thanks--any more light either of you can shed would be great. JNW (talk) 02:46, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

No, that was what I was thinking of. Johnbod (talk) 03:36, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I made a documentary about Goya's painting, The Third of May 1808. We interviewed Goya scholar Nigel Glendinning. Glendinning believes Trueba's account is a romantic fantasy. This is what he said in the interview, I don't know whether TV interview is WP:RS, but his comments are interesting:

"Trueba is clearly romanticising the artist, making the artist fearless and heroic, I mean not to just observe through the spy glass these terrible things that are happening, but actually going to see them, and going to see them admittedly just after the event, when there are still dangers of being out in the open and so forth. None of this corresponds at all to the reality of the shootings. Because we know the shootings took place at dawn, I think four or five o’clock in the morning. Some modern experts point out it was also raining, and so the idea that Goya is going out at midnight, he’s not going to see anything. None of this fits with historical information we have. But I suppose the thing that particularly emerges from this is the idea that great artists are realists, that they confront reality and they depict reality as it is. But I’m trying to argue that actually Goya doesn’t quite do that, he draws on what he wants, and what he feels is appropriate to the scene he’s depicting, to make it convey more than simply observed reality would do.

"Trueba is dishing up a realism that is also lies. However, that’s the modern view isn’t it. I mean, we now know that Trueba got it wrong, of course but his contemporaries probably didn’t know this. And that’s immaterial. I mean Trueba is saying that realism is the important thing to be doing in art, and that’s what the second half of the 19th century, and the earlier part of the 19th century in some countries was, was saying.

"Trueba, I think was idealising Goya in his own literary terms, that’s to say that the conception of realism was something that was important for Trueba and his generation. It hadn’t been important in the same way for Goya’s generation; the idea in Goya’s time was that you studied reality, you studied nature, you copied it but not with the object of producing an identical reality in art, but reality that was in some sense … less specific, more generalised in some way, universalised, was the kind of language that they sometimes used about it."

Based on above comments, I'd favour dropping the Trueba quote as probably a romantic fiction. What do others think? Mick gold (talk) 23:11, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree; though with heavy heart. It might be worth keeping in an abbreviated form as telling of events that was taken at face value for many years, and no doubt contributed to the series popularity. Ceoil (talk) 23:29, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't think we should toss or discount the gardeners account based on the opinion above. I'd like to see more sources...Modernist (talk) 00:00, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

One further point I've gleaned from Glendinning's comments: makes point that Trueba locates his story in the Quinta del Sordo, with Goya watching the shootings from the window. Trueba clearly didn't know that Goya bought this house in 1819, after the war. Another fact which raises doubt about Trueba's version. Mick gold (talk) 00:12, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your input, Mick gold, and for contacting me. For what it's worth, I'll give a more complex reply than Ceoil's and Modernist's much appreciated responses: I was waiting for the other shoe to drop on this. The story has more than a whiff of romanticism about it, and practically begs to be discredited; your interview with Glendinning is a strong counterpoint. My suggestion is that if you can supply an acceptable reference to the video (I don't know how, since I've never cited a video source), or can find a comparable statement in print, Glendinning's thoughts ought to follow Trueba's account as an example of informed skepticism. Then if the original account and the argument that it's fantasy combined become unduly long, I'd be fine with cropping Trueba's account for brevity's sake. But I wouldn't lose it altogether--it has historical merit, even as romantic invention, and balanced with recent skepticism makes for an interesting passage or two. Thanks again for your contribution here--I hope this can be sourced, for this adds a rich anecdotal piece to the history of the Disasters. Any alternative thoughts? JNW (talk) 00:24, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Sourcing film is not a problem. I would very much like to see this documentary. Ceoil (talk) 00:40, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks to both Mick and JNW for their insights into this ambiguity, I do agree that sources would be helpful in addition to Mick's account of Glendinning's comments and expertise, and that the notion of a romantically embellished account by the gardener still has historical merit and interest, we probably need to clarify the contradictions in Trueba's account, while still noting that the story was told...Modernist (talk) 01:43, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks JNW, Ceoil, Modernist, I've added footnote which gives Glendinning's critique of Trueba, and sourced it to the documentary which is available on DVD. My quote comes from Glendinning's transcript. In the film, his comments are a bit shorter.Mick gold (talk) 12:24, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Well done. Thanks, JNW (talk) 21:03, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Because Trueba's story has been questioned as fanciful, even by Ferrier when he included it in his essay, and one does have to rummage a bit through writings on Goya to find it, it may not be considered the most reliable account. I've moved the transcript into footnotes. If there's a consensus to return it to the body of the article, feel free.... JNW (talk) 15:35, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

For what it's worth, we trust your judgement. You and Mick can untangle this one. By the way, though it is not my habit to buy DvD's, I took The Private Life of a Masterpiece today (Mick); I am all excited. Anyone care to join for icecream and wine. Ceoil (talk) 16:21, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

