Talk:The Raft of the Medusa

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Featured article The Raft of the Medusa is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on April 10, 2009.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
January 24, 2009 Featured article candidate Promoted
Did You Know A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on June 14, 2007.
WikiProject Visual arts (Rated FA-class)
WikiProject icon This 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.
Featured article FA  This article has been rated as FA-Class on the quality scale.

Additional image[edit]

There are more images related to the painting at commons:Category:Jean Louis Théodore Géricault. I didn't want to plague the article with more images, so I'll add them here instead.
/ Mats Halldin (talk) 06:31, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Insanity, plague, and corpses[edit]

Under the composition section, there is reference to Gericault's having witnessed insanity and plague by this time--if this refers in part to his paintings of the insane, note that they were undertaken after the raft was painted. Also, I think the comment on 'the stiffness of corpses', an interesting piece of information, needs a cite. JNW (talk) 00:35, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Looks good. Overall this is coming along very well. JNW (talk) 01:02, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
Will do. Thanks for helping with this JNW. Ceoil (talk) 19:41, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
By the way, Ceoil, excellent image you downloaded of the painting. JNW (talk) 22:56, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Oops. Didn't realize two other people were editing already (as is always the case every time I go near something Ceoil is working on! :-). I'll stop for now (done anyway). –Outriggr § 01:33, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

No trouble at all! Keep editing. JNW (talk) 01:42, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Michelangelo image[edit]

Much better. Now if only it weren't for those damned candles (presumably the next swipe of the oar will take them out). I would have included more of Charon, but someone stuck a crucifix in front of him...

I think Gericault was referring to the Last Judgment in the Sistine Chapel--would there be any objection to substituting an image from the fresco for the current Pieta? JNW (talk) 23:00, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Feel free. The Borias doc mentions the Pietà only in connection with one of the preparatory sketches. Ceoil (talk) 23:06, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
Preferably the lower right corner- with the damned disembarking from Charon's boat... Lithoderm 23:41, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
Charon misbehaving, darkly.
Follow-up: Ceoil's rationale for the Pieta is fine; the quote I came across today is from Riding: "Michelangelo, in particular his Last Judgement, which Gericault had 'trembled' before on his recent visit to Italy, was a powerful influence." Lithoderm's suggestion is also good, and I would try it out for a test run, except that so far the only image I could find in the commons is hellaciously dark. JNW (talk) 03:33, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
I like the Pietà and the caption...till we get a better picture lets keep it..Modernist (talk) 04:10, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
I've cropped the image that was already on display in the article about the painting. You probably couldn't find it because it was in the wrong commons category- commons has tagging disease, just as we do. There was a large tag that read "this file's categories need to be checked". But did they do anything...? Lithoderm 04:59, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
OK, That picture makes sense now as an influential precedent.....Modernist (talk) 05:08, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
Wow. That's terrific, Lithoderm. I'm going to try it in the article. If there's a consensus to return to the Pieta, then that's fine too. JNW (talk) 05:22, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
You are right on the use of 'detail' rather than 'fragment', my mistake. I also had second thoughts re: the 'grief of parents' passage of the caption, now rendered more questionable by the new image. What say you, Ceoil? JNW (talk) 17:13, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
Agree the caption should be changes; we can move the 'grief of parents' quote into the article text. The new image is much more relvant and looks great bty. Ceoil (talk) 01:16, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
Detail of ship on the horizon

I'm working right now on a large file... I have to stitch it together, but the entire image is of this quality... Lithoderm 00:38, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Officer on white horse:"Merry Christmas to you, heathens!"
Anybody have a better resolution copy of the Gros? Ceoil (talk) 02:20, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
It's already nearly 500 k. Perhaps we should just use a detail from it- there are so many figures and the thumbnail is so small... I will look, but you'd be hard-pressed to find a higher resolution/file size than that online. Lithoderm 02:45, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
It just looks very washed out and opaic to me at thumb-nail size. (talk) 03:07, 25 December 2008 (UTC) (Ceoil on a windows 95 computer that keeps on logging me out)
A detail would be preferabale. (talk) 03:09, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
There the colors are colors are better in this version, at least. Merry Christmas to you! Lithoderm 03:51, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
Nice catch Litho, Merry Christmas to you too.....Modernist (talk) 04:07, 25 December 2008 (UTC)


Modernist, what do you know on the paintings legacy? Ceoil.

Hmmm. I remember that I saw a rendition of it in chocolate by an artist named Vik Muniz at the Speed Art Museum a year or so ago... it's here if you scroll down a ways. But in terms of the 19th century and the mainstream of modern art, I would have to do some research. Lithoderm 04:30, 27 December 2008 (UTC) its actually here.... that link doesnt work

I have not been able to track down much yet in terms of sources for this, but certainly it influenced Delacroix's Virgil and Dante, and must have had a broader impact beyond. JNW (talk) 04:40, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Although he died young he was an enormous influence on Delacroix, and Courbet...In terms of his being a realist with The Raft of the Medusa artists like Courbet while not taking a page from history, began recording life with all it's blemishes. Even Manet owes a debt to this revolutionary painting..especially with his execution of Maximilian paintings...Modernist (talk) 05:13, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Influence on Manet is established here[1].Ceoil (talk) 14:36, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
Added. Thanks Modernist and Ceoil. JNW (talk) 17:17, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
I wonder about Daumier and his connection to the legacy of the Raft as a political breakthrough. I'm thinking that Daumier might also be added to the legacy section - any thoughts?..Modernist (talk) 16:37, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
Yes, if we can find a cite to support. I think I can also provide something re: influence on marine painting, Isabey [2] and maybe others as well. JNW (talk) 17:13, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
Here's the former: The resemblance of the raft to the one in the diagram is striking- this might be better than the Manet for the Legacy section. Lithoderm 04:53, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Does anyone have any sources about the influence of this painting on JMW Turner, particularly his paintings Fire at Sea and The Slave Ship ? Lithoderm 00:15, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I have found some sources connecting the Raft with Turner's Slave Ship, and further, Homer's The Gulf Stream [3] as well. I'd like to find more before including it in the article, but it's a good suggestion, and if anyone else has the goods, go for it. JNW (talk) 00:38, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm on it now--give me a few minutes. JNW (talk) 00:56, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
Sounds good...and thanks for the raft...Modernist (talk) 01:14, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
Check this out:[4]Modernist (talk) 01:36, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
Good find. Which reminds me, I've got to break for dinner. Yum. JNW (talk) 01:40, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, puts a new spin on the concept of lend me a hand. Modernist (talk) 01:49, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

To Lithoderm's suggestion: I love the Manet, used to visit it at the Met regularly, but the Turner is a better fit. I'd like to see the Gulf Stream, too, but I think it would get too crowded. So yes to the Turner. Must go...champagne is kicking in...JNW (talk) 05:44, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

champagne is kicking in? Well well well. How is the head this morning he he? Ceoil (talk) 10:25, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Much better now, thank you. Really, not terribly much was imbibed, and my intake of comestibles has been so great as to absorb and ameliorate some of the effect. One should never drink and edit anyway...not that there is any noticeable difference in my prose. JNW (talk) 16:31, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I see they both fit now... great work, everyone- the article is expanding very rapidly...Lithoderm 05:13, 2 January 2009 (UTC)


Some thoughts before an FAC:

  • Everyone piles up to criticise the appointment of the captain, but given that Napoleon was recently installed on Saint Helena, a few days days sail off the expedition's course, and had already escaped from one island with very serious consequences, it doesn't seem too surprising that the government wanted to be certain of the loyalty of the commander of the naval expedition.
But he still screwed up big time...and I guess the French government had some explaining to do..Modernist (talk) 00:01, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
Johnbod this book talks at length about the captain and the crew..I didn't realize the crew were all soldiers, and the 135 lost were soldiers. The survivors particularly blame the captain for cutting the rope here is a link to a Gericault sketch but the whole chapter on the Raft and Senegal and cannibalism starts on p.165 I think:[5]
  • The article needs expansion of the discussion of its place in the development of French modern-day history painting, coming very shortly after the collapse of the Napoleonic regime, which had developed the Revolutionary themes in Romantic fashion to concentrate on military triumph and Imperial pomp. The legacy section may overstate the influence on Courbet in taking subjects from current events, which goes back well before the Raft - David & the the other Napoleonic & Revolutionary painters, Copley etc. Courbet doesn't really do that anyway. And the Gericault is hardly a work of realism.
Actually it was apparently a dramatized moment from survivor accounts of an actual event; with accounts from various people..and with artistic license taken - fairly realistic I'd say...Modernist (talk) 00:01, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
I don't see it as realist at all, I must say. Julian Barnes goes to town on this, if he is an WP:RS. Johnbod (talk) 00:39, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
I agree the article needs expansion..Modernist (talk) 00:16, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

The Hurley reference doesn't seem to me support the text it references here. We should drop the reference to "Art for art's sake" Gautier, who is usually supposed to have coined or popularized the phrase, was 7 when the raft was painted, and it is itself not associated with history painting at all.

Actually these guys:Victor Cousin, b.1792 [6] and Benjamin Constant b. 1767 predate Gautier by at least a generation..and are also credited with l’art pour l’art.... Modernist (talk) 00:13, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
None the less the term as we know it had not developed for Gericault to reject, plus it was nothing to do with history painting. Johnbod (talk) 00:39, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
Hurley says:

Géricault's Raft of Medusa (1818-19) and Delacroix's Liberty Leading the People (1830) were important precedents for Courbet's work, in particular for their attitude toward the immense significance of contemporaneous events. Which basically is the point made about Courbet and Gericault in the legacy (talk) 00:23, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

The articles says: "Courbet's willingness ... to record people, places and events from his real and everyday surroundings can be traced directly to the Géricault masterpiece.[1]" which I don't think is the same point, or true. Courbet is more genre painting taken to the scale of the largest history painting. Johnbod (talk) 00:37, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
When I think of Courbet - I think of unprettiness, sexual grit, toughness of surface, his friends, rivals, contemporaries, as characters in his paintings drawn from real life; anything but say - glorifying or prettifying the nobility of work or of life on the farm as Corot or Millet might have good as they both were...Courbet was more political and more sophisticated than a mere genre painter....Modernist (talk) 01:30, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I think these whole sections (sources and legacy) need a good deal of work. The legacy of the raft is much more in later "victim" historical paintings than Courbet.

Actually I think the Raft is a break away from History painting..after all it's about what happened last year - so to speak...And Courbet's Realism is often very much in keeping with the ugly truth that the Raft depicts...I suspect that both Gericault and Delacroix were contemplating a break with History painting, and Gericault took the first big step...Modernist (talk) 00:01, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
I agree the section needs expansion..Modernist (talk) 00:16, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
  • The problem of modern dress in history painting was widely felt - people objected to works like Copley's Death of Major Peirson. Without knowing the background I think one would be hard put to give a date for the scene shown by examining the painting itself.
I think his use of nudity might indicate a conscious break with History painting...or a graphic commentary on the desperateness of the situation and the dreadfulness of the human circumstances...Modernist (talk) 00:01, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
I see it as much much a history painting, but taking the tradition in a new direction. Johnbod (talk) 00:41, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
  • The Medusa scandal was clearly political, but how political is the painting? Do we have any statements from Gericault on this? It still has a great impact, which does not depend on any feelings about the Bourbon Restoration government. It also matched a wider political feeling of victimhood, lack of control of their destiny, and abandonment among much of the French people at the time. It should be possible to reference this. The work should not be described as "anti-Imperial"; it was the Bourbons who were that, in the terms of the day.

Maybe more later, Johnbod (talk) 23:21, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi Johnbod - most of the questions you raise are all good ones; I don't see the Raft as a History painting as you see it, I am a little confused myself by the art for art sake entry, although probably for different reasons...I am also of the opinion that Gericault's intention was to depict a real event that probably should've been a movie...but he didn't have the equipment yet, and he did the best he could with what he had...Modernist (talk) 01:15, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for this, there are good ideas here for an expansion. I agree that sections need a lot work before any nom. Ceoil (talk) 13:49, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
Another thought - I see the Gericault painting as dramatic and as I said above - material for a movie; however Michael Fried in his book Courbet's Realism pp.28-36 (I think) makes the case that the Raft of the Medusa was a break with "theatricality" by Gericault...I assume that Fried's implication is that Gericault paints a "real" event...and not just an "imaginative" depiction of a scene out of was popular at the time prior to the Raft....Modernist (talk) 16:18, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
Still another thought - T.J. Clark makes the point that the Raft is a political painting or rather a political statement in a long line of political works that lead to Courbet, Manet etc. however Clark maintains that these "political" works represent to some extent a different mainstream than the ordinary view of modernism, and therefore also represent a "break" with the concept of l’art pour l’art or rather simply a "political art" branch of the mainstream leading to Conceptual art and other forms of contemporary art. I agree that Gericault's painting is not l’art pour l’art, and might represent the beginnings of modernism from a different Clark mentions...Modernist (talk) 16:33, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
That sounds very good. Maybe some differentiation can be made between the Raft's type of political statement and that of David's, the one based on neoclassical formula, the other on a synthesis of baroque, classical, and realist tendencies, with emphasis on the last. In other words, the reasons that Gericault's painting, rather than David's, reverberated through the 19th century. JNW (talk) 16:57, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
Most refer to the Raft as a History painting and in accord with Johnbod so will I...Modernist (talk) 00:15, 1 January 2009 (UTC)


A question of consistency of use: are the terms 'romantic' and romanticism' capitalized? Right now they appear in the article both with and without caps--maybe this is to distinguish between the movement (capital R) and the more general idea. Same question re: neoclassicism. JNW (talk) 14:42, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I would think both should be capitalized throughout this article, as the movements are always meant, no? Johnbod (talk) 17:00, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
I like caps....Modernist (talk) 18:46, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Another question[edit]

Ref 54, Dorment, 2004; can Dorment be added to the biblo? And happy new year to all. Ceoil (talk) 13:46, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

The ref is a book review by Dorment of The Art of Exclusion: Representing Blacks in the Nineteenth Century by Albert Boime...the author's response here...[7]....Modernist (talk) 14:06, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Anonymous title[edit]

I've added:

  • The Raft of the Medusa was first shown at the 1819 Paris Salon,NEW: under the generic title Scène de Naufrage (Shipwreck Scene), though probably few viewers mistaked the specific subject.[2]
  1. ^ Hurley, Clare. "The art of Gustave Courbet in his epoch and in ours". World Socialist Web Site, October 10, 2008. Retrieved December 27, 2008.
  2. ^ Rupert Christiansen NY Times

- but though RC in the NYT is certainly an RS, can someone convert this to a ref from a book we already have? Johnbod (talk) 16:41, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

The times article seems ok to me...and it is a is an interesting link [8] as an aside...Modernist (talk) 19:34, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Image of colours used[edit]

The only problem I see with this is that (besides having the colors much smaller), we get into all sorts of unwanted questions, like "how did he really lay out his palette", and "is that a thumb-hole or another glob of white paint" and "was his palette really square". Oh well. More than one.

I thought this would be a useful addition as it clearly shows the limited range he employed. Comments invited. I took the colours from modern charts: see File:Medusa-Palette.gif. They can easily be changed if there are any suggestions for improvements. Ty 03:55, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Very good, but perhaps you could round the corners of the squares? I experience the unpleasant optical illusion of the throbbing dot in between the corners. That, or you could make the borders smaller... Lithoderm 05:55, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Rounding corners might require a bit of technical exploration - my first attempts were less than satisfactory. I tried making the borders smaller, which didn't solve it (and bigger - which was worse), and darker grey... Now they've gone altogether, which at least solves the problem (I hope): File:Medusa-Palette-1.gif. Ty 07:51, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I like the palette; sort of brings a 21st century air to a 19th century icon..Modernist (talk) 12:33, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
I like it but resized it down to 120px if thats ok. T'was a bit big. Ceoil (talk) 20:53, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

The image is much better, but t'would be best to upload it to commons. Here is an alternate version, which may be rather silly, but I present it for your consideration nonetheless. Lithoderm 17:01, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Position in art history[edit]

The first two paragraphs of this section end with unreferenced statements. Also, it would be good to define the characteristics of neo-classicism and how exactly Gericault broke with them. Ty 07:33, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Miles ref[edit]

Could someone please check for me ref. no. 47, "Miles, 244", as this is the page in the paperback and may not be correct for the version in the ref section. Thanks. Ty 09:39, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I went here:[9] and there isn't a p. 244 there...Modernist (talk) 12:24, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Thats because its just a splash page on google books. I suggest we cut the text until the ref can be confirmed. Ceoil (talk) 20:58, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Cut. Ceoil (talk) 21:13, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

It's not searchable on google books. You can find it on Amazon search inside. The ref is confirmed for p. 244, Jonathan Miles, The Wreck of the Medusa, first paperback edition, Grove/Atlantic, Inc., ISBN 080214392x, ISBN 9780802143921. The current ref has ISBN 9780871139590, which I presumed was for the hardback, and that someone owned this, as it was being cited. It made sense to try to stick to the same edition. However, that ISBN comes up as invalid. If needs be, the paperback can be cited for this info. Ty 04:30, 9 January 2009 (UTC)


I like the new structure, though I've made some alerations:

I varied the image alignment, I think having all the images to the right make the article look flat, and it looses much of its energy.
I forced the sizes of a few pics as they were very large thumbs and took up dispropornate space.
I really, really think background/context should come before description. Otherwise, what are we supposed to be looking at as we read about the rendered figures? An imagined scene for all the reader knows. Thats my 2c anyway. Ceoil (talk) 21:13, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
I agree on that point. I think it unfortunate we no longer have a Gros picture; either the Eylau or Jaffa ones are really much close than the Prudhom we have now, and also similar in scale, which is very relevant. Johnbod (talk) 21:40, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
I readded the Gros detail..he was an important source...Modernist (talk) 22:05, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I left the images to be positioned - I'd run out of steam by then. I think the Prud'hon is important, very clear comparision, and the text justifies it. There is a Gros in the Position in art history section. Is there a case for galleries in this article? More studies could be included: there are some excellent ones at Commons:Category:The_Raft_of_the_Medusa, though the source of some is not detailed properly. Also more images for Influences and Legacy. Ty 03:57, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I'd run out of steam by then. Ahh. Good work nonethe less and thanks. Ceoil (talk) 15:05, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
My position on galleries is well known...I go there to see art..:) If a small gallery can be added, (I think they are efficient ways to see the work)...I have no objection...but hopefully the text will support any inclusions with sources and refs..Modernist (talk) 04:07, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
All of the sketches in that commons category with a somewhat bluish tint are from ARTstor. Just to clarify.. Lithoderm 06:16, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

cannibalism sketch[edit]

The one Lithoderm has added from a book seems to be the same as the one from the Louvre I referred to lower down, which is #236 of the Joconde Gericault items. They have a sharper if rather less dramatic shot of it. They acquired it only in 2004, which no doubt accounts for the discrepancy. I will just amend the caption for now, but perhaps the picture should be moved down to that passage. Johnbod (talk) 21:36, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

There seems to be tendancy for moving the pics to the head of the sections regardless of weather they are welcome or useful there or not. Images should be placed next to the relevant text; if recommended by the MOS guidelines or not. Ceoil (talk) 21:47, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Number of images[edit]

Do we need two Delacroix's? I think the text to images ratio is too low at this stage and would like to trim. We are spoiled for choice. Thoughs? Ceoil (talk) 21:57, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I think we are ok...I like the two, and I think we are at the right number now..Modernist (talk) 22:19, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Children's book[edit]

"Reviews favoured the painting, which also stimulated plays, poems, performances and a children's book."--- That seems like a sentence in need of a citation. A children's book would be the farthest thing from my mind when considering this painting. (Unless it were the Struwwelpeter....) Lithoderm 04:39, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Eh? Cite no. 48 immediately follows the sentence. Check it out. Ty 05:25, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
In a newspaper of 1842 we even find a serialized version for children, "Tales of Shipwreck. Grandfather Felix Tells About the Wreck of the Medusa."....I'll add the ref..Modernist (talk) 05:02, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Thats the one I just added...Modernist (talk) 05:29, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Slight mistake. The refs have shifted. It was already ref'd by current cite no. 49 which applies to the whole para. Ty 06:07, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Well, the newer one is more specific, at least. Sorry about that. Lithoderm 06:14, 9 January 2009 (UTC)


I think this reads better: The decision was made by the captain and the 400 aboard to abandon ship and to try to make the African coast 60 miles away.Modernist (talk) 22:39, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Good work copyediting there. Ceoil (talk) 13:27, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Triangle diagram[edit]

version 6. The painting is based on two pyramidal shapes.

Version 1. Per [10]. Are they in the right place etc? Yellow spot is the ship - otherwise no one will know where it is. Ty 07:50, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

  • I'd have made the one on the right bigger - starting at the top of the head of the rag-waver, & wider at the sides, and I think the one on the left equilateral, by reducing the left side, touching the head of the sitting figure. But one can't be too precise about these things. Johnbod (talk) 12:49, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Version 2 on the left. Two equilateral triangles of the same size + new improved bigger yellow spot! Ty 13:38, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
I prefer version 2, it's almost self explanatory..good job..Modernist (talk) 13:44, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Version 3 follows the line of the mast, but I think version 2 looks better. Ty 14:31, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I prefer first version, in which the mast is used to reinforce one side of the left triangle --I don't think the triangles need to cover the entire areas indicated, nor be the same size and shape. Question: are colored triangles preferable to same shapes indicated with dotted lines? JNW (talk) 14:49, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
They are very much preferable if you don't know how to do dotted lines in photoshop! Ty 14:53, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

This is the text: "The painting is constructed upon two pyramidal structures. The perimeter of the large mast on the left of the canvas forms the first. The horizontal grouping of dead and dying figures in the foreground forms the base from which the survivors emerge, surging upward towards the emotional peak, where the central figure waves desperately at a rescue ship. The viewer's attention is first drawn to the centre of the canvas, then follows the directional flow of the survivors' bodies, viewed from behind and straining to the right.[1] Two diagonal lines are used to heighten the dramatic tension. One follows the mast and its rigging and leads the viewer's eye towards an approaching wave that threatens to engulf the raft, while the second, composed of reaching figures, leads to the distant silhouette of the Argus, the ship that eventually rescued the survivors."

It's not very clear, and I don't understand it. There doesn't seem to be a second pyramidal structure. Then we get two diagonal lines. What are they about? "One follows the mast and its rigging"? That's three lines, not one. Are the diagonal lines part of the pyramidal structures, or something in addition? Could it be version 4 that is right?

Ty 14:51, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Some copy editing might be necessary. One can gather from the text that the two pyramids are explained -- "One follows the mast and its rigging and leads the viewer's eye towards an approaching wave that threatens to engulf the raft, while the second, composed of reaching figures, leads to the distant silhouette of the Argus, the ship that eventually rescued the survivors." -- but maybe this can be clarified. The last version is an improvement, methinks. I don't know how to photoshop, period, so all efforts are appreciated! JNW (talk) 15:00, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Ceoil wrote the text, we probably need clarification from him as to what he meant exactly. I still like the second version which demonstrates the double pyramid composition immediately. Although from the text there seems to be overlap like the last version...Modernist (talk) 15:22, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
JWN, if you could copy edit thoes sentences that would be great. I dont have a very precise eye, and struggled with the para. For my monie, version 2 looks best. Ceoil (talk) 01:08, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Ceoil, I'm hesitant to go into that passage, because some of it's cited, some not, so I'm unsure what to mess with, or if some of what's already there is OR. By the way, I haven't helped much on this article for a while--between you, Modernist, Tyrenius, Johnbod, Lithoderm, etc, it's in great hands. JNW (talk) 05:07, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
The problem may be that a 2d shape (triangle) is used to illustrate a 3d shape (pyramid) which makes it unclear (as you naturally want some symmetry in the shapes which you get here in three dimensions but not in two). The edges of the first pyramid are the rigging and the mast and the imaginary lines between them on the deck, and the second pyramid is composed of the bodies topped by the waving man, so version 4 is correct. It might be clearer if you put the hidden edges in as dotted lines or shaded the faces if such advanced photoshoppery is within anybody's abilities. Yomanganitalk 16:16, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Version 4 also includes reaching figures in the lower right corner and so I think is too too wide. See the quoted text here[11]. However overall this will be a great addition once it is agreed on. Ceoil (talk) 01:12, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
I think the diagonal (how you can have a "horizontal diagonal" I don't know) leading from the dead to the living is a separate aspect to the pyramids. Version 2 is very 2-dimensional: the red triangle there is very much a triangle rather than a indication of a pyramid. Version 4 might benefit from having the blue triangle brought to the front, as the second pyramidal structure is the stronger. Yomanganitalk 02:11, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
@:how you can have a "horizontal diagonal" I don't know. Now that you mention it, hmm. Should we loose the quote, although it seemed so plausable at the time. Ceoil (talk) 02:26, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
As it is a quote, I'd let it stand. The idea is sound even if the description isn't. Yomanganitalk 10:11, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Pyramids have sprung forth in versions 5 and 6. They are a bit wonky, perspective-wise, as Gericault wasn't very good at drawing pyramids. They follow the lines on the painting... Ty 03:09, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Too much geometry. Getting dizzy. JNW (talk) 05:07, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
It's the turps that does it, JNW! I think version 6 is what the text means, and the pyramid structure can be seen. Ty 05:11, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Now that you mention it: after the AFD imbroglio I started today, I ran off and painted...lots of medium, little ventilation... JNW (talk) 05:32, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
6 Rocks..Modernist (talk) 05:13, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
What Modernist said (JNW's turps-induced criticism notwithstanding). Yomanganitalk 10:11, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
I think 6 is best, though to be ultra-picky I'd start the right one higher (as in 2) & extend both sides a bit to take in the woman's head to the left, & the bumps of backs to the right. Or leave it! Johnbod (talk) 15:51, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Woman? Yomanganitalk 16:16, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Sorry - the guy in drag (or Arab fancy-dress) :) Johnbod (talk) 16:19, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Now now, calm down; there are no women on the internet, Yomangani, don't get all excited. I've moved 6 onto the main page anyhow. Great work with this, Ty and all. Ceoil (talk) 21:25, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Excellent! JNW (talk) 21:28, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Numbers could be clearer[edit]

Not having a book on the actual event to hand I'm a bit confused about the numbers and have a couple of questions. The article says there were 15 survivors but that Géricault depicts 20 figures: 5 more than in reality including 2 extra corpses.

  1. Only 19 figures are immediately obvious. The vague smudge on the sail is supposed to be one? Or is the 20th figure supposed to be sat next to the man with his head in hands? (as perhaps claimed by in Hagen and Hagen - I don't see that reference there: "Two of the raft's ten survivors are seen in shadow at the foot of the mast;", could it be made clearer?). The deterioration of the picture probably makes this less clear than when first exhibited, but it is hard to track down number 20. One of the preparatory sketches shows a vaguely head-shaped object at the bottom of the mast but that's the closest I can come to number 20.
  2. Which are the two "extra" corpses? 5 of the figures look fairly kaput, but if only the 2 hideously white ones are dead then this is "two corpses" rather than "two extra corpses" or "two more corpses". The article says "A number of bodies litter the foreground, waiting to be swept away by the surrounding waves" though, so we are implying that those are all dead which makes the numbers funny again. Basically, I'm asking how many bodies were recorded on the raft at the time of rescue and how many of the bodies in the picture are corpses. Yomanganitalk 14:19, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Data taken from the source, which says, "Géricault ... added two historically incorrect corpses. A total of twenty figures occupy Géricault's raft, five more than reality's".[12] Ours not to reason why. According to Rupert Christiansen then, reality had 15 figures; Gericault had 20 figures. I take it that the 2 corpses are historically incorrect, as there were no dead bodies on the raft at the time of discovery. The other figures then would be dying, rather than actually dead. Ty 00:52, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not a big fan of regurgitating sources without question, especially when we contradict them in the article (We also have Muther claiming that most of the men are naked when they are mostly semi-clothed). Perhaps we could reword the bit about the corpses to lose the numbers and swap the detail of "two dying figures"-one of those has surely got to be one of Christian's corpses and we refer to him as dead later-for the one further up on this page showing the Argus (which is harder for the casual viewer to make out). As for the twenty figures, can anybody see number twenty or find another source that says there are twenty? I'd hate to see a miscount immortalised on the page. Yomanganitalk 10:33, 14 January 2009 (UTC)


No disrespect to George Cooke, but despite his having made a copy of the Raft, is there consensus that he belongs in the opening alongside Manet, Turner, etc.? JNW (talk) 22:41, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, I was only dimly aware of the long running JNW vs George Cook dispute; very interesting ;) No your right, will remove from lead. Ceoil (talk) 22:49, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Alright, I'll come clean: He stole a commission from me, then he stole my woman. And my horse. If ever I find the man... JNW (talk) 22:51, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
I agree, I left him in there against my better judgment..but I didn't know he stole your horse and your woman, should've put him on a raft! Modernist (talk) 22:56, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Yes. And I really miss the horse. Sniff. JNW (talk) 22:58, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
How effective are internet based possies? I have seven reasonalby ruthless socks (dont tell anybody), and a bunch of meat puppets just around the corner. I dont see much noise from Cook at the moment. Easy. Ceoil (talk) 23:15, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Just keep a watchful eye, ya never know...Modernist (talk) 23:20, 13 January 2009 (UTC)


Homage/Pastiche in Asterix. A small subtly-worded addition to the Legacy section might help fend off the addition of "In popular culture" later on. Yomanganitalk 10:44, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that will be enough. It's also featured on album covers[13] and elsewhere.[14] Ty 11:00, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
"Re-enacted with supermodels". But Ceoil told me there are no women on the internet. Yomanganitalk 14:14, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
You can also check out "The Raft of George W. Bush". (Not that I would want to see that in the article, mind you). Lithoderm 05:55, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Five or Six[edit]

According to this [15] there were six, if another ref says five then please change it. I'm gonna return to six otherwise...Modernist (talk) 12:47, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Give me a few minutes, just trying to work out whether it is five or six. Savigny is all over the place with them. Yomanganitalk 12:51, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
OK, if its five then change the lead too...Modernist (talk) 12:54, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
No, it was six. Counted them myself and found a little sketch, sorry about that. Yomanganitalk 13:05, 14 January 2009 (UTC)


There does seem to have been a carpenter on the raft:[16]

"He also made numerous studies of the survivors such as the ship's carpenter, Lauillette, and Sauvigny and Correard" -- Jonathan Miles, The Wreck of the Medusa, first paperback edition, Grove/Atlantic, Inc., P. 176, ISBN 080214392x, ISBN 9780802143921. See Amazon search inside.

