Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/September Morn

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

September Morn[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 26 Sep 2014 at 06:00:42 (UTC)

OriginalSeptember Morn is a painting by the French artist Paul Émile Chabas (1869–1937) which caused controversy after it was displayed in Chicago. The city's mayor, Carter Harrison, Jr., charged the gallery with indecency, and later anti "vice" crusader Anthony Comstock targeted it.
High resolution of a notable painting, perhaps the artist's best known. A scandal, 'twas.
Articles in which this image appears
September Morn, Paul Émile Chabas, Harry Reichenbach, Succès de scandale
FP category for this image
Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Artwork/Paintings
Paul Émile Chabas
  • Support as nominator –  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:00, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Support, though, honestly? It's actually pretty tasteful. Adam Cuerden (talk) 06:06, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose, the subject is too young for the image to be decent by modern standards. Some common-sense discretion surely advisable here. Are we also to feature the more provocative of Balthus' paintings for example? In making this oppose I exercise my right to make an oppose clearly stating a reason. I'm not prepared to debate it. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 07:36, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
  • "the subject is too young for the image to be decent by modern standards" - You better not watch any diaper commercials, then. About the same degree of nudity. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:00, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
  • When I said I wouldn't debate the issue, I didn't mean I wouldn't respond to pointed criticism. The issue here is that this is nominated as a "featured" image. I'm not familiar with nappy advertisements, but if an image of such an advertisement was nominated here which inappropriately eroticized its subject (which I do think is unlikely, but I defer to your expertise), then I would oppose it too while at the same time supporting its appearance in, say, an encyclopaedic article about nappy advertisements. You know very well I'm not a prude, as I took time to annotate a series of Japanese erotic prints you uploaded to Commons at my suggestion. I resent that you don't respect my right to take a discreet position on a matter of principle as I seek to without mocking me. It's doubly surprising because as you know I vehemently objected to your digital restoration of an image of Manet's Olympia, where you warmed the flesh tone in a way that Manet absolutely did not intend or would have countenanced and whose only aesthetic purpose can have been to eroticize the image. Unspoken there regarding my distaste, was the age of the subject. It's well known that Manet's subject was deliberately more girl like than adult. That was a significant element in the uproar his painting caused. In those days the age of menarche of working class girls was about fifteen and a half. Street girls starting a life of prostitution typically around the age of fourteen had barely, if at all, entered puberty, and that is deliberately reflected in Manet's painting. Your clearly inappropriate image found its way to Wikipedia's front page. I would prefer not see this one too. Not on my account. Standards do change you know. You're an ex-pat Brit I take it, who no doubt has heard of Samantha Fox. Directly she had turned sixteen years old, she appeared topless as a page 3 model for the Sun newspaper in 1983 (the by-line was "Sam gives up 'A' levels for 'Ooh' levels", which was certainly amusing to say nothing of her enormous tits of course). The point is that following later amendments to the 1976 Protection of Children Act, that publication would now be illegal, indeed merely to purchase a copy of it also illegal, as the bright line for nudity was set at eighteen years of age.
I don't believe I can have anything more to contribute here. I trust I have satisfied your circle here that my opposition is neither frivolous nor a troll. Mock on. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 13:34, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
You're not thinking. The article is about the painting so there's no alternative image we can use. We're here to evaluate the EV and quality of an image in relation to FP standards - not those of your decency and morals. We're not in the business of painting fig leaves. As it stands, I hope you reconsider your vote in light of the purpose of the project (whether or not it has to appear on the main page is an issue for POTD not one to be settled in the FPC queue. To be sure there are some featured images which are considered distasteful and won't end up on the main page). I think it would be reasonable for the closer to ignore this vote as it has nothing to do with the criteria or standards used here. (talk) 15:56, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Good resolution and directly sourced to Metmuseum. The oppose vote above is amusing: how do you know she's "too young"? That's OR, unless a reliable source would say she's under 18 or something like that, but even then such an argument hardly substantiates an oppose in my view. Brandmeistertalk 08:52, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Support, I also think it is a tasteful depiction and was interested to read about the controversy it caused; it's an attractive piece of artwork and I have no problem supporting the nomination. SagaciousPhil - Chat 09:07, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Support — Iconic, and certainly not prurient. Sca (talk) 15:05, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. I don't think it's overtly sexual, personally. Like a lot of good art, it leaves the artist's intention and message to the imagination of the viewer. And I also don't think it's obvious that the girl is 'too young'. It's of course hard to judge the age of a fictitious girl though. I mean, there are strong arguments that the Statue of David depicts an underage boy too. Let's not be puritanical about art - it's very different to the abuse of a real child. Unless it could be demonstrated that viewing the image could be illegal, I don't think we really have any moral arguments for prohibiting the featuring of it. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 15:08, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Question Going by the article, does that mean this was painted when the girl was 15 and thus underage? --Muhammad(talk) 16:01, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
    • One of the sources I'm compiling on the talk page (forget which) says sixteen. However, as already mentioned above, this is a far cry from pornography (for some reason I can't find the criteria the US uses to define "underage" or "child pornography", though I remember one of them is sexual suggestiveness). Although some might consider the image questionable owing to the model's age, others (such as The New York Times, quoted here) called it "as delicate and innocent as it is beautiful", looking at the nudity as more artistic than pornographic. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:08, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
    • Here it is: Layperson's guide, The actual legal definitions) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:19, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment — The model Chabas used more than a century ago may have been 16, but this is not a photograph. The subject in the painting is of indeterminate age and looks to me like she might pass for a female in her early 20s. Further, no genitalia are pictured, and the breasts are depicted rather indistinctly, i.e. with discretion. Again, not prurient by current Western standards. Sca (talk) 16:27, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Support High encyclopedic value and high image quality. Chillum Need help? Type {{ping|Chillum}} 18:41, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment I think a number of you are being rather precious in discussing whether this image satisfies or not this or that other criteria for indecency. It's a question that after all has been debated with respect to nude images of young people on Wikipedia rather a lot in the past. In the end Mr. Wales himself had to step in and make a common sense ruling about the matter and delete the images. The common sense question about this image you should ask yourself is whether the image would gratify a paedophile and the answer is of of course yes it would. We do all know that now. Go on to any beach in the UK and start taking pictures of children and you run the risk of being arrested. Take an unsolicited picture of a nude young girl skinny dipping as you see depicted here and you certainly will be, if not lynched first. Now that of course doesn't mean images of this painting should be deleted from their articles. But it does mean that we should be sensitive in the matter of featuring it. It's not for nothing that this painting is not available for viewing at the Met. Similarly the Tate has removed its Ovendens from public display. I should think there are similar examples in many other museums. This one likewise needs to stay in the reserve collection. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 20:22, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Oh come now. Its not like this is Child Bride. Hell, this doesn't even have to be on the main page. I personally do not know what the issue is you're raising. GamerPro64 20:39, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Plenty of normal clothed images of children would potentially gratify a paedophile too, just as clothed images of adult women may gratify straight men. That's not the point at all. It's rather irrelevant who might get turned on by what. And why even bring up taking a photo of a young girl skinny dipping when it's pretty obvious that this is a painting and not a photo of a real girl and therefore not a fair comparison. Nobody is being taken advantage of here - there is no abuse victim. Finally, I think you're wrong that you'd get arrested for taking photos of children at a beach. You'd probably attract unwanted attention but under what law could you be arrested? There is no such law, and any attempt by the police to stop you would be probably limited to questioning you and making you feel uncomfortable about what is fundamentally legal. This and this makes for enlightening reading. It sounds like a law that you'd welcome, but the same common sense you refer to suggests it's a ridiculous and dangerous idea to suggest that anyone taking photos of children must be a paedophile and therefore committing a crime. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 21:17, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
  • I said "run the risk of" and that's absolutely correct in the sense that police have indeed been called out for that sort of thing. I really don't know whether arrests have been made or not. I should think Public Order 1986 would suffice. As a photographer, whose efforts here incidentally I have often lauded, you must surely know that any image of a child nominated FP on Commons will quite likely be rejected if there's no evidence of parental permission.Coat of Many Colours (talk) 23:53, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Point of order here: Wales was deleting any art that contained nudity, mainly paintings of adults. And had to give up his powers on Commons because of this. Let's not act like Wales' actions were at all noble. Adam Cuerden (talk) 22:42, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Pedophile — Let's see now, is that a lover of feet? Sca (talk) 21:29, 16 September 2014 (UTC) Smile eye.png
  • American spelling. 'Paedophilia' a neologism by Kraft- Ebbing who saw just half a dozen or so cases in his practice but nevertheless was able to differentiate between benign and pathological presentations. 'Paedophile' itself not a construct that appears before 1951. HTH. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 10:21, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Yes. This is the famous US Supreme Court ruling "evil lies in the eyes of the beholder". It sucks. 2% of us *are* evil. One in every street. End of. This is an image that needs to stay under the bed. Get real. Ask any mum. Last from me.Coat of Many Colours (talk) 23:53, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
  • (ec) Under US law this painting is also completely legal. The model's parents gave their consent, and were present when Chabas painted her (not in the article yet, but the... "Cold Shoulder", I believe... newspaper article on the talk page has this information). She is nude, but there is no "sexually explicit conduct" as defined by the US criminal code (linked above). For a more modern case, think Brooke Shields in Blue Lagoon. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:57, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Yes, but legality is not really the issue here as I stress. I'm not going to delve into the Graham Ovenden saga I quoted, his paintings are drop dead gorgeous but the fact is he's doing time for them, and he surely had parental permission. Egon Schiele, whose work I adore and upload to Commons (presently too drunk to locate mine amongst the hundreds uploaded, sorry) is another example. It's a question of taste. It's at the Met as you say, but it's not on view. Ask yourself why. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 00:26, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
  • "presently too drunk". Can we end this discussion right here for the time being? Because that is quite possibly one of the worst things one wants to hear about an editor on this site. GamerPro64 00:30, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
  • It's the terrible pain of living G. Honestly I can handle it. I also used to do a shit load of dope until the bastards closed down Silk Road (email me anyone if you know an alternative site). Meanwhile I took a deep breath, counted to 10 without inhaling, and found this one I uploaded. I will defend the right of this image not to be featured on Wikipedia to my dying breath. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 01:05, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
  • No idea. Pissed, sorry. If it comes back to me, I'll let you know.Coat of Many Colours (talk) 09:40, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Although I agree with Gamer's comment, I just want to note that the reason it's not on view is not necessarily owing to the model's age. Indeed, when it was first put into storage in 1971, the Milwaukee Journal gave "banality" as the reason. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:56, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Eleven years old in this discourse: "Current child-abuse studies reveal that in the lack of an object, paedophiles may gratify themselves with fantasies triggered by an illustration, and then may be spurred on to seek real equivalents to the image. This connection drawn between child imagery and paedophilia is not new. French physicians were documenting it as early as 1860. Amid comparable moral panic ignited by French natalists over the 'white slave trade' and girl-child pornography before the First World War, picturing the body before the age of sexual consent became the subject of vehement protest, extensive legislation, and vigorous prosecution. Yet, unlike the fate of Henson and Mapplethorpe's photography, art by 'official artists' that fetishised the child's body, as epitomised by Chabas, was, and arguably remains, untouchable. Why this happened and continues to happen is the subject of this paper ...".
    I have to attend to some other matters now. Probably I shan't be back, even if sober (well frankly, especially if sober). Coat of Many Colours (talk) 01:31, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Oh well, sober again. I'm glad to see I wasn't offensive. The Brauer article (peer reviewed) looks well researched to me. I'll try and look it up in JStor and write it up for the painting's article. Presumably you didn't notice it? Brauer's estimation of thirteen years old (apparently painted over 3 years - goodness, that's a long time ... ) looks about right to me. I'll look for his sources. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 09:40, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
  • I've added a description of Brauer's paper to the article. I do think this nomination should now be withdrawn. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 10:18, 17 September 2014 (UTC)


  • I'll have to see Bauer's article when I've got the time. Most sources, however, give 16. Perhaps a young-looking 16 (one of the newspapers I'm looking over quotes a New York Times article as saying she looks 14), but when even her identity is not known, there's not much that can be done to confirm. Either way, 13 or 16, the legality of this image does not change, and it's not being withdrawn. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:37, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
  • It's very good of you to try to find the time to review the Fae Brauer article. It's not available on JStor and I'm not prepared to order a photocopy from the British Library through my little local village library (stuff travels these parts ...) I have emailed Fae Brauer herself to ask what her sources are for the age, but as I expect you know academia in general doesn't pay much attention to requests from Wikipedia editors. I see you've been editing at September Morn extensively since, inter alia noting the subject's age as sixteen. I made a small copy edit to indicate that was on Chabas' account (by implication). I can add here it's not clear whether that was her age when she began to pose or at the end of the rather long three year period the painting was executed. I notice that you uncritically repeat the story (ultimately sourced to Chabas I suppose) about the recoiling pose in the freezing waters of Lake Annecy. A more plausible version I should think is that of Suzanne Delve, who claimed to be Chabas' subject at the age of fifteen and said she posed in his studio and that the pose arose from her instinctive attempt to protect her modesty. I'm surprised you don't mention this in your considerable expansion (no doubt we can expect a "Did you know" in the fullness of time). I don't doubt that this is the real appeal of the painting to many, the suggestion of voyeurism. I do find this account more plausible because it's absolutely unnecessary to have your model pose in plein air with all its attendant difficulties, of which not least one would be spectators and possible interest from the local gendarmerie . I shall be away again soon, but I shall follow the developments here with interest. My view is that legality in not an issue here. Rather common-sense and good taste. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 17:35, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
  • The article is a work in progress (which should be obvious; if it was anywhere near finalized, that uncited sentence in "reception" would have been nixed already). I refuse to cite Museum of Hoaxes, for what I would hope are obvious reasons (lack of editorial control, little evidence its an RS); the only reason its still there is because I haven't edited it out. Anyways, the content of the article is not germane to this FPC discussion. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:22, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
  • So what's the problem with this which is the source for the Suzanne Delve story? It would seem you are applying a degree of editorial discretion as to the quality of the sources cited. A peer-reviewed (whether axe-grinding or not on the question of indecent images of children - erm ... thank god for the axe grinders I and pretty well everyone else, so I would suggest, in the UK trying to protect their children from internet porn and kiddie fiddlers say) paper appearing in a well-known and respected art journal would seem to me to come pretty well high up on the list. This paper cites 11-13 as to the age of the subject. On our community's WP:VERIFY policy that's acceptable to cite. Yet you don't. You say it's something you will look into when you have time. Why is that? I mean, I don't know; I think it's not unlikely that Fay Brauer has gilded the lily somewhat to suit the cut of her axe concerning the subject's age, yes that goes on in axe-grinding academia, but her paper is nevertheless by far the best quality source we have here. Above all, why are you investing so much in this piss poor (yet again the colour of piss as it happens) painting? And why aren't you addressing any of the issues I raise. Balthus? Ovenden? Coat of Many Colours (talk) 01:46, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
  • I see you've added Delve now. Thank you for that. I made a small expansion to say she would have been 13 years old when she first posed for Chabas and to add the significant detail that she struck her pose "instinctively". I noticed that you appear to identify her as wonder if in fact she is the Parisian actress Suzanne Delvé. However there's nothing in the newspaper piece supporting that, which describes her a "hostess". If she really was the actress then she would have been four years older than the 37 given by the piece, making her 17 when she first posed for Chabas. If you would like to OR it, that would be fine by me so long as there's RS at the end of it. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 10:59, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Two things: First, and again, the article's content is not germane to the FPC nomination and only serves to take up space. Second, I did not say she was that Suzanne Delvé. I simply went with the source, in which she describes herself as a former stage and film actress. I recommend that you redact your ABF accusation immediately. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:20, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Missed on the fine print, sorry. The article said "hostess" and didn't accent her name. It's you who is gripped by the issue of her age and legality (not me, I know chicken when I see it), so I would say it is germane. But we can continue on that article's Talk page if embarrasses you to discuss it here. I think it's very likely this is the actress Suzanne Delvé. I can't be arsed myself, but presumably there are images of her out there that can be compared with the one in the newspaper article. That would make the subject 17 - 20 and you could then tell Fay to take a hike on her axe-grinding 11 - 13 pedo band wagon jumping on of and feel vindicated. You could even say something nice about me by way of thanks for helping clear up this very pressing issue in art history (oh, all right, I'll let you off that and your sentiments returned). ABF? Can only find Associated British Foods, but I have made an edit above which I trust soothes you. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 12:46, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
  • If we are to go by common sense I will point out that you are the only one who sees this as inappropriate and that the common sense is that there is nothing sexual about the image. It is you who have the uncommon opinion. Chillum Need help? Type {{ping|Chillum}} 18:35, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
  • You misunderstand me. I also think you misunderstand the general public. I am speaking for the general public who don't interest themselves in the deliberations of a small group of art critics and aesthetes here, but who I believe would nevertheless rather not see this image valorised by Wikipedia, possibly appearing on its front page as "featured image of the day" and directing their adolescent children to the Commons collection of images by Chabas for more of the same. As for Chabas he is a very minor artist, picking up a few low thousands at Christie's from time to time. Xanthomelanoussprog may well be right below in his appraisal of the EV of this artist, but whatever it is it certainly isn't in Artwork/Paintings as the nomination claims. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 21:04, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
  • I must say, the one thing I agree with you about is that he wasn't a particularly talented artist, based on the rest of the images in the gallery of the article. I quite like September Morn though, it's significantly better than the others. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 21:37, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
I like it too. Call it kitsch or banal if you will, but the subject looking off camera, so to speak, evokes a questioning ambiance. Sca (talk) 00:14, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
Wordage Log: Preceding discussion comprises 4,000+ words. Sca (talk) 16:25, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
Wordage Log: In other words, almost twice as long as the article as it currently stands, and twenty times the length of the article as it was when this image was nominated. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:38, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
  • I did say that I didn't want to debate it, but Crisco made a puerile and infantile intervention. Of course I responded and as the conversation degenerated further I contributed more. The sum of my contributions in the end was to provide the only peer-reviewed source for this painting as well as come up with a fairly plausible hypothesis as to the real identity of the subject. This is a painting that no gallery in the EU or the US would be prepared to exhibit today. What this nomination effectively does is allow Wikipedia its equivalent of exhibiting that painting. That there is just one of me against many here signifies nothing as relatively few people interest themselves in the deliberations at WP Featured Pictures. There are no space constraints in Wikipedia and I am entitled to argue my opposition. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 02:09, 19 September 2014 (UTC) >
  • You overlook some important issues. Namely, this is a forum for debate. You can't participate without potentially engaging in discussion. Secondly, that no museum would exhibit this is purely conjecture. Thirdly, that you're the only one taking your position is significant in light of the fact that there's a very clear consensus. Anyone is welcome to voice themselves, but being righteous is far from productive. (talk) 05:21, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
  • And, a third point. Your blanket statement "the subject is too young for the image to be decent by modern standards" is both pure conjecture and, as the consensus here and in contemporary reviews indicate, rather prudish. You may consider my response "puerile and infantile", but when you make a blanket statement such as that, implying that anything against your view is not common sense (when your position is clearly against both consensus here, in the press, and the legal US definition of child pornography), then follow this by preemptively stating that you won't debate your position, you aren't exactly opening yourself up to rational discourse; you're poisoning the well before any positive discussion can begin. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:44, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
The only comment I wish to make here is that I share the view of many that the term "child pornography" is an oxymoron, one that in fact serves to justify its existence, and always use a form of words such as "indecent images of children". For the same reasons I avoid the use of the word "model" in this context and use "subject". I can add that I have scrupulously avoided seeking the input of others here. If I had, I'm pretty sure you it would be you in a minority by now. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 16:23, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

─────────────────────────*Stop whispering! This is a painting that no gallery in the EU or the US would be prepared to exhibit today.? "Other stuff exists"- Sally Mann at the Gagosian etc., and the Chapman brothers' manikins of children. I've had a look at small images of about 80 of his paintings- he must have been churning them out- and his technique seems to be to use thinned "washes" of oils, maybe without any underpainting. To me (and I've not had the opportunity to look at any of his paintings in the (cough, splutter) "flesh") it suggests that his technique may have been more spontaneous and rapid than the three year production claimed for September Morn. Mentioning this in the context of whether the painting has artistic value- it's possible that his technical ability as an artist is being under-rated. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 06:30, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Sally Mann's work is generally acknowledged as touching on childhood sexuality (though I deny there is such a thing in any significant sense, believing that to be a paedophile construct, and incidentally Sigmund Freud himself in later life regretted he concentrated on a discourse of infant sexuality when he should have better accepted he was listening to accounts of infant seduction). However I find her images as unsentimental images of innocence (in the tradition of Mary Cassatt) and certainly not eroticized. The point about your axe-grinding academic Professor Brauer's paper is that she seeks to understand how painters like Chabas escaped censure, while such as Robert Mapplethorpe and Bill Henson did not. I'm away for a while. I don't wish this nomination well. I hope a thousand and one axe-grinding academics descend on it and chop it to death with a million and one indiscriminate cuts (i.e. discriminating between post and poster, myself naturally excluded of course). Coat of Many Colours (talk) 20:44, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
  • I have a feeling if we were to expand Chabas' article, we'd find the French certainly considered him fairly talented. Grand Prix at the 1899 Paris Salon for Joyeux Ébats, after all. I think, personally, that the massive controversy over September Morn and its widespread reproduction ultimately limited any subsequent opportunity he had to be viewed as a serious artist, but that's getting into OR territory there. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:03, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
  • This fetched £2,120 at Christie's recently. If you're willing to back your hunch with hard cash you can open always an account with them expressing an interest. Pretty sure you will find no shortage of estates willing to offload their collections. I can't find any recent lots for Paul Chabas which still include their Lot notes, which are often very detailed and informative. I'll add him to my own account and when a lot does come up consider editing at his article on the basis of the notes. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 16:23, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
Sorry to add yet again to the verbiage here. Just trying to be helpful. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 16:23, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
Chabas certainly churned out a lot of water nymph fantasies, but that in itself doesn't make him a poor artist. Further, September should be promoted if for no other reason than its enduring power to spur controversy. Sca (talk) 13:40, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Painting appears to have supported and continues to support a whole industry of impostors, yellow journalism, concerned citizens and axe-grinding academics, and therefore has EV. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 18:46, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Let me be clear: as a gay man, perhaps I am uniquely unqualified to assess the image's sexually erotic or pornographic content. As an aesthete, however, I look at this painting and I say, "Why, it looks lovely." I can see that the young girl has the earliest suggestions of breasts, but their presentation here speaks only of that, and while I do consider breasts generally to be something which is often construed sexually, I don't feel like I would accuse anyone in whose collection I found such a painting of likely having acquired it for sexual purposes or interests— it's, well, it's just not "dirty enough" (by which I mean to say, "not dirty"). It strikes me as nothing more than a beautiful presentation of feminine youth. I see nothing vulgar here. Now, of course, that does not mean that another equally reasonable person cannot see something vulgar or cannot construe this as an inappropriate representation of naked youth, and does not mean that a genuine paedophile might not decide that the image is arousing somehow and go on to do bad things as a result. But I find the proposition of that to be far more of a stretch. Maybe I should also mention that again, as a gay man who is honestly very tired of seeing Jennifer Lopez' "booty" and was blessed never to have witnessed Miley Cyrus "twerking," nothing in this painting tires me, which perhaps suggests its value as art is greater than its value as porn of any kind, whether or not the subject is age-appropriate ("age-appropriate," a factor which becomes irrelevant if the picture is, in fact, evocative of art and not of more base emotions, and I am comfortable saying it is the former and simultaneously is not the latter). I feel I know this because of the queasy feeling I do NOT get when I study it. My barometer doesn't shift. It just seems nice, pretty. I like the color tones. I like the splashes of light. To the extent that the image is of high quality and is of great accuracy (both of which seem to be true, yes?), then it meets the criteria of our other featured pictures. How old the model is has no bearing in a non-sexual image. And lastly, as the brother of a woman who spent a year as a federal prosecutor of child pornographers in the Central District of Southern California and who agonized over the hours of pornographic videotape she was required as part of her job to watch in order to be able to effectively prosecute the offenders (an area of assignment that she requested out of because it made her so ill), sometimes, I think, a cigar is maybe just a cigar. This time, anyway. (Sorry, that all took much too long to say.) KDS4444Talk 15:53, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Support, so many people can't be wrong. Subject is decent by modern standards. So many people can ertainly not wrong be wrong about that issue. Age - what? I have a friend that looks almost like this - and she is 30 years. And yes, we sick Scandinavian people do go swiming together all naked everywhere - and nobody turns a hair. We go to sauna too, same thing - all naked together, no problem. If God created man in his own image, so what's the problem? The human body is a natural thing - though some might find it repulsive - well, that's their problem, and it is in their mind, not in the real world. It can be easy to find faults everywhere - if one is loking hard enough... It looks like we are still back in the same old puritan times when this picture was scandalous - what does it say on progress? Let's not all behave like old world Victorians who put covers on the legs of the chairs and the tables because it made them excited. (Cast - no idea - you people will surelly find a decent reproduction of the picture to feature.) Hafspajen (talk) 16:19, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose I got here totally by accident through happening to still have Crisco's talk page on my watchlist from previous (cordial) conversations. I am a broad-minded, tolerant older woman who has serious reservations about censorship. However, to the extent that I have scanned the discussion here and at the article's talk page, I am very largely in agreement with Coat of Many Colours. The image struck me as repugnant the moment I saw it, since it seems obvious to me that the artist's sole intent was to appeal to those who find such intrusive depiction of underage girls titillating. I urge you not to give it the prominence of featuring it on the Main Page. Awien (talk) 16:40, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Just a minor note, Awien: the FPC process does not guarantee that an image will run as POTD (although it is a prerequisite to it). The FP of Michelle Merkin, for instance, was decided by consensus to not be appropriate for running on the main page, and WP:POTD/Unused has several other examples. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:54, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar...--Godot13 (talk) 01:46, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment Hafspajen, sorry, but you're missing the point. Neither I nor, I assume, Coat of Many Colours is objecting to nudity as such. I myself had a clothing-optional early childhood, as an older woman I continue to be shockingly immodest by North American standards (shocked a doctor - again - just days ago), I can't think of much that's more ridiculous than having to be clothed to swim or not being able to go naked when it's too hot for clothes, and I have been frequenting the great galleries of Europe for fifty years totally unfazed by 99.9% of the nudes. The problem is not the FACT of nudity, but in this instance the exploitative NATURE of the depiction of the nakedness of an underage girl. Awien (talk) 13:53, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Agreed. It's chalk and cheese, but how one defines 'exploitative' is so subjective that I don't think we can throw the word around without defining it more precisely. I agree that (by my own definition), it's not exploitative nudity. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 14:24, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
  • As different as chalk and cheese. Hafspajen (talk) 15:57, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
  • No. Awien is quiite right. Hafspajen misunderstands, or simply does not know, the ideal of the so-called erotic innocent girl in late Victorian sexuality. Anne Witchard at page 186 of Dark Chinoiserie directly cites Chabas' paintings and Carroll's Hatch odalisque together via Dijkstra et al. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 00:27, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment Having now helped Crisco out by translating a French critic for him, and as a result looking at other reproductions, it now seems to me that the colour of this reproduction is heavily skewed towards gold. The palette was described as a symphony in grey (blue-grey, green-grey, violet-grey), whereas there's no grey at all in this reproduction. It probably doesn't adequately represent the painting. Awien (talk) 14:02, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
  • The yellow cast of the painting depicted in Alexander Brownlie Docharty is the result of my sloppy photography- I think the same is true of the cast here (I thought it might have been discoloured varnish, but I've just checked a "rebalanced" copy and it brings out greys and greens) Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 14:36, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
  • I've noticed that the "rebalanced" copy still has considerable brown stains, when I do it in Photoshop. Xanthomelanoussprog, did you figure out which email address to contact for inquiry? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:34, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
  • No, sorry, I'll get on to it now.Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 15:42, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Sent one to the Education Department (for the life of me, couldn't work out who else to send it to- definitely not "Teen Programs" though). Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 15:56, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Wordage Log: 6,400. Sca (talk) 15:05, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
  • @Sca: Are you trying to suppress debate here? Why would you want to do that? Awien and Hafspajen, our new contributors, have posted just twice and both their posts have been on topic (whereas yours, on feet fetishism, for example are not always). I've told you before there are no space restrictions on Wikipedia. (talk) 16:03, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
  • As a matter of policy, Sca does not respond to unsigned comments. (Nor does he ping.) Sca (talk) 21:40, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
  • @Awien: I'm the user Coat on Many Colours (on the run :)). Thanks for your input. I shan't contribute more here, but I did appreciate it. (talk) 16:03, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
  • @Crisco 1492: Am I to understand this is a crap (colour of) image anyway? So why was it nominated as the finest Wikipedia has to offer?. And is the proposal now to photoshop it? (talk) 16:03, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Don't talk to me. Said nothing on feet fetishism and I don't like the tone of this discussion. Hafspajen (talk) 18:05, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Warrn't talking to you. Talking to user Sca. {{ping|Sca}} it began. He made an arch post on "pedophilia" (foot fetishism if you're not American) . Hope that clears that up. What I undertook of your mentor was that I would ignore your posts, but I take it you are not so god almightily precious that I cannot even allude to them. Goodness. I was defending your right to post here, for example to register your distaste for the tone of the discussion. (talk) 19:06, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Don't mention my name then', as you did, not mentioning it, for example is a good start. Keep NOT talking to me, and not saying things like:you are not so god almightily precious, (bad style) and I still don't like the tone of this discussion, "puerile" and "infantile" and stuff. Think that nobody called YOU one or two well deserved things. Hafspajen (talk) 21:00, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment - If I can see some evidence that the colors are off them I would certainly reconsider based on quality of image issues. I would need to know if the discoloration was due to aging/poor storage of the original(which should not work against the image) or if there were white balance issues or bad lighting. Chillum Need help? Type {{ping|Chillum}} 18:27, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
  • I agree, based on a Google image search, it's clear that there are a lot of different versions of this painting online. But given that the version we're using comes directly from the MET's website, we should be careful before we assume it's wrong. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 18:34, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Debated in the other place here commencing "Quote from article The painting is dominated by grays: the gray of the woman's shaded body, the blue-grays of the September water, the green-grays of the sky, and the pink-grays of the hills".. (talk) 19:12, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
  • And that quote is from 1912. A painting can be pretty heavily damaged in that time, especially if its been in storage for most (if not all) of the past 40 years. For someone who claims a knowledge of art history and the fine arts, claiming otherwise is a rookie mistake. As far as I can tell, the less-brown reproductions on the web are probably based on Carson, Gerald. (1961). "They knew what they liked." American Heritage. 12(5); advertisements for this book in Life had a colour print, so I'd think that the book does too. This Life version indicates a bit of yellowing already, though that may be the aging of the magazine. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:24, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
  • I hadn't looked out for other versions of this image but if this one bears any resemblance to the original, then it's quite clear that your nominated version really can't be considered the finest available. I (CoMC) have never claimed a particular knowledge of art history and the fine arts, a personal attack by a user whose username I dare not name in a protected place elsewhere well short of the mark. You can safely hypothesise I think that I am collector of knick-knacks and that my hobby takes me all over the word. I don't in fact collect works of art very much, the occasional little thing by van Gogh and so on that meets the eye, but not in any systematic way. (talk) 11:00, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
  • There's an artifact in the nominated file, which is accentuated by image processing. The same artifact is present in the linked image, suggesting that it is derived from the nominated file. I think the linked file is the commercially-available version. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 11:20, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
  • So you argue for pages and pages that certain scans colours are off, and that any attempts to fix them make them look even worse, driving one editor to almost retire in doing so, but once you make a mistake you say that you "have never claimed a particular knowledge of art history and the fine arts". I will refrain from saying what this makes you, but the implication is here, just as you implied I was something much worse at the article's talk page. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:28, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
  • What mistake? And it is a matter of fact that I have never once made any claim to expertise in the fine arts. I would not be very successful in what I do if I had not picked up some expertise, but the fact is I've never once claimed it. That is your certain editor's projection (under diplomatic protection as it were). I'm not sure what Xanthomelanoussprog means by artefact (the coat hidden in the bushes he mentioned in another post? - that would certainly add to the questioning ambiance noted by another editor here), but I don't see how that determines which is the better of the two images. Like user:Johnbod I had never heard of this painting before, though I grant you it appears to have once been enormously popular in the US. But it's quite plain I think that this is a very poor image of a very suspect painting. Here's another example of this artist's ouevre (apparently at the Petit Palais - I doubt it's on display today) I found just now. Not on my account, thank you. (talk) 15:01, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Just to add here - the French national collection databse Joconde lists only 19 works by Paul Chabas, mostly self-portraits and none in the oeuvre he is noted for linked above. I suspect that does indicate those works have been removed from public display. I'll email the Petit Palais to enquire and report back if I get a response. (talk) 15:56, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
  • And what, exactly, does his works being displayed / not being displayed have to do with this scan of this painting as representational of this painting? You're veering increasingly off tangent. If you really are on a holiday, why not continue said holiday without dealing with all of this? I'd hate to think you're missing out on satay or whatever while arguing about kitsch. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:13, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
  • I don't think this is meant to be erotic by any means. I think 1 in every 5 French movies show more underage or borderline-underage nakedness. And since this is featured at the Met, I don't see how could this possibly be considered to be breaking any actual laws. Quality-wise it should be featured. Nergaal (talk) 10:27, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Prof. Brauer kindly replied to my emailed request for the article Coat originally cited for the 11–13 y.o. estimate (which I will read and parse either tomorrow or the day after). This is pertinent to the current discussion because her article includes a detail and reproduction of the painting, with a significant yellow tinge. The only difference is that it is brighter and that what appears to be damage to the canvas is rather prominent. She does not explicitly state where the image came from, though, whether it is a photograph she took or an adjustment of the MET's scan. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:46, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Another note: the sentence "... Chabas' September Morn continues to hang in the Metropolitan Museum..." (p. 139) indicates that, as recently as 2011, it was still hanging. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:55, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
  • It's the orange tinged area on the right arm, extending upwards to the lower right breast and also on the right thumb- I've had a look at the Met site zoomed up to the maximum and it still looks too bright to be paint. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 18:16, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
  • This image perhaps?. I'll check with the Met. Perhaps it got slashed by an axe-grinding maniac. Can I suggest this nomination is extended so that the group can at least get a reasonable image of the painting to Feature. Please keep your remarks to me on topic, dealing with the issues and not personalities. Whether Chabas' genre paintings of naked young girls are still on display in European galleries is on topic in terms of the oppose that I raised. Satay off the diet-sheet for me I'm afraid, as is (say) kufteh (talk) 18:26, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Oh, and can you email me a copy of Fay Brauer's paper at my CoMC account please. Email is enabled. Thank you. (talk) 18:30, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Oh also, can you be sure to ask Fay if we can quote her 2001 abstract in full I uploaded that you reverted as you said you would? I expect we can. Her 2011 abstract is marked "© Citation only" meaning we can. Personally I would be satisfied with the abstract quoted in the citation's quote field, but if you feel you would enjoy paraphrasing the paper as an exercise demonstrating how a skilled and respected administrator approaches such a task, that would be great learning experience as well. I've already archived it at for you. (talk) 20:36, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
  • I will not do so by email, but I would probably be willing to do so via Dropbox (you'd just download). This would be intended for discussion re: the article and not further dissemination, however. Regarding the painting: it looks more like dirt and grime have latched onto the painting, possibly damaging the paint, than an attack. You can check. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:02, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Dropbox would be fine, though I don't actually know how it works. I would like to read Prof Brauer's paper. I'm tolerably curious to know how she arrived at 11-13 (pleeease don't come back at me claiming I'm obsessing about age). I'm afraid do I think that's a subjective assessment and if it proves so I would support dropping the age estimate from the article. Needles to say I support her in her general drift as I understand her from the abstract and I am genuinely curious to know how Chabas escaped censure. I see what you mean from the jpg. I frankly rather doubt the Met let it slide into such a condition. I'll email them tomorrow. Regarding this painting, if it really does, or at any rate did originally, look like the version I linked, then I would say it is indeed a very fine painting, and a very different proposition to the image nominated. That doesn't mean I would withdraw my opposition, absolutely not, but at least the enterprise doesn't become quite so ridiculous. I did put the image through my processor and pressed the remove color cast button and what came up was close to the version I link, though it couldn't be used. I wouldn't necessarily call the painting a masterpiece, overused term, but I can well see as Ðiliff remarks, that it's a whole level above other of his work I've seen. If the group must Feature his work, and plainly you are all committed to that, then let's at least Feature a (avoiding 'decent') worthy image of it. After checking at the Met if someone in the group can make a a worthy effort at restoring it per the description and advice from the Met, I would have no objection. (talk) 01:10, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
  • We should be featuring the painting as it is now, not as it was at a certain point in the past (think Mona Lisa). It would be agreeable to have the Carson reproduction in the article as an example of what it would have looked like in the late 1950s, in the section describing the painting, if we can cite that it has been severely tarnished over the years (an email from the MET would help there). However, the current look of the painting has more EV than how it looked in the 1950s, as it better depicts the work (as an object, not the image depicted) as it currently is. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:18, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
