Talk:The Wrestlers (Etty)

Thoughts

Very nice! Is there any more on Etty's usual male forms, as here - shortish and thick-set with lots of muscle? Very un-Greek, and un-French. Johnbod (talk) 14:26, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

From Alison Smith's The Victorian Nude, which I tend to treat as the definitive source when they disagree:

[Etty's] male models were valued for their musculature, stamina and physique; many were pugilists or soldiers such as Guardsman Higgins, reputed to have been the artist's favourite model. The studies Etty executed from these men are powerful and individual, and would suggest a mutual respect between artist and sitter. [...] Male models came from the lower classes but their bodies were frequently compared to the classical heroes, in contrast to female models, whose low social status was seen to conflict with the high cultural status of the mythological figures they were required to emulate.

— The Victorian Nude, Alison Smith (1996) p.25

This was the golden age of boxing (team sports only came into fashion once the lawnmower—invented in 1830—made preparing pitches practical), and the short, squat boxing physique was seen as the ideal—the Georgians saw the fact that these features were more pronounced in English men than in classical sculpture or Vitruvius as proof that Britain had left the renaissance behind and overtaken the ancients for the first time. If you dig out Pierce Egan's Boxiana (it's bound to be on Project Gutenberg or Google Books somewhere) you'll find more ruminations on the matter than you ever wanted to read. – iridescent 15:18, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Looking good so far, though I have only given it a skim. Do the measurements need to be in the opening sentence of the lead? It seems a bit awkward as placed. Kafka Liz (talk) 15:36, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Normally they'd be in the infobox, but this series intentionally doesn't have infoboxes; this one is something of an exception but most Etty paintings have a lot of fiddly detail so the lead image needs to be as large as possible. I've tried on all of them to put the information that would normally go in the box into the first line (title, artist, medium, year, dimensions); it's as much for insurance against overzealous box-pushers as anything else as it prevents them using their usual "it makes the information more easily available to the reader" schtick. The dimensions could go in the caption instead (cf. The Sirens and Ulysses for instance), but I find that equally ugly. – iridescent 19:06, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough. Might we put it into parentheses, i.e., "painted c. 1840 (m. X x Y cm/ X x Y inches), and now hangs..." or something like that? Kafka Liz (talk) 19:49, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

I've changed my mind and moved it into the image caption, where it's obvious to the viewer but less obtrusive. (Incidentally, the rush is off on this article as Preparing for a Fancy Dress Ball is now the one being hot-hothoused to get it ready in time for the gallery reopening; that one will be on display and this one won't.) – iridescent 20:14, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

This reads better, though I agree that it's less visually appealing. Shall I have a look at the other, then? I'm out for the evening soon but would be happy to focus there tomorrow, if you'd like. Kafka Liz (talk) 20:21, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

No rush—provided it gets through FAC by mid-July it should be fine. I don't anticipate any issues with Fancy Dress Ball, although given its newness there are still a few rough spots round the edges. – iridescent 20:35, 13 June 2015 (UTC)