Talk:The Raft of the Medusa

Restructure

I like the new structure, though I've made some alerations:

I varied the image alignment, I think having all the images to the right make the article look flat, and it looses much of its energy.

I forced the sizes of a few pics as they were very large thumbs and took up dispropornate space.

I really, really think background/context should come before description. Otherwise, what are we supposed to be looking at as we read about the rendered figures? An imagined scene for all the reader knows. Thats my 2c anyway. Ceoil (talk) 21:13, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree on that point. I think it unfortunate we no longer have a Gros picture; either the Eylau or Jaffa ones are really much close than the Prudhom we have now, and also similar in scale, which is very relevant. Johnbod (talk) 21:40, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I readded the Gros detail..he was an important source...Modernist (talk) 22:05, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I left the images to be positioned - I'd run out of steam by then. I think the Prud'hon is important, very clear comparision, and the text justifies it. There is a Gros in the Position in art history section. Is there a case for galleries in this article? More studies could be included: there are some excellent ones at Commons:Category:The_Raft_of_the_Medusa, though the source of some is not detailed properly. Also more images for Influences and Legacy. Ty 03:57, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I'd run out of steam by then. Ahh. Good work nonethe less and thanks. Ceoil (talk) 15:05, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

My position on galleries is well known...I go there to see art..:) If a small gallery can be added, (I think they are efficient ways to see the work)...I have no objection...but hopefully the text will support any inclusions with sources and refs..Modernist (talk) 04:07, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

All of the sketches in that commons category with a somewhat bluish tint are from ARTstor. Just to clarify.. Lithoderm 06:16, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

cannibalism sketch

The one Lithoderm has added from a book seems to be the same as the one from the Louvre I referred to lower down, which is #236 of the Joconde Gericault items. They have a sharper if rather less dramatic shot of it. They acquired it only in 2004, which no doubt accounts for the discrepancy. I will just amend the caption for now, but perhaps the picture should be moved down to that passage. Johnbod (talk) 21:36, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

There seems to be tendancy for moving the pics to the head of the sections regardless of weather they are welcome or useful there or not. Images should be placed next to the relevant text; if recommended by the MOS guidelines or not. Ceoil (talk) 21:47, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Number of images

Do we need two Delacroix's? I think the text to images ratio is too low at this stage and would like to trim. We are spoiled for choice. Thoughs? Ceoil (talk) 21:57, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I think we are ok...I like the two, and I think we are at the right number now..Modernist (talk) 22:19, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Children's book

"Reviews favoured the painting, which also stimulated plays, poems, performances and a children's book."--- That seems like a sentence in need of a citation. A children's book would be the farthest thing from my mind when considering this painting. (Unless it were the Struwwelpeter....) Lithoderm 04:39, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Eh? Cite no. 48 immediately follows the sentence. Check it out. Ty 05:25, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

In a newspaper of 1842 we even find a serialized version for children, "Tales of Shipwreck. Grandfather Felix Tells About the Wreck of the Medusa."....I'll add the ref..Modernist (talk) 05:02, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Thats the one I just added...Modernist (talk) 05:29, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Slight mistake. The refs have shifted. It was already ref'd by current cite no. 49 which applies to the whole para. Ty 06:07, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, the newer one is more specific, at least. Sorry about that. Lithoderm 06:14, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Lead

I think this reads better: The decision was made by the captain and the 400 aboard to abandon ship and to try to make the African coast 60 miles away.Modernist (talk) 22:39, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Good work copyediting there. Ceoil (talk) 13:27, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Triangle diagram

File:Medusa-diagram-1.jpg

version 1

File:Medusa-diagram-2.jpg

version 2

File:Medusa-diagram-3.jpg

version 3

File:File-Medusa-diagram-4.jpg

version 4

File:Medusa-diagram-5.jpg

version 5

version 6. The painting is based on two pyramidal shapes.

Version 1. Per [1]. Are they in the right place etc? Yellow spot is the ship - otherwise no one will know where it is. Ty 07:50, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

• I'd have made the one on the right bigger - starting at the top of the head of the rag-waver, & wider at the sides, and I think the one on the left equilateral, by reducing the left side, touching the head of the sitting figure. But one can't be too precise about these things. Johnbod (talk) 12:49, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Version 2 on the left. Two equilateral triangles of the same size + new improved bigger yellow spot! Ty 13:38, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I prefer version 2, it's almost self explanatory..good job..Modernist (talk) 13:44, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Version 3 follows the line of the mast, but I think version 2 looks better. Ty 14:31, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I prefer first version, in which the mast is used to reinforce one side of the left triangle --I don't think the triangles need to cover the entire areas indicated, nor be the same size and shape. Question: are colored triangles preferable to same shapes indicated with dotted lines? JNW (talk) 14:49, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

They are very much preferable if you don't know how to do dotted lines in photoshop! Ty 14:53, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

This is the text: "The painting is constructed upon two pyramidal structures. The perimeter of the large mast on the left of the canvas forms the first. The horizontal grouping of dead and dying figures in the foreground forms the base from which the survivors emerge, surging upward towards the emotional peak, where the central figure waves desperately at a rescue ship. The viewer's attention is first drawn to the centre of the canvas, then follows the directional flow of the survivors' bodies, viewed from behind and straining to the right. Two diagonal lines are used to heighten the dramatic tension. One follows the mast and its rigging and leads the viewer's eye towards an approaching wave that threatens to engulf the raft, while the second, composed of reaching figures, leads to the distant silhouette of the Argus, the ship that eventually rescued the survivors."

It's not very clear, and I don't understand it. There doesn't seem to be a second pyramidal structure. Then we get two diagonal lines. What are they about? "One follows the mast and its rigging"? That's three lines, not one. Are the diagonal lines part of the pyramidal structures, or something in addition? Could it be version 4 that is right?

Ty 14:51, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Some copy editing might be necessary. One can gather from the text that the two pyramids are explained -- "One follows the mast and its rigging and leads the viewer's eye towards an approaching wave that threatens to engulf the raft, while the second, composed of reaching figures, leads to the distant silhouette of the Argus, the ship that eventually rescued the survