Talk:Homage (arts)

Image

The joke image of people paying "homage" to Hugo is inappropriate for a number of reasons

1. They are not actually paying homage to anyone, it is a joke, and it is a puppet.
2. The text of the article is mainly about the historical use of the term, the image is of out place. It is applying the term homage in a pejorative manner to make a statement about backwardness of Hugo Chevaz.
3. It is disrespectful of Hugo Chávez - if the puppet was of, say, George Bush, with a bunch of laughing people paying "homage" to a gross characterture of Bush, it would be removed on POV grounds. It's a political satire with a clear message, more than just a neutral example of homage, and as such POV.

-- Stbalbach 02:01, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

---

As you can see from my contributions, which are extensive, I don't put up "joke images"
1. Circus Amok is a National Endowment for the Arts funded, award-winning production. Within the show they pay homage to the Socialist South American leaders, including Michelle Bachelet and Evo Morales; not uploaded is Kirschner. How would you know it is a joke unless you were there? I was, and trust me, the message was very pro-socialist, since Jennifer Miller is a Socialist herself, and it is her award-winning piece.
2. The first line in the article is "Homage is generally used in modern English to mean any public show of respect to someone to whom one feels indebted." This production meets all of that criteria.
3. It is not "disrespectful" of anyone, as I make clear above. You can Google "Circus Amok" if you wish to see what its message is about. It certainly does not fall under satire.
You seem to be confusing POV with "everything is neutral." Editors on Wikipedia aren't allowed to insert their points of view, but we are allowed to illustrate other people's points of view. Most of your assumptions based on the photograph are incorrect; if you took some time to research them you would find this to be the case. I put Chavez up as opposed to Morales or Bachelet because he is more familiar to English-speaking audiences. But Bachelet or Morales would work equally as well - take your pick from the links above; but I feel strongly that since I have several images portraying the concept of homage, especially in an NEA-funded piece of theater, that an image should be placed on the page. I would also like to remind you to assume good faith in edits, especially from well-established editors. --DavidShankBone 04:59, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't put up "joke images" well that was not clear just looking at the image. None of those things you mentioned are clear from the picture itself, with laughing people bowing down in front of a characterure of Hugo. As the author of the picture you've tried it in various articles throughout Wikipedia. It was rejected from the Hugo Chavez article as being inappropriate, maybe elsewhere. Lets put it up for a straw vote and see what other people think if it should be in this article also. -- Stbalbach 15:35, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

The Hugo Chavez page rejection of the image has no bearing on its merits here. Laughing doesn't connote disrespect; especially since in this case there was nothing but respect accorded. Like I said, the other two images work just as well and seem to take care of this "disrespect" issue you seem concerned the image portrays. --DavidShankBone 15:45, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

It at least appears like it's somewhat of a joke, being in a circus with laughing supplicants wearing pink. As such, it is a poor example of "homage", even assuming that the circus-members intend to pay homage. —Centrx→talk • 17:00, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I will take the advice and replaced Chavez with the Morales homage that seems to better portray the deference and respect the performers accorded to the South American leaders in their performance. --DavidShankBone 17:15, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Straw vote

This is a straw vote to see if the circus picture of Hugo Chavez should be in this article. Keep or Delete.

• Delete. Stated reasons above. Context of picture is too complicated and easily mis-understood. Current events political situation, good for activism, but not a neutral depiction of "homage". -- Stbalbach 15:35, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Stated reasons above, and offered two alternative homage images above, as well. --DavidShankBone 15:43, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Agree with Stbalbach, this is not an appropriate or illustrative image for the homage article. None of them are.--Cúchullain ^t/c 21:23, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Homage vs. ripoff

A worthy addition to the article would be the rather regular arguments that arise over movies/TV shows/video games, over whether a given "homage" is actually just a "ripoff", with the purpose of gaining attention or praise, rather than having the purpose of showing respect. Tempshill 18:55, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

   Gosh, T, is your comment an homage to, or a ripoff from, the 1980 Stardust Memories? (Or did the film just evoke -- and perhaps (intentionally?) embody with respect to 8½ -- the same perhaps ubiquitous meme?) It seems to have been widely quoted imprecisely, but the versions that often put the question in terms of a Boris Karloff role, and usually the response in the mouth of Tony Roberts' character, along the lines of

An homage? Not exactly, we just stole the idea outright.

ring true with my own recollection of Allen's film's dialog.
--Jerzy•t 11:04 &11:32, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Variant pronunciations and spellings

   The two following sub-sections deal with two closely related aspects of what is IMO a single problem, and IMO are best read with attention to that relationship -- even if they're both lapsing into dead discussions.
--Jerzy•t 11:18, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

"An homage" or "a homage"?

The text has both. It seems commonplace to use either way, depending on the opinion or origin of the user, the point here is the inconsistency. Shred-69 (talk) 05:29, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm English, and I pronounce the h. So therefore I say "a homage". However, I have also heard some people say it as if they were speaking French, where the h would be silent ("omage") - so in those cases they need to use "an". I guess it depends on whether the person pronounces it as in English or in French. EuroSong ^talk 08:49, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

In English, we say "a homage", but many Americans seem to be under the impression that it is a French word, and try to pronounce it accordingly. — Chameleon 07:53, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, homage is a French word. I believe it was first used in the English language in about the 13th century AD. I'm not American by the way, I'm an Aussie. --AussieLegend (talk) 09:10, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but after 700 years, I think we can safely say that Homage is sufficiently naturalised? Suddenly reverting to the French pronunciation strikes me as being a bit on the pretentious side. (Also an Aussie.) Johnmc (talk) 04:37, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

The new way to pronounce it (with the H) developed in the British Isles long after immigrants settled in the Americas. What many proud British citizens tend to conveniently forget is that their current accent is a very new development. The Brits from 400 years ago sounded a lot more American. For that reason the regional accent in North America preserves its original pronunciations. Being Canadian, surrounded by the French (if you recall history), we tend to preserve the French pronunciation of words in all but a few cases. E.G.: Clique (kleek), niche (neesh, whereas some people say nitch). Alternatively, many Canadians (probably due to British influence) say herb with the H intact, unlike our American counterparts. There are also cases where the British also preserve the French pronunciation (as well as the French spelling) for a few of their words where they were otherwise Anglicized in the U.S. It goes both ways. Please don't look down on other people's English dialects, especially without knowing the history behind them, otherwise it's you who comes off sounded pretentious. Celynn (talk) 23:06, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't do the article any good to start judging pronunciations as pretentious or misguided. However you regard it, the typical American pronunciation is the French pronunciation, o-MAge. Americans use the original language's pronunciation of many loan words that are anglicized by other English speakers, especially when the original language stresses the second syllable, which is more American than stressing the first, as the English and Aussies usually do. For the purposes of Wikipedia, what's most important is that the format is consistent, i.e. all British English (a homage) or all American English (an homage) within the article. It really doesn't matter which. Feeeshboy (talk) 05:12, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

As this is the english version of the page, we will go with the english version of the word, which is pronounced hah-midge. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.58.29.180 (User ) 20:42, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I am a native Anglophone and pronounce it AH-midge, a pronunciation reflected in the American Heritage Dictionary. Choice of indefinite article should not arise anyway; it is not a particular noun, but analogous to "praise". One properly pays or gives homage, rather than making an homage. Elphion (talk) 18:40, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, the situation is (of course) more nuanced than I thought. HAH-midge and AH-midge are long-standing English pronunciations for the English word from Middle English, meaning generally praise or reverence. o-MAZH is French, introduced with the modern particularized sense (from French) of a deliberate allusion, imitation, or take-off, and the French pronunciation is generally restricted to that sense. As the new sense enters the language (and that sense still sounds affected to me), the older pronunciations are also becoming used for it. Elphion (talk) 19:52, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Splitting homage and hommage

Recently, homage and hommage were split, and the modern sense of praise through imitation (borrowed from modern French usage) was moved to the latter, which retains the French spelling. As of 5 Oct 2010 hommage was redirected back here, but the material that was moved there was not moved back. We need to decide where this sense is going to be discussed. -- Elphion (talk) 01:56, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

• Splitting by spelling does not seem sensible as they are just alternate spellings of the same word and the spelling does not indicate a different meaning. For example, the OED has no separate entry for hommage - it's just listed as an alternative spelling under homage. Colonel Warden (talk) 06:17, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the article probably should not have been split. But the spellings are not really equivalent: I've never seen "hommage" in English for anything other than the modern French sense (an imitation in art), always with the French pronunciation. -- Elphion (talk) 07:07, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

hommage is the primary spelling in French and so I suppose that it's mainly seen in texts which are influenced by French literary and cinematic theory. It would thus be like the word auteur (author). But as we are the English Wikipedia, we should prefer the English word and primary spelling. The sources I have cited seem to use homage as standard . I'm not sure how they would pronounce it but I'm not sure it matters. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:43, 5 October 2010 (UTC)