Talk:Three Studies for Figures at the Base of a Crucifixion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Featured article Three Studies for Figures at the Base of a Crucifixion 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 August 9, 2007.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
May 11, 2007 Peer review Reviewed
May 25, 2007 Featured article candidate Promoted
Current status: Featured article
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.
 
WikiProject London (Rated FA-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject London, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of London 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 project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Dimension[edit]

The dimension of the work "Three Studies for Figures at the Base of a Crucifixion" by Francis Bacon, 1944, Oil and pastel on board is 37 × 29 inches, 940 × 737 mm, not "37 × 29 cm, 940 × 737 inches".71.231.58.74 06:42, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Possible misquotation[edit]

First, I have to say it was a pleasure to read such a strong, scholary article here. I float around Wikipedia copyediting, but I put down my pencil a few sentences into your piece, whoever you are. There is one thing, though: In the section "Critical reception," (right, I'm an American) Russel is quoted as saying "images so unrelievedly awful that the mind snap shut at the sight of them." Ordinary usage would have that "snaps shut." I would correct it myself but for fear that he was using the subjunctive somehow. Milkbreath 23:32, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Probabaly your right. I'll go back to the source and adjust as necessary. Ceoil 15:18, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
Hi Milkbreath: As "Ceoil's copyeditor", thank you. –Outriggr § 02:34, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
It's a joke for sure but not an intentional one. As far as what "art" is, the modernist answer to that is "anything that the creator calls art." Art doesn't require talent these days you see-- just a few blobs of color and a moderately plausible explanation of what it means (usually figured out after its been made.) At least it's slightly better than a Pollock or a de Kooning. 75.180.33.117 14:43, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
One day I intend to just drop 10 differant colors of paint buckets on a huge canvas, smear them around a little bit, and try to form a duck in the middle of it. Then I'll call it something ridiciulasly long like "A peach tree lost inside the webbing of the dark duck's forgotton foot." After that I'll pretend there's some deep meaning behind it, make up this whole backstory, and in a century I'll be a decorated artist! I can see it now! TheJudge310 17:40, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Work away, nothing is stopping you. I´m sure the millions will roll in. Ceoil 21:51, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
TheJudge310, I represent a consortium of art buyers and sellers (Vandalay's Art Industries) willing to apprentice you in the techniques of splashing oil on canvas. Your backstory will be as follows: "I was approached by a consortium of art buyers and sellers on Wikipedia who noticed my ability to keenly critique art I'd only ever viewed in a 300-pixel by 300-pixel format on a computer screen. We went down to Home Depot, bought some NHL Team Colors paint, and the next thing you know, I had developed synesthesia. The colors of the Mighty Ducks became to me the pizzicatos of a Schubert bassoon sonata and the triumphant buglings of an elephant-hippopotamus cross rolling in a Kalahari Hilton mudbath. All of this is expressed in my first work, Sailing the Seas of Cheese. They told me I would do for the Gothic vegan market what Thomas Kinkade had done for God." –Outriggr § 04:02, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Sounds like we have ourself a deal! But do I have to use Mighty Duck colors? I think it may conflict with the fuck I already had planned. TheJudge310 22:02, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
You have to use Mighty Duck colors. A deal is a deal, Duck; beware, Outriggr is a vengeful art buyer and seller. You are now in, and there is no easy way of getting out. I'm sure your next fifty years splaying 10 differant colors of paint buckets will be rewarding; and anyway chicks love that kind of thing. Ceoil 22:22, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Please contact me at the URL below. I think I can help with this project, as I am the exclusive agent in Europe for the well-known Dutch artist, Utt TerRubbisch 95.149.54.104 (talk) 09:37, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

So why is there no picture of this on the main page? is it too graphic?[edit]

Subject. Brownstone999 18:27, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

No, because it is copyrighted. See the resulting discussion at Talk:Main Page#Fair use image on the main page?. 17Drew 03:33, 10 August 2007 (UTC)