Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/"The Raven", Édouard Manet's illustrations

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

"The Raven", Édouard Manet's illustrations[edit]


Reason
It is really special to locate a complete set of illustrations by a major artist for a famous piece of literature. In 1875 Édouard Manet, a leading French impressionist, made a series of lithographs for a translation of Edgar Allan Poe's "The Raven". The Library of Congress owns a first edition in excellent condition and has scanned at high resolution. Restored from File:Raven Manet B.jpg, File:Raven Manet C.jpg, File:Raven Manet D.jpg, and File:Raven Manet E.jpg.
Articles this image appears in
"The Raven", Édouard Manet, Edgar Allan Poe
Creator
Édouard Manet
  • Support as nominator --Durova327 04:01, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment ...Isn't the last one upsidedown? Shoemaker's Holiday Over 213 FCs served 05:17, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment Yeah, based on the signature. I can see how the mistake was made though. _Nezzadar__ 05:23, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
  • See the upload notes and the original publication, which is linked from the hosting file. The printer ran it that way. If you find a source that says the printer did so without Manet's consent, then would gladly rotate. It would be original research to surmise that this was accidental: for all we know it was an intentional piece of artist's wit. Durova327 13:39, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Conditional Normal Support Yeah, when the upside down one is fixed, I'll support fully. _Nezzadar__ 05:23, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Support Manet's lithographs and its first edition with fine restoration, high educational values, so what else could make me hesitated for promoting the fine illustrations? :-) As for the upside down signature in question, I don't think we should apply a sort of "political correctness" to the print without knowing what was the artist and publisher's intention at that time. As we know, Manet explored various artistic adventures that shook the convention at that time. Even if we can get "second" or other editions" of the book, or analysis that shows the original print could be en error, I don't think the original images should be corrected. I see no problem as it is.--Caspian blue 14:52, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Support High EV. All evidence points to the current orientation of the last image. — Jake Wartenberg 21:43, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
    • Comment What "evidence" is this. Clearly the raven is in the shadow of the figure standing near the chair. It's basic symbolism, in that the raven has become part of the narrators persona due to his damaged mental state. Besides, why draw a chair upside down. It doesn't add up. _Nezzadar__ 00:03, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
      • Just read the response above by Durova. Man Poe was f--ked up. Ah well. Per WP:SNOW I'll withdraw the request for rotation, but I still can't fathom why it would be placed upsided down, because it is upside down... _Nezzadar__ 00:07, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
        • The narrator of the poem is grieving the death of the woman he wanted to marry, and the bird's presence brings him close to nervous collapse. It's possible that the artist and/or printer wished to suggest vertigo with the final image. If any source states that the orientation was a printer error then of course we can correct that immediately. But without a source to say whether this was accidental or deliberate, the NOR choice is to use the book's orientation and note it in the caption and file hosting page. Durova327 05:37, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Support per nominator. Mostlyharmless (talk) 08:16, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment As per Occam's razor, I think a decision to display the image upside down, in the absence of any proof that this was anyone's intention, is at least as flawed as a decision to revert the image to the orientation indicated by the signature. While I have no particular interest in this nomination, I feel compelled not to let this become a precedent for a misapplication of WP:NOR. The most parsimonious explanation here is that it's a simple mistake - anything else requires invoking more complicated properties, intentions, or circumstances that cannot be substantiated one way or the other. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 17:18, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
    • It's a question of whether to cross the WP:NOR line. We know how it appeared but not why. So what we can do without original research is to display the image as it appeared in publication and note the discrepancy. If anyone locates a secondary source that comments upon the orientation then we could treat that as definitive. Durova331 21:03, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
      • If we are going to start quoting razors, I call upon Hanlon's razor to explain why the image was placed upside down in the book in first place.   Nezzadar    22:09, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Support, these images seem to be adding a lot to the article as a set. In some ways, I would prefer to see the original illustrations rather than a later set. I am strongly inclined to agree with Durova as to the upside-down-yness of the last image- it's not our place to make normative judgements about what images should have looked like. J Milburn (talk) 00:03, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Support, per J Milburn. Mostlyharmless (talk) 04:37, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Support; they all look good. NW (Talk) 03:18, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Promoted set --Staxringold talkcontribs 20:20, 24 October 2009 (UTC)