This sounds great. I'll be right over, with pizza and ale. JNW (talk) 16:37, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Make mine red and chocolate, although that ale sounds good too...Modernist (talk) 16:49, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Great, though I dont have any wine (or choclates); just Guinness. You can live with that, huh? Pizza sounds fine. Now where is the ale I was promised. Ceoil (talk) 16:52, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

thanks, Ceoil, all royalties gratefully acknowledged. A pint of porter is your only man. Next PLOM is Botticelli's Mystical Nativity at christmas. Next Easter it's Van der Weyden's Descent from the Cross. Mick gold (talk) 11:45, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Footnote. I asked Juliet Wilson Bareau her opinion of the Trueba account. Part of her reply: "The Trueba account is nonsense, a romantic myth, and no serious scholar entertains it now. For one thing, Goya had no gardener in 1808: he was living in the middle of Madrid in a densely populated, residential quarter, and the only thing he could possibly have seen – but even that is very unlikely – would have been some of the skirmishing on the second of May, since he lived near the Puerta del Sol." Mick gold (talk) 20:27, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

One is led to the conclusion that the account will eventually be cut even from the footnotes, and since I added it to begin with, I'm not averse to deleting it, but for a brief mention. Thank you for the great research, Mick gold. JNW (talk) 21:53, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I think it's good to have an account of Trueba's story, in order to clarify that today it's regarded as a 'romantic myth'. Mick gold (talk) 06:30, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Comments

Ottava comments:

• The paragraphs of the lead are unbalanced - one long paragraph and two short ones.

Done (could be done differently Johnbod (talk) 14:38, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

• The image has a lot of white space that should be dealt with.

Yes, we should lead with a strong & clear plate, with the title page (not by Goya at all) in the gallery - any ideas? I've put one in as a start.Johnbod (talk) 14:38, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

The new lead image looks great. As a small point, we need to grow the lead, so the text wraps. Ceoil (talk) 20:51, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

If you want the original image, just crop the sides. I could do that if necessary. I try to crop various title pages for a balance of sizing and visibility. The only concern was that it seemed to be half white space and very wide. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:37, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

• The sentence beginning "The reigning Spanish sovereign" seems out of place and should be connected to the sentence following it in a stronger manner (perhaps with an ", and" in order to merge the two sentences and then splitting off the sentence before the next ", and").

I wonder if we need this detail here. Maybe just something like "Napoleon took advantage of the complete bunch of idiots running Spain ..." more formally expressed. Johnbod (talk) 14:38, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Haha. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 15:37, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Re-written. Charles became the "ex-king" too soon. It is still pretty confusing, but the situation was complicated. Could perhaps be made even shorter to avoid introducing things we don't have room to explain properly? Johnbod (talk) 15:51, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

• The end of the second paragraph in Background needs a citation as with the third paragraph.
• The phrase "Goya was anti-hero in this respect" might be confusing for some readers.

rephrased & clarified, but I haven't seen the ref. Johnbod (talk) 14:38, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

• The section talking about allegory also says "and are often farcical in content", is there any way to explain how it is both?

black farce is the essence of all Goya's other print series (except the bull-fights), but we need to expand on this. Hughes quote? I've edited a bit - we now have "savage burlesque" Bareau has plenty on this, analysing individual plates, but a pithy quote might be best. Johnbod (talk) 14:38, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

• You say "The final plate: ¿Si resucitará? " and then say "However the final plate of the full series (no. 82) shows a bare breasted figure apparently representing peace and plenty in front of a peasant, with the title Esto es lo verdadero". These two seem to conflict.

Clarified. The difference between the "published edition" and "full series" is explained earlier. Johnbod (talk) 14:38, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

• There is some sandwiching with images in "Influence".

I've improved but not been able to remove this. Maybe a side-by-side thingy? We need to harmonize the translations of the title - "Great deeds against the dead" seems best. Johnbod (talk) 14:38, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

A side by side image would probably be best if you can figure it out. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:38, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Done...Modernist (talk) 15:49, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I meant the Goya/Chapman, but it does solve the overlap. Thanks. Johnbod (talk) 20:21, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Whichever works, we'll try it...Modernist (talk) 21:23, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Really like the new arrangment of the Chapmans/Goya. Ceoil (talk) 21:28, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

That's the one! Johnbod (talk) 22:58, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Over all, I liked it. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:00, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Problem

Alt texting this is going to be; euf. How do you describe the Dali, for example. Ceoil (talk) 21:48, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

When I have time next week, I'll get to it...Modernist (talk) 16:51, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

You ALT'd the Dali, wow! - "An imaginary and bleak landscape under stormy clouds and skies. A gigantic, monstrous bone-like creature looms above the tiny buildings below, seeming to crush a structure under a gigantic bone-like foot. A disconnected hand and arm bone clutches a torso bone creating the shape of the monstrous figure while high above its ravaged and distorted face screams in great pain. Ominous and destructive the monstrous thing looms and moves forward in a disjointed and seemingly random path." Ceoil (talk) 22:42, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Meaning

I'm having trouble understanding this passage which begins 'Peace, but not liberation'; perhaps this can be rewritten for clarity:

Plates 65 to 82, the "caprichos enfáticos" ("emphatic whims") of the series' title, are allegorical scenes completed in the period between Fernando VII's (1784–1833) return to power in Spain in 1813 and 1820.

I'm not getting 'in the period between...in 1813 and 1820'. Were they made between 1813 and 1830, during Fernando's return to power?

