Talk:The Raft of the Medusa/Archive 1

Archive 1

Additional image

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)

• 
  Painter's grave.
• 
  A study.
• 
  Another study.
• 
  Oil sketch for the painting, in situ.
• 
  A brighter version of the painting.

Insanity, plague, and corpses

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

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. 86.45.151.126 (talk) 03:07, 25 December 2008 (UTC) (Ceoil on a windows 95 computer that keeps on logging me out)

A detail would be preferabale. 86.45.151.126 (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)

Influence

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)

http://www.westcollection.org/West_Collection/Remastered.html 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)

Thoughts

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 section...no?...Modernist (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." 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 done...as 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 history....as 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 mainstream...as 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)

References

Question

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

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

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.

- 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 RS..here is an interesting link [8] as an aside...Modernist (talk) 19:34, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Image of colours used

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

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

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)