"The Raft is a tableau vivant: a living picture whose figures, drawn from contemporary events, re-enact the tragedy of the Medusa's castaways. Like Savigny, Correard, the carpenter Lavillette, and the sailor Jean Charles, they are waiting for the Argus ... Gericault made the fate of common men -- a surgeon, an engineer, a carpenter, a sailor -- the theme of his immense tableau."[17]

"In his studio he had Corréard, Savigny and the raft's carpenter help him build a scale model of the vessel"[18]

In fact there seem to have been at least two carpenters on the raft, but one, Dominque, "sided with the mutineers", which I think was a fatal mistake.

Ty 15:34, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Savigny says Lavillette was a "workman" (as was Dominque) and "ex-serjeant of the artillery". That's not to say that he wasn't a carpenter (workman on a wooden ship is likely to be chiefly a carpenter), but assigning him the role of "raft's carpenter" sounds a little like an official role, as if he was assigned to the raft as a carpenter in case repairs were necessary, which is what I was trying to avoid. I've reworded to use his name instead. What do you think? Yomanganitalk 16:00, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Per NPOV it would be incorrect not to follow the source. There's nothing to conflict with that, as far as I know. A carpenter is a workman. Miles says on p. 112 and p. 142 that Lavillette is "the workshop foreman". IIRC the carpenter(s) built the raft, so Lavillette would be the raft's carpenter, i.e. he constructed it. Ty 16:33, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm a bit lost as to what you mean by "Per NPOV it would be incorrect not to follow the source". Our former formulations left out his name, so didn't follow the sources exactly. I've merely replaced the term "raft's carpenter" with the more generic "carpenter" and/or his name, so only deviating from Christiansen and actually following the other sources more closely. Yomanganitalk 16:54, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
I just meant that if the source called him "the raft's carpenter" then so should we. But I'm not familiar with the other material, so I defer to any decision which takes wider sources into account. I didn't know what his name was before! Ty 11:43, 15 January 2009 (UTC)


Just in! Genuine portrait of the artist himself in 1816 now available at File:Théodore Géricault by Alexandre Colin 1816.jpg. Ty 15:53, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Auntie Alexandrine[edit]

The article doesn't mention Alexandrine. Was this a concious choice or just an omission? (Didn't want to add something if you've already discussed it and decided to leave her out). Yomanganitalk 02:33, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually I don't think she worked on the painting...although she worked on him. Maybe she should join the article on him...There isn't mention of their son or his uncle either..I don't think it would be helpful here.Modernist (talk) 03:52, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
The end of their affair is quite a popular explanation for his state of mind while producing the picture: the "mournful descent", and I've even seen parallels (albeit somewhat strained) drawn between Géricault and De Chaumereys in that they were both forced to abandon their dependants (I told you it was strained). I won't insist, but perhaps a passing mention? Something like: "Géricault, who had just been forced to break off an affair with his aunt, shaved his head and from November 1818 to July 1819 lived a disciplined monastic existence"? Yomanganitalk 09:58, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
How about just - "Géricault, had just been forced to break off a painful love affair, shaved his head and from November 1818 to July 1819 lived a disciplined monastic existence deeply immersed in his work." Modernist (talk)


I added the Homer...and I like it there, I think it's well placed..Modernist (talk) 23:48, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Good. Ceoil (talk) 02:29, 24 January 2009 (UTC)


According to what I've read he hadn't shown anything in the salon for several years and this painting was a considerably ambitious departure from anything he had done previously and this is a major work for a 27 year old, or for anyone, although he had submitted to the salon years before...Modernist (talk) 12:49, 26 January 2009 (UTC)


"...Géricault was influenced by the human pathos as expressed in such earlier works as Francisco Goya's The Third of May 1808..." Géricault could not have seen the painting.--Wetman (talk) 06:51, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

It's certainly unlikely he'd seen it. That sentence and the corresponding mention further down are a bit weaselly as they suggest he was influenced by those works while only stating that he was influenced by pathos. Perhaps we could reword them to break that implication. Yomanganitalk 08:29, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Bad phrasing & some conjecture I guess. Well spotted, gone now. Ceoil (talk) 23:13, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

The meaning of the verb "to embark"[edit]

"In June 1816, the French frigate Méduse embarked..."

Passengers and crew embark (meaning to go on board); ships themselves simply leave, sail or depart.PiCo (talk) 03:06, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

You're quite right- sorry, I think that was my copy edit. I have amended it. Petropoxy (Lithoderm Proxy) (talk) 07:38, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

The Pogues[edit]

Hi. Can someone add in a note that the painting was used for the cover of the Pogues' album "Rum, Sodomy and the Lash" with the musicians painted onto some of the figures? Cheers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:09, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

See WP:TRIVIA. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:14, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that should certainly be mentioned! Clevelander96 (talk) 03:14, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Independently of this conversation, I tried to add this, and User:SandyGeorgia removed it. I'm going to add it back.--Mike Selinker (talk) 04:06, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
No, please don't. See WP:TRIVIA, unless there are reliable third-party sources verifying this, trivia should not be included. Also, even if you do find a reliable source, integrate the information into existing sections rather than begin a new popular culture section; these are discouraged. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:20, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
I tried to integrate it into the text; User:SandyGeorgia deleted it. Then I tried to make it its own section. This is a well known album with a well known use of the painting. I understand about sourcing it. Does this page on the Pogues seem a reliable source to you?--Mike Selinker (talk) 04:30, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
This has absolutely nothing to do with this painting, and does not belong in this article..The Pogues can put it on their page. This article is about a great painting..Modernist (talk) 04:43, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Alright, how about adding this paragraph?