JNW (talk) 21:16, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Implemented. I have also changed the section title. Ceoil (talk) 21:33, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Spanish punctuation

I'm unsure if my punctuation changes are supported by sources: in the Spanish language, questions and exclamations have punctuation before and after. Did the original titles of the pieces include the (correct) punctuation before exclamations and questions? In the article, some had them, some didn't. The article should be consistent, or alternately, use Spanish names supported by the sources. Sorry for such a trivial issue, but some inconsistency showed. The translations look great, though ! I'll unwatch and trust this to be sorted with Yomangani. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:49, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Its not trivial at all, though its not something I am able to help with. Hopefully Yomangani has this watchlisted. Ceoil (talk) 04:54, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I did, and I think they are now all fixed to follow the titles printed in the original published set with no leading punctuation. It's likely that Goya would not have used the leading punctuation as it was a new-fangled idea that wouldn't have been taught when he was at school. Yomangani^talk 10:02, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

"Unpatriotic"

In the lead: "as well as anti-clerical and unpatriotic imagery would be less of a political issue.[3][4]" reflects what the journalist wrote, but Goya would have taken great objection to being described as "unpatriotic", & I think that "patriot", as in France & England around the same time, was a word that was mostly used for self-identification by liberals, just as in the US today it is mostly used by conservatives. He avoided the romantic heroism other images of the war convey, & was of course very hostile to the restored establishment, but that is not to be unpatriotic. We need to find a better way of putting this.

I've re-edited the lead a bit - let me know if anyone disagrees. Johnbod (talk) 14:47, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Good point re: 'unpatriotic'. 'Politically controversial' might be an improvement, though if anyone can do better... (too much 'politics' in one sentence). JNW (talk) 14:59, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

There is "anti-establishment", or just "liberal", or a longer phrasing. Johnbod (talk) 15:12, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

The sentence could also end at 'Napoleonic wars.' A broader overview is that the first and second paragraphs of the opening both end with commentary on the belated publishing and possible reasons. Too much, methinks; probably this can be merged or simplified into one passage. Feel free to have a go at it if you think likewise. Gotta go now, will return. JNW (talk) 15:18, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I'm inclined to cut the whole sentence. Javier had the plates for 34 years until his death, & ASFAIK we have no real evidence as to why he or Goya did not seek to publish them - but then I don't think many other of Goya's series were reprinted in these decades either - Los Caprichos (also politically sensitive) 1st edn 1799, 2nd edn 1855, then several until the 12th edn 1937. The academy took a few years after they got the plates before releasing the published edition, but again I don't know if we have evidence for why. The last series, the Proverbios/Disparates, is less explicitly controversial but has a similar history to the Disasters: finished 1819, but no real edition until 1864 after the Academy got the plates. The Intro to the Dover edition describes Javier as "an idler and of little help to him" (Goya). Maybe I should add some of this. Johnbod (talk) 15:38, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely add further, at least in the footnotes. The posthumous publication is mentioned several times throughout the article--it's interesting and relevant, but it might be getting too much attention (from me as much as anyone else), for the conclusions drawn by numerous scholars. You have correctly noted several times that we don't know the rationale for the delayed publication.... JNW (talk) 16:35, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I've performed some surgery to the section--feel free to amend if it's concluded that I've damaged the patient. By the way, do we refer to The Disasters as singular or plural? That needs to be resolved and made consistent. JNW (talk) 16:47, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Plural I think. Ceoil (talk) 18:57, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, plural unless the word "series" is included/used, which can usefully be used to make it singular Johnbod (talk) 19:00, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not finding inconsistencies. JNW, I trust that if you can find you will fix. Ceoil (talk) 20:10, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Edits

A very mixed bag here. I think some need reversing. Johnbod (talk) 16:01, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I hope this is fixed, - I reverted all of the User:The Old Switcheroo's edits and then replaced the old gallery with the most current gallery and most of Yomangan's edits...Modernist (talk) 17:44, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Wow! Well done. Johnbod (talk) 17:47, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

What are you referring to? Did I make a mistake? Could you point out the "bad apples" in the mixed bag Johnbod? What was reverted? (Nothing that I changed, that I can see, so far.) Ceoil asked me (Outriggr) to copyedit the article. Oh well. The Old Switcheroo (talk) 20:46, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Now I see it.[7] You've got a lot of nerve, fellows. Nail in the coffin. The Old Switcheroo (talk) 20:55, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Check out WP:OWN sometime. You even reverted my formatting of references. Heavy handed. The Old Switcheroo (talk) 20:58, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

And Johnbod says "well done" to a blanket revert of a new user? Well done, indeed! The Old Switcheroo (talk) 21:00, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Are you indeed a new user? Your edits to this page were only your 12th & onwards edits under this username, in which case it isn't surprising if they weren't helpful to what is already a much worked on article. I was more concerned with the text edits, many of which were not improvements, imo. The ones to the refs I didn't look at closely. But with such a lot of changes it's very hard to go through them individually. - I'm sure it was hard enough reversing them wholesale, hence my "wow". I didn't like most of these [8] for example - you don't "exhibit" prints, you publish or circulate them. But moving the sentence & other things looked right. I don't think the Notes/refences/sources division should have been introduced without discussion here first - as you can see it is a very active talk page. Johnbod (talk) 22:17, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment Before you switcheroo material here again please use the talk page first, there are plenty of articles that a new user like yourself can experiment on...Modernist (talk) 22:27, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

A couple of word choices might have been a bit out, but it mostly improved the phrasing. Outriggr failed in not calling himself "The Old Switcheriggr" though. Pity. Yomangani^talk 23:09, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Are we supposed to laugh now?..Modernist (talk) 23:19, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Not gathering from Outriggr's talk page. Yomangani^talk 23:25, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

He fools around too much if you ask me, too many games, he plays his game, he gets smacked and then he cries foul!...Modernist (talk) 23:35, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't fool around in article space, and that's the only place where it is your concern, Modernist.

I wasn't a new user, but my point is that I could have been. It shouldn't matter what account name I edit under in article space. If I had edited under "Outriggr" and the edits stuck, even though they're apparently bad, I think that would be favoritism toward my username, and I think that would be a problem.

The phrase in your diff, Johnbod, referred to Goya's "art", not his prints. I took it as a general statement that his intentions regarding showing/exhibiting/displaying (synonyms, to a first approximation) his art, in general, are not clear. These are the types of misunderstandings or needs for clarification that the supposed "copyedit" can help sort out. I took it to be referring to the corpus of his works that were never exhibited. Also in that diff, we have a caption change that states that the Callot work depicted is one print from his series, not that the depicted item is the Les Grandes Misères de la guerre, which is what it implies now. And who could argue with reversion to "the final plates consists..."? "A middle series"?--was there more than one middle series? No, so "the". Etc. You're overstating your case: I am the first to admit that not every change is going to be an improvement, but I was working in good faith, and it does not matter who I am.

Modernist, your analyses are weak, as usual. I am not "fooling around" with this article and no one has "smacked" me, except by a thoughtless blanket reversion that was poorly executed by any knowledgeable wikipedian's standards. But it doesn't matter, as long as Johnbod approves, right Modernist? Cheers, and I'll leave you to your article. The Old Switcheroo (talk) 02:06, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Outriggr - why do you hide behind all of these lame games that you play? Like the crap you pulled last week with your ha ha ha funny jokes, I'm gonna call you Mr. clever from now on, make no mistake the feeling is mutual...Modernist (talk) 02:17, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Respected colleagues, you are getting too personal. Please treat each other with respect, and refer to the editing of the page. Perhaps it's not too late to start from scratch on this. JNW (talk) 02:22, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

• What in heaven's name??? A blanket revert of good edits? No discussion? Failure to engage and seek consensus? "Well done"? I dread to think that I have taken nine months of daily abuse from POV pushers, miscreants, and incapable editors so that the supposed quality content editors remove good work because they don't recognise a username. Whatever happened to "content, not contributor"? Sheesh. I am stunned by this behaviour. Let's get these good edits back into the article, please. Risker (talk) 02:27, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
  • As I was busily engaged up to my ears in adding alt text descriptions of some of the most horrible atrocities known to man into the gallery - an activity that I had no idea how to do until Eubulides was kind enough to open the door and show me today, I emerged and saw Johnbod's comment. I checked the edits and while they looked ok I wasn't convinced that they were, if it had been Outriggr I would've just gone back to doing alt text- but I didn't want to Risk losing the complicated work in the gallery just in case switcheroo was bogus, I made a decision and no harm was done. Except some edits might need to be redone...Modernist (talk) 02:41, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
    • So how about redoing them? "I was too busy to check" isn't a great excuse; indeed, it looks like you might well have messed up some of your own work in the process. Undertaking to restore the good work, and identify which edits require further discussion, would go a long way to ameliorating this situation, I believe. ¶ As a little history, earlier this year when I was not in a position to get to a secure computer, I did some IP editing. People jumped through hoops to help me gain access to this hobby I enjoy so much. After about 40 edits in half an hour, I had been reverted at least 10 times and was already on my "final warning"—for correcting typos and spelling and grammar. Please don't do this again, it is incredibly disheartening. Risker (talk) 03:17, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

• I am really sorry that you were so badly treated as an IP. I am not capable or expert enough to restore Old Switcheroo, however in the interests of good will I'll give it a try though...Modernist (talk) 03:23, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

• All done, now that really wasn't so hard. The question now is are old switcheroos changes good enough to keep. And that is for others to decide. I still have 5 or 6 alt texts to finish. Somehow I think Mark Twain wrote a story about all of this a couple of years ago...Modernist (talk) 03:34, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

• For a start, do we want notes & references separate? Personally I prefer them together. Johnbod (talk) 04:11, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Two things. I would like to apologize for my sarcastic remarks toward Modernist, which I have stricken (while denying that I "play games"—I really don't know what that means; I may have a different sense of humor, but I don't know what that has to do with games).

Re: notes & references: when I edited this article, I had considered separate notes and references an obviously desirable thing on such a lengthy article, with such extensive notes. That was the first time I'd tried to implement them myself. Again, I thought I was doing good, and full reversion was troubling. I believe the separation would be looked upon well at the featured article candidacy. (I will not be editing or commenting here again.) The Old Switcheroo (talk) 04:24, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

• Apology accepted and I extend my apology to you as well. Outriggr you are extremely capable and please don't leave the project yet, My mother once told me to never volunteer for anything, and whattaya know, here we all are...Modernist (talk) 04:33, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

• Thank you. The Old Switcheroo (talk) 04:35, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I've always preferred notes and refs combined, but that carries little weight except as a personal aesthetic. My strong hope is that O.S. will continue to edit; all the principals here are significant contributors, and if from time to time we have to keep out of each other's way, well, that's just human nature.... JNW (talk) 04:41, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I'd certainly agree with all that. My initial comment was, all too typically, over-terse, but I was intending to initiate discussion on what to do about the changes. Johnbod (talk) 11:05, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Whatever, this is all between friends. A pity the way it played out, though undersandable. IMO; end of story. On with the page. Ceoil (talk) 09:44, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

FAC

There are some comments piling up re stuff referenced to books I don't have, or not referenced at all - Licht etc. If you have some of the books can you check them out? Johnbod (talk) 22:49, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