  • The point is I don't know what the painting looks like or what to expect. But I would say that if the painting ever looked like this commercial poster, then I can't imagine it getting into the condition suggested by the nominated image, not in a mere 100 years. I think it's much more likely that the image itself is crap. I mean this group is no stranger to crap Google images, for example. But I'm afraid I shall probably have to retire from this discussion now (lor what a shame). I will email the Met, but I don't frankly expect an answer and indeed if do receive one, I'm not sure I'll be able to share it. I suggest you email yourself. Good luck with your nomination. I mean I think it's totally misconceived and inappropriate, but I do grant at least that the painting itself might have more merit than the nominated image originally suggested. (talk) 04:57, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Wordage log: Congrats to all of us nascent art historians and art critics — we have now reached and indeed exceeded the volume of the Miley Cyrus article, which comprises a mere 8,000 words. Our September Morn discussion now tops 8,200 words. Wow. 718smiley.svg Sca (talk) 23:53, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
  • (Me, deliberately missing the point): But that article's so much shorter! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:18, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Woops! So totally me. Can't even count ... :) (talk) 04:57, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
  • I've already forgotten the point of this nomination now. GamerPro64 01:20, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
  • May I point you to the beginning? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:25, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Can it even be pointed out? GamerPro64 02:08, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Is this an instance of rhetorical pointillism? Sca (talk) 13:48, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
  • I dislike the implication that all this debate is trivial. I think the issues are really important and I shall carry on championing them. (talk) 04:57, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
  • ─────────────────────────The image used by Fae Brauer shows damage typical of a dirty and scratched colour slide. Note the rectangular black object lower middle and the two fine lines at an angle to each other. Severe colour fringing at the top may be caused by the slide surface losing contact with a glass surface (mounting or scanner plate). The general dirt actually looks more like what would occur on a paper-based reproduction- could also be dirt on the original canvas- however the reduction in tonal separation in the painting's background suggests that there's some kind of generational gap between Brauer's image and the painting- as if someone had photographed an old and worn postcard on slide film and then left the slide unprotected in an office drawer. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 08:13, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
  • You know, I think you may be right about that. Explains a couple of the scratches. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:20, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
Side by side comparison: the "Museum of Hoaxes" digitization (which I think may be from Gerald Carson's 1961 American Heritage "They knew what they liked", and thus be over 50 years out of date) on the left, and an auto-adjusted version of the MET's scan (right). Note that, although some of the colours return to grey, there remain significant yellow stains on the MET's version even after auto-tone.
  • I've uploaded this to aid discussion. The resolution of the MET's scan suggests, to me, that it can't possibly be a postcard reproduction that they scanned, and there is no semblance of paper texture in their version. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:30, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Yes. Brauer's version is the one that looks like a print, not the MET's. If yellow stains are left, and they are present on the original painting, it may be the result of a botched clean- I've seen similar stains on a John Lavery portrait from being wiped down with a damp rag or something. As to Brauer's, I know (secondhand) what the relationship between lecturers and the reprographic department is like :) Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 11:06, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Indeed. ;) Glad I just have to worry about text criticism. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:40, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
  • This is the version originally uploaded by a German wikipedia user (since overwritten at File:September-Morning.jpg). Don't you think the question of whether the painting today actually looks like the nominated image oughtn't to be addressed fairly quickly? The assumption seems to be that the painting's condition has deteriorated, but I don't see why you are making that assumption. Just as likely seems to me that it is yet another color-cast image. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 12:02, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
  • I see Anne Veronica Witchard's book cites the titles of three paintings by Chabas. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 15:31, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
  • That's right. Not sure what your point is. She meant all his paintings, or at least in his nudie girlie genre which was by far the greater part of his output. It's how he made his living. The fact is that Ruskin, Caroll and Chabas are mentioned all of a piece in this area. Witchard isn't the only source. So what's being done about this particular nomination now that it's conceded its another color-cast image on the Talk page at its article? Coat of Many Colours (talk) 19:41, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Yes, Witchard's index has the names of three of his paintings. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 07:18, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
  • The passage I wished to draw attention to reads "Pictures like those of Chabas that 'emphasized analogies between the actions of nude little girls and the familiar poses of vanity or physical arousal given to adult woman' had a general market." The in-quote is from Bram Dijkstra's Idols of Perversity: Fantasies of Feminine Evil in Fin-de-siècle Culture quoted in the previous paragraph and a footnote is provided which reads "Ibid. See for example Lewis Carroll's Portrait of Evelyn Hatch (c.1879-79), a naked child in the erotic pose of an odalisque". An ensuing paragraph references James R. Kincaid. None of the three paintings indexed refer to the passage.
    Have you heard back from the Met yet? Coat of Many Colours (talk) 15:35, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
  • No, haven't heard anything from the Met. As regards Witchard, at least one of the titles given is wrong- however a Google image search for it will produce a link to this. As well as an image of a banknote… Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 16:17, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
  •  :) yes, the allusion not lost on me. I think Puberty is the one called The Shepherdess elsewhere, and that's right about the other two titles which seem to refer to the same painting. Edvard Munch actually has a painting called Puberty. There was an image of it on Commons which I had taken down on copyright grounds (he goes PD beginning next year). In the interest of free speech I shall upload a high resolution version to the article and nominate it for Featuring here.
    It would seem this nomination is to go forward tomorrow, even though it's not all clear that the image is a good one. I shall roll my eyes and look away. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 18:23, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Promoted File:Paul Chabas September Morn The Metropolitan Museum of Art.jpg --Armbrust The Homunculus 12:30, 26 September 2014 (UTC)