The painting has been parodied and imitated in many forms, among them on the cover of The New Yorker in the wake of Hurricane Katrina, in a panel of the comic book Asterix, and on the cover of Rum, Sodomy, and the Lash, an album by the Irish rock band The Pogues. The Pogues later paid homage to the painting with their song "The Wake of the Medusa".

Does that help put its modern appearances in context?--Mike Selinker (talk) 05:15, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Against adding 'in popular culture' and trivia sections, per Sandy Georgia, Dabomb87, and Modernist above. JNW (talk) 05:32, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Much as I like the album, I too am against the addition of a trivia/popular culture section. Kafka Liz (talk) 07:00, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Why don't we just add in The Raft of George W. Bush while we're at it?!? Best not to go down this path. Although, in a parallel case, the Viva La Vida reference is in the legacy section of Liberty Leading the People, we've had to remove it from Eugene Delacroix several times. Petropoxy (Lithoderm Proxy) (talk) 07:35, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

  • Why not include The Raft of George Bush? It speaks to the painting's continuing influence. But I see you all don't want such chocolate in your peanut butter, so I'll drop the subject.--Mike Selinker (talk) 13:29, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
It seems to me that in the case of the Raft of the Medusa and other very well-known works, imitative and derivative artworks are worthy at least of some mention. How about Andy Warhol's Mona Lisa, which is mentioned under a section titled "Legacy" in Mona Lisa? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Clevelander96 (talkcontribs) 18:27, April 10, 2009
Actually I don't agree. Although there are in my opinion certain iconic works that are so familiar those sorts of homages and parodies might merit mention. Works like American Gothic, Nighthawks, Christina's World, and the Mona Lisa seem to fit more easily into that category. Certainly Marcel Duchamp's treatment of the Mona Lisa merited attention...Modernist (talk) 18:48, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Speaking of chocolate:[19] The problem is that the album cover itself has not received recognition as an artwork in its own right- the article needs to cover the painting's substantial artistic legacy- its influence upon other artists, I mean. By that I mean their attempts to come to grips with the substance of the work and to adopt it to their own artistic goals. The album cover is a relatively small facet of a larger artwork, the album itself. It plays upon the recognizable appearance of the painting for the one line joke of inserting the musician's appearances into the painting. Had they created an album of songs inspired by Gericault's work, I might be more sympathetic to its inclusion. Petropoxy (Lithoderm Proxy) (talk) 19:28, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
I don't agree. How would inclusion of the album cover deepen our understanding of this painting? Is it a tribute to the painting's artistic legacy, or is it a superficial knockoff that has nothing to do with the artistic issues confronting Géricault? The Mona Lisa does have a status as an icon that is easily parodied or referenced, I think, because the painting itself is ambiguous. Therefore, those referencing or parodying it can work with somewhat of a blank slate, content-wise. The Raft of the Medusa is content heavy. Ripoffs do not, for the most part, demonstrate awareness of the painting's artistic features or it "legacy" in the art history sense. —Mattisse (Talk) 19:42, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Mattisse, the painting depicts a monstrous tragedy; human injustice; and desperation at its most scandalous and painful frontier...a serious subject discussed here at length; not easily lent to diluted and deluded spoofs...rather contemplate the painting..Modernist (talk) 19:49, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm sorry, the percieved tone of an article on wikipedia has never been a measure for what should be included within. Art, whether it be film, music or a painting of the relevance of The Raft of the Medusa should have a section about it's legacy and in this case, the painting's influence spans more than it's own field.  Red157  20:02, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
It already has an appropriate section about its legacy: see WP:TRIVIA and WP:NOT. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:04, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
And not every reference to an artwork merits inclusion. Most don't, for the good reasons enumerated above. Anyone want to have a crack at this [20]? Textbook example of the way in which trivia...trivializes. Echhh. JNW (talk) 20:15, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Per Mattisse and Modernist (I think Petropoxy is making a similar argument). The topic of the painting is human tragedy; the album cover is a sly and knowing dig at the habits of its musicians. Ceoil (talk) 20:34, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
I believe we should not make a judgment here as to whether the Pogues' parody is or isn't, is meritorious or a mere "knockoff." If there has been discussion of this parody by art critics or historians, or some external source makes a claim about its significance, we can simply reference it here; if not, then it would be original research to make our own claim of significance. Clevelander96 (talk) 20:46, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Which was exactly my argument... Petropoxy (Lithoderm Proxy) (talk) 20:51, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Believe me, the Pogues artwork, while clever to a degree, is low on the cultural scale comapared to the scholarly work and other painters influenced by the work who might also be included here. Are you serious. Ceoil (talk) 20:56, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
I might have made my OPPOSITION TO INCLUDING THE ALBUM COVER more clear had not someone else been waiting behind me to check their email- and it was his computer... I meant to contrast works of fine art that are based on the artist's reaction to and personal interpretation of the substance of the painting, as opposed to works of applied art that are insignificant outside of their relationship to another artwork that they decorate, and which play only upon the recognizability of the painting rather than its substance. Example: Homer's The Gulf Stream enters into a dialogue with the Raft of the Medusa, while the album cover graphic is cheaply photoshopped crap that would not be notable had it not appeared on an album cover, and therefore is important only in relation to the album. Perhaps some interpreted my statements about artistic influence as applying to the Pogues artwork: THEY DID NOT. Petropoxy (Lithoderm Proxy) (talk) 21:20, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
I may be wrong, but I don't think Ceoil's "are you serious" remark was directed at you, Lith. Kafka Liz (talk) 01:45, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
My bad. Comment was directed at Clevelander96; I was very much agreeing with and backing up Lith. I apologised for the misunderstanding on Liths talk. Ceoil (talk) 14:18, 12 April 2009 (UTC) Ceoil (talk) 08:22, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Exhibition in Dublin[edit]

This is a wonderful article -- but I am greatly surprised to find no reference to Bullock's exhibition of this painting in Dublin, just after its run at the Egyptian Hall in London -- this is mentioned in all the studies of the painting, and is especially significant since in Dublin it competed with the Marshalls' Panorama of the same subject. Clevelander96 (talk) 03:13, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I have now added a reference to this in what I think is the appropriate spot. Clevelander96 (talk) 17:54, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks Clevelander. I hope there are no hard feelings about the Pogues from above...Ironically, all here seem to be fairly serious Pogue fans! Strange or wha' Ceoil (talk) 14:20, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
Seconding Ceoil's sentiments re: the Pogues--I'm a sucker for 'Fairytale of NY'--and for the addition of the Dublin exhibition. JNW (talk) 16:23, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
Agreed on both points! Johnbod (talk) 17:11, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Peach black[edit]