This is kind of my fault; did not have time during the week, will deal today. Thanks for the help so far though. Ceoil (talk) 17:27, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Smaller galleries

I think three smaller galleries might be worth a try, with say 4 each and the larger gallery at the end with twelve...Modernist (talk) 03:03, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, plus there is room among the text for a few more. Some of the sizes have been fixed rather low though.... Johnbod (talk) 03:22, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I've added another 4 from the end gallery around the text, so only 2x4 left at the end. Johnbod (talk) 03:56, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Good placements, and I filled up the end back up to 12...Modernist (talk) 04:26, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Influence

How much overlap between the influence section in The Disasters and the legacy section in The Third of May 1808 should there be? Seems like Manet, Picasso, and others might well have been influenced by these prints as well as by the painting. Maybe we should include them...Modernist (talk) 13:13, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Is proving very tricky. Ceoil (talk) 23:18, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I think I'd like to withdraw this nom. I think we can come back with better. Ceoil (talk) 01:39, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Ceoil you're the captain, retreat and return if needs be, although we can still move forward...Modernist (talk) 03:34, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

As I've said at the FAC, Goya's influence, like that of most artists on others, is very hard to pin down to specific works (both influencing and influenced). I don't think either of our "influences" sections are the best, as too specific & literal, & partly made up from rather random finds on the web or in books. Certainly things like the Manet Maximilian (for 3 May) & the Chapmans here should be mentioned, but almost any work after say 1900 showing close-up fighting in war is likely to have some influence from the DOW series, even if indirect. I'd be inclined to carry on, having got this far, but it's up to you. As things stand, after 3 weeks at FAC with no supports yet, it may not be our choice! Johnbod (talk) 12:16, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, well. At least we got some substantial reviews, and know what is left to be done if it is nomed again at a future date. I've trimed down the influence section, might try and build up again, but in a less specific way. Other than that, need to get more books, and round out the article more. Thanks for all yer help. Ceoil (talk) 22:55, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to keep on too...Modernist (talk) 12:21, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

You mean you'll sick with it? Thanks Modernist, I'm sure well come out the other side with a much stronger page. Ceoil (talk) 23:18, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Maybe the best way to get around the problem of the legacy section is to merge with a few general paragraphs on reception. Huxely, et al. Ceoil (talk) 21:05, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Placeholder

Until decided what to do with them.

Plate 50: Madre infeliz! (Unhappy mother!) The space between the small girl sobbing and the corpse of her mother denotes a separating gulf of black has been described as a "darkness that seems to be the very essence of loss and orphanhood"

In plate 2 from Los disparates—Goya's final series of etchings—French soldiers are shown fleeing from a large, looming, gathering spectre.

[[:Image:SalvadorDali-SoftConstructionWithBeans.jpg|left|thumb|130px|Salvador Dalí's 1936 Soft Construction with Boiled Beans (Premonition of Civil War)|alt=An imaginary and bleak landscape under stormy clouds and skies. A gigantic, monstrous bone-like creature looms above the tiny buildings below, seeming to crush a structure under a gigantic bone-like foot. A disconnected hand and arm bone clutches a torso bone creating the shape of the monstrous figure while high above its ravaged and distorted face screams in great pain]]

Final img needs to be expanded on

Plate 80: Si resucitará? (Will she live again?). The figure shown likely represents "Truth" or a higher ideal

I'm adding the older version of final plate 80 to the Bourbon and clergy section with text...Modernist (talk) 14:18, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

References

Lead img

I have switch the lead image to an etching of a civilian death. It has more pathos, and I think conveys more the intention of the plates. I think its a good hook to get people to read further. Ceoil (talk) 23:29, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't think we know it is "moments before he is burned alive". Where is the wood? I think it is more likely that he is about to be garroted, as people are in others of the series - or that this has already happened. Johnbod (talk) 13:05, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Or shot. I agree there is no indication of a burning. I am gonna change it to "be killed".

I changed the lead image - everything about it was wrong, from the text to the number to the alt text and the title, what a mess...Modernist (talk) 13:40, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

One problem with the new one is that it is pretty much a repeat of another print composition he did in the 1770s. That shows a garrotted "gentleman criminal", already dead, wearing exactly the same sort of robe as the DOW one. See Bareau, p. 15 & illustration. Johnbod (talk) 22:24, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Some of the plates are very difficult to make out at thumbnail size, so which ever one when we decide on should be relatively clear, preferably a close up, with only a few figures. My preference would be for either 9, 15, 36, or 46. We had 33 for a long while; good lead image, but not my first choice. Interested to hear other suggestions. Ceoil (talk) 23:10, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

I can see either plate 38 or plate 36 - both are succinctly brutal...Modernist (talk) 23:41, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Its hard to get a sense of how they look in preview; here is 36, 38. I prefer 36 myself. Ceoil (talk) 23:52, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

36 is a killer!..Modernist (talk) 23:56, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Agree. Let's wait to hear from Johnbod before we switch though. Ceoil (talk) 00:00, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

36 is fine, then 33 would be my choice. Whatever we use should be fixed a bit larger, which helps with the clarity. Johnbod (talk) 00:27, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I was happy with 33 too...Modernist (talk) 00:32, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I admit I was not gone on 33 over other options. Can I think over a bit more before we change. Either way, I think we should grow the gallery to three rows, 36 (if 33 is used in lead) and 34 for sure. Its tempting that the three gallery rows should break along the lines of the three groupings, but I'm not so sure of having a second wall for the 2nd group. The famine group images don't work so well in reduced size, and its proving difficult (for me anyway) to track down material that discusses them. They seem to be far less covered in the sources than the other two. Ceoil (talk) 00:41, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Going through the options This is my suggestion for the 1st and 2nd images, though if I'm out voted, fine, as long as the reasons are explained. I find 36 far more immediate and direct, as a hook image it works because it is not clear wheather the person is sholdier or civilian. On the other hand, 33 is obviously from the first group, and I find the bulk and stoop of the men to be mannered. They look like Russians (hats) or turks (squat) to me. Ceoil (talk) 02:11, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm gonna enlarge the images in the gallery - see what you think, I'll leave it until we decide to revert...Modernist (talk) 04:37, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

No, I think Johnbod meant we enlarge the lead image only. In my browser the gallery looks better now, but the problem is on diff resolutions and op systems the images and captions gets messed up if oversized. They spill so that the gallery is wider than the page and create a horizontal tool bar, or that the text is longer than the gallery so you get an 'sub' vertical toolbar. Its been difficult to balance this, unfortunately, but thats the way it seems to be. Ceoil (talk) 09:12, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

(indent) Yes, I just meant the lead image - as Ceoil says, fiddling with gallery setting is tricky. The increased gallery sizes showed as 2 rows (3+1) on my screen. When we have settled on the pics to use we could maybe trim their margins, which will give a considerable boost to the sizes. Very easy if you have photoshop etc, which I currently don't. Johnbod (talk) 14:32, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I also get 3-1...I think the lead image should be large also, I do have photoshop but no experience working on images here, - not sure how to work on a picture, do I download it, crop it and then replace it...Modernist (talk) 14:46, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes - I suppose to keep the full set the same you have to upload as a new file. The cropping is easy when you've done a couple, the uploading of course remains a pain.... Johnbod (talk) 14:50, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Not only the uploading but the captioning and alt texting is a pain now also. Modernist has been such a help though. As an update on status, I have cut a few images, but they will be returned. I have sent out, in unambiguous, direct language, word that my christmas presents this year are to be books on late Goya; no socks, humourous boxers or small plastic, robotic things from China welcome, thanks. I think the article can be grown a fair bit yet, and will eventually be able to accomadate very many images. Steve and AD are doing a great job tightening up my banjacked prose - I note they are spending far more time on the bits I wrote as apposed what Johnbod wrote. The fooking bastards. Skilled copyeditors are like hens teeth, lucky to have two. After expansion I'll ask them to revisit. There are now many fine people working and watching, I am optimistic for a relisting at FAC early Jan. JNW retiring is a pity though; he had a lot of input and is missed. Ceoil (talk) 15:52, 15 November 2009 (UTC)Ceoil (talk) 15:34, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Cheers. :-) But don't be so humble; the prose was in pretty good shape before I even touched it. As the article stands now, the only outstanding issues I can see are the minor tweaks that DocKino pointed out with regard to the image captions and alt text. As the choice of images is still up in the air a bit, I haven't touched them much, but feel free to ping me for another look when you've settled on the final layout. As a side note, I haven't seen this one as a chore at all; I've enjoyed learning so much more about Spanish history—from this article and the associated background articles—than they taught when I was a lad. All the best, Steve ^T • C 23:11, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for so much talk. Ceoil (talk) 16:15, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Ceoil, we are making slow progress and I think JNW is still with us albeit incognito and somewhat less intensely...Modernist (talk) 16:55, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, good to know. The progress isn't slow however (I know thats not what you meaned), there has been huge work in the last two weeks. It takes this amount of graft & effort to get an article to such a state, and books are not free. Steve and AD are doing a great job, and really improving. It takes time sure, but itS worth the effort. I'm glad ye are sticking and seeing it through, though. Ceoil (talk) 17:11, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

No question good progress has been made...Modernist (talk) 17:22, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but lets's hope Santa comes through. A good solid detailed source is what we need. Btw i spotted this on the MMA site - useful re Hemingway. Also, I moved the bit about technique & have lost the ref I'm sure we had re drypoint & engraving also being used. It is clearly correct as seen from museum descriptions of individsual prints, but an overall book ref would be useful if anyone sees one. Johnbod (talk) 18:05, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes re Santa. The article as stands is over reliant on Hughes. Ceoil (talk) 20:57, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I added the MMA and Hemingway bit, good find...Modernist (talk) 23:30, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Question

I found a source (googlebooks[9] during the week that claimed that Goya chose the medium because the ease of reproduction would lead wide dissemination. This seems to contradict what I already know (not published for..politically safe ...for his own satisfaction). Ceoil (talk) 00:51, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Any process of turning a drawing into a print must have some idea of "wide dissemination", bearing in mind that aquatint is only at its best for a few hundred impressions, & drypoint for a few dozen. But his experiences with Los Caprichos must have made him aware of the difficulties. Bareau thinks he must have intended to publish them after the war, until the crackdown. Obviously it all came right eventually.... Nb that the Tauromachia were done & published in the middle of the series. Johnbod (talk) 03:07, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