Was one of the colors that Gericault used really peach black, not pitch-black? If it's correct, then please excuse my ignorance. — Kpalion(talk) 14:55, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Peach Black is correct: [21]...Modernist (talk) 15:21, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Interesting; I would have never associated peaches with black. I managed to find a little information about it on Google... It appears to be made from (burned?) peach stones and it's "a mild black pigment with a tendency to green". Too bad we don't have an article about this color. — Kpalion(talk) 16:58, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
We do now! Barely a stub now; feel free to add more. In fact, please do! Matt Deres (talk) 17:32, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Great, I added a link tothe page.... Ceoil (talk) 17:41, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks! Matt Deres (talk) 17:54, 10 April 2009 (UTC)


original GIF image
new PNG image 3KB

The Gif image was originally in the article, and was changed to the Png, which I reverted on the basis that it had changed the colours. This was reverted in turn by a different user with the edit summary, "Rv - the images are completely identical. If they look different to you, it is your computer." They certainly do look different to me, so I wonder if it is my computer and if they are in fact "identical". [22] The most obvious difference is the top left square, which is decidedly darker for me in the Png. The top right square is not as yellow (i.e. not a yellow ochre). Colours in the Png are generally duller. Ty 02:05, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

In my computer they look very, very similar, I don't see a difference. Maybe the ping is more dense but they are really close...Modernist (talk) 02:13, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
What gamma is your screen set to? See test diagram links near the bottom of this page. Ty 02:32, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
If I've done it correctly, 1.79...Modernist (talk) 02:44, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

The options are:

Please choose a target gamma from the following list:
Gamma 1.4
Gamma 1.6
Gamma 1.8
Gamma 2.0
Gamma 2.2
Gamma 2.4

Mac is 1.8. PC is 2.2. "A compromise value of 2.0, midway between the Mac and the PC, is probably a good choice if you're preparing images solely for web publishing." I have a setting of 2.0. Ty 02:53, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I have a Mac 1.8 makes sense...Modernist (talk) 02:56, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
The difference is more pronounced on a PC setting of 2.2 gamma, not so much at 1.8. Ty 03:16, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I've uploaded a new PNG image of 3KB, which is exactly the same as the GIF. The first PNG image was 1KB and had to compromise on the colour because the file size wasn't big enough. Ty 03:48, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

The above remarks apply to Firefox as a browser. I've tested in Internet Explorer, and the problem doesn't occur. Ty 16:19, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Raft project[edit]

Notable or no?

In the early 90's, sculptor John Connell, in his Raft Project, [23] a collaborative project with painter Eugene Newmann, recreated The Raft of the Medusa by making life-sized sculptures out of wood, paper and tar and placing them on a large wooden raft. ARTnews, Summer 1993.

I don't think this is notable partially because it no longer exists, as far as I know; however other opinions are welcome...Modernist (talk) 15:32, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Given the statement's relative brevity, I think it is a valuable addition. Anyone can take a couple of seconds to click on John Connell, and while this work itself may not be extant (I'll take your word for it), quickly see what kind of artist, doing what kind of a work, has so explicitly paid artistic homage to the work. The criterion should not be the notability of Connell as compared to Winslow Homer et al., but the fact that he's a notable author who has done something with the Raft in our time that's so distinctly different from the rest of the "legacy" discussed here. In short, if the single sentence is restored, readers' impression of the work's ongoing life will be healthily broadened. (P.S. "rv imo nn" seems a bit harshly laconic to me: "seems to me" was my polite way of saying "this is clearly notable and importance," and the notability derives from the fact that John Connell has an article.) Wareh (talk) 16:52, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
I have an open mind, lets get some other opinions on the inclusion...Modernist (talk) 17:22, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Fair enough Wareh, you argument for inclusion is good enough. If Modernist is ok with it I'm ok. Bty, do you have any photoes of the work? Ceoil 17:38, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks - open minds are refreshing around here. Great work on the featured articles, by the way. Wareh (talk) 20:29, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Earlier I added this photo:[24]...Modernist (talk) 17:55, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Ta. Might be a streach for FU. Ceoil 18:12, 3 January 2011 (UTC)


The parody (if that's the right word) in Asterix is certainly notable. For example, this article about the painting discusses the Asterix use. StAnselm (talk) 21:31, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Notability is a concept that applies to article subjects, not aspects within articles. Not everything that can be referenced belongs in an article. Loads of stuff like this has been cleared out already. You're welcome to start "RotM in popular culture" from the history. We don't even have Julian Barnes's extended piece. Johnbod (talk) 21:35, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
Call it "significant" then. The thing is, this is something that is discussed in secondary literature on the painting. If Andrew Graham-Dixon sees fit to talk about Asterix when he writes about the painting, why shouldn't this article include it? StAnselm (talk) 21:39, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
As AGD says just above, there are thousands of cartoon parodies. We don't include every other work mentioned by every critic, here or anywhere. Most criticism manages to get by without mentioning Asterix, or the album covers etc etc. You are up to 3 reverts now so be careful. Johnbod (talk) 21:44, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
We do not add every parody of famous works of art, start another article if you have to: Parodies of famous artworks...Modernist (talk) 21:47, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Infobox pic query[edit]

Someone has changed the infobox pic from one of 354 KB to one of 9.54 MB, which is certainly better, but may be too big for those with mobile/slow connections. Should we perhaps leave as is, but also link to a "lower res image", or change back, with a link to "higher res image"? Johnbod (talk) 17:41, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

It's a great reproduction but at 9.54 MB impracticable, and would be in favour of a higher res link. Ceoil (talk) 21:53, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
How big should we go for the low res, or the high res? There's one at 4.19 MB that's pretty good. Johnbod (talk) 00:32, 6 May 2013 (UTC)


The French name of this work is simply not used in English. Kindly do not bold it as though it were. — LlywelynII 09:30, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference Boime142 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).