So ignore? The source is poor to be fair and only a brief overview. Ceoil (talk) 21:18, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I think at one point we had talk of a "purely private record" or something, which seems to have gone, probably for the best. Now we say he kept his thoughts private, which I think is right, but intended the series (not that we are allowed to call it that now!) as a "visual protest" which of course implies some public element, & is also I think right (though of course the captions/titles add a "literary" element). There is really zero evidence or how or when he intended publication, but Bareau assumes he did, I think rightly - making prints is an awful lot of work to do just to print a few proofs each. I think we cover it ok as we are, & anything much else is speculative. Some of his early prints, including in fact the garrotted man of 30 years before, had been very popular. Maybe I should add on this. I looked for an online image but couldn't find one. Johnbod (talk) 21:32, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

"An early echo"

"The serial nature in which the plates unfold has led some to see the images as an early echo of photography." I don't have access to the Bryant Clifton text cited, but was his thought not a reflection on the later development of cinematography rather than "photography'?. After all, there is no "serial nature" inherent in photography. "An early echo" is an unfortunate choice of image, as echoes follow rather than precede.--Wetman (talk) 06:20, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

The source mentions photography but I take your point. I suppose he was thinking of early photographers such as Muybridge. "An early echo" is indeed silly phrasing (mine), reworded now. Ceoil (talk) 23:03, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Lead img again

Im very much for 36. As a status update, no new sources since November. Its surprising, that there are not more dedicated texts. Ceoil (talk) 02:52, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

FA congratulations

I have recently observed that praise for particularly difficult work is not as forthcoming as it used to be. I tried to review this article both times, but the subject matter was so powerful that I was unable to ask any discerning questions or generally make any sense for a review. Similar reaction occurred when I reviewed some September 11 articles. At any rate, you guys should be proud. I read the article twice and was greatly moved by it both times. --Moni3 (talk) 22:01, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Moni. Ceoil ^sláinte 17:33, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Appreciated Moni, thank you...Modernist (talk) 23:48, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Kudos

It was refreshing to look at the Main Page and see not an article about a video game, or a cartoon character, but one of the finest collections of art from my favorite Romantic. Thanks to all of you who worked so hard to get this there. Nicely done, everyone! Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 00:37, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

• youtube style thumbs up to that*

When was the last time a cartoon character was up there? Brutannica (talk) 03:14, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

A week ago. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 06:06, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Grammar of first sentence

"Disasters of War" is a single series, and the first sentence should read "The Disasters of War (Spanish: Los Desastres de la Guerra) IS a series of 82[a 1] prints created between 1810 and 1820..." not ARE a series.--Nebouxii (talk) 01:30, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I decided to be bold and fix it. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:41, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Wait, wait, wait. Are we using British or American English? If it is the former, "are" is correct.  f o x  11:25, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

"Are" is correct - agrees with "The Disasters". DuncanHill (talk) 11:29, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

• I have changed it back to "are" - which is what was used in the original version of the article. As the subject is Spanish, no variant of English takes precedence, so on Wikipedia we stick in such cases to the form first used here. DuncanHill (talk) 11:33, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I was unfamiliar with the British English way with collective nouns, thanks. Nebouxii (talk) 22:54, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

No problem. DuncanHill (talk) 22:56, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I changed this back because it has nothing to do with British/American English. The subject of this sentence is ‘a series’. The subject is not ‘The Disasters of War’. The verb must agree with the subject and in English ‘a series’ is a group collective noun that takes a single verb form even though it has component parts. (Words like committee/ public/ audience are similar). It would be possible to have ‘two series’ in which case a plural verb form would be needed. Similarly, if the individual components were being referred to (for example, ‘The Disasters of War were put in a drawer’, the plural would be used. See also Eric Partridge, who writes in his much reprinted work “Usage and Abusage” (Penguin Books): “series, ‘one set of …’ is occasionally misused as a plural…”.User:whiteghost.ink 23 June 2010

Notional agreement. Words like committee, public and audience can all properly take the plural form of the verb. DuncanHill (talk) 14:29, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

How many sets of prints are there? Where can they be seen? Where are the plates?

In which gallery/museum/archive can these be found? The article, or image descriptions at Commons offers no answer. 192.93.164.23 (talk) 09:26, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

See footnote 11, and the text: there have been at least 1,000 impressions of each printed, 500 of the 1863 edition. Many sets have been broken up. Any museum that seriously collects prints will have at least some of the set. The British Museum has many complete sets, as will other major print rooms. You can buy late impressions from around $1,000 per print (see Spaightwood Galleries link for example). But the quality of later printings is much lower, & the 1863 set has issues compared with the proofs, as discussed in the text. I suppose the edition quantities could be covered in the main text, but listing collections for prints is too large a job. The plates belong to the "Calcografia Nacional" (or whatever) in Madrid, which the article says. Johnbod (talk) 12:17, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

First of all, congratulations to the contributors for an excellent and very interesting FA. I came to this article -- in complete ignorance -- from today's blurb on the Main Page. Then I came to the Talk page with the same question in mind as the above anonymous contributor. I think the introductory section would be improved with a brief mention of where these prints can be found. A reader new to the subject would naturally be curious about this (for any major work of art). Perhaps something like, "The original plates belong to the Calcografia Nacional in Madrid, and prints are on display at many museums including the British Museum." I believe in being bold, but I'll let this for those who know anything at all about the subject. It's just a suggestion. Best regards, Hult041956 (talk) 17:41, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Maybe. The situation here is similar to that for most important prints that exist in these (rather unusuallly high) numbers. But they are not "on display" permanently at the BM or possibly anywhere else, if only for conservation reasons - maybe they are in Madrid, I don't know. The BM will pull their ones out for inspection by drop-in visitors (with ID), but many print rooms won't - the NY Metropolitan for example. Print room covers this. Actually it is the Real Academia de Bellas Artes de San Fernando that owns the plates, I see, though if I'm reading their website correctly, they've lent their print collection, perhaps including the plates, to the Calcografía Nacional, which occupies part of the same building: "Además, aunque las estampas de la Academia se encuentran en Calcografía Nacional, el Gabinete de Dibujos cuenta con doscientos ochenta que han ingresado fundamentalmente a través de donaciones y legados." What a normal visitor can see is unclear. Has anyone ever been? Johnbod (talk) 19:05, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I've added something on this, but not to the lede. Johnbod (talk) 15:51, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

As someone who turned up at the Prado last week and was surprised that the series was not on display there, I agree that the answers to these questions should be part of the article.Diomedea Exulans (talk) 11:14, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Its been asked a few times on the talk now, so that means the article is obviously not clear enough. I'll add someting. Thanks. Ceoil 12:31, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Prints are very rarely on display, especially permanently. Print rooms are very different from paintings galleries. Johnbod (talk) 12:35, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Johnbod, I dont think it would be streaching OR if I based text on your replies here. Its not covered in the sources I have. Ceoil 17:23, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

I've added "In total over a thousand sets have been printed, though later ones are of lower quality, and most print room collections have at least some of the set. " to the lead - we have more lower down. Johnbod (talk) 18:08, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Re-did my edit

In http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Disasters_of_War&oldid=358702092 I re-did my grammar change which was lost in the controversy about is/are. I don't think it was reverted intentionally. --positron (talk) 19:15, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Duke or Earl

I don't really care if he was English or Irish or a Duke or an Earl - he was an important figure in the British Empire and Goya painted him knowing that he was an important figure in the British Empire so back off. The National Gallery titles the painting The Duke of Wellington [10] If you don't like it - complain to them...Modernist (talk) 20:36, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Plate 80

The description of Plate 80 in the article does not seem to match the description in the caption. Brutannica (talk) 03:23, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Well it did really, but I have quoted "monks and monsters" from Wilson-Bareau. Johnbod (talk) 03:34, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Category

I've added Category:Prints and drawings in the British Museum on the strength of the unique Céan Bermudez album there, which is given good coverage here. But I don't think the hundreds of other museums with some of the prints in their collections should be added as categories - if we had one for the Madrid academy or other collections with special items mentioned in the text that would also be ok of course. I hope everyone agrees. Johnbod (talk) 15:39, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

BM Link

I just thought I'd drop a line here to mention that the British Museum is now linking out to this article from their article about the same subject with the line See also the feature quality article about Goya's Disasters of war in Wikipedia. Neat! Witty Lama 23:46, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Very cool. Now for the residuals: I imagine Ceoil, Modernist, Johnbod, and others will be splitting the royalties. Given my involvement, I want a dime. JNW (talk) 23:55, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

The FA Prize is for new FA's, not existing ones. Not that existing ones aren't deserving of praise (such as being linked out to from the BM website!) but the point of that prize is to encourage new FA's. I've actually been showing this page to one of the curators of Prints and Drawings at the BM today as a matter of fact. If you'll permit me to go off on a tangent... The FA Prize is a bit like the original purpose of copyright - to encourage the creation of new cultural works - rather than the apparent current role copyright plays - to reward existing copyright holders. Witty Lama 00:14, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Understood. I was having fun. JNW (talk) 00:39, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I know, I'm just getting a bit too used to wiki-firefighting recently Witty Lama 00:52, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Chapman Brothers

According to the last sentence of the article:

The Chapmans described their "rectified" images as making a connection between Napoleon's supposed introduction of Enlightenment ideals to early-19th-century Spain and Tony Blair and George W. Bush purporting to bring democracy to Iraq.

By reading this, someone would think that their main purpose was to parallel the invasion of Napoleon with that of Bush and Blair.

However, according to the source which is cited (also according to NY Times):

Although they are both against the current war, the Chapmans say they are not making a statement about it. Insult to Injury is more about the inadequacy of art as a protest against war. Art can't stop wars, they insist, just as Picasso's Guernica was a "pathetic" statement in the face of the oncoming second world war.

Since this was their main intention, shouldn't this be mentioned in the article?-- Alien ^? 17:54, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Licht

To which of the two works by Licht mentioned in bibliography does the references refer to? It only says 'Licht page 130' so we don't know. Excellent article by the way. Tremendo (talk) 19:21, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

sorted - was '70. Somebody added a load of books not used - now moved to further reading

Thank you very much, could you please check the reference called Vallentin? There is nothing in the bibliography Tremendo (talk) 09:37, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Presumably this, but I have removed it. Johnbod (talk) 21:51, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Bibliography?

I've dared to drop in a couple of references to two good published works on this series by Goya. To make that happen, I had to wedge in, awkwardly, some (probably unnecessary) citations. Given the vast literature on Goya and the Disasters of War, I wonder if there one day might be a section for "Further Reading" not tied to cited works? In any case, I am humbled and awestruck by the magisterial Wikipedia work here. Thanks for allowing a novice to participate in sharing some curiosity and marvel over Goya's work. Correct away! Johannes der Taucher (talk) 19:49, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks! No problem with a select FR section, preferably concentrating on works in English. Johnbod (talk) 20:44, 2 August 2019 (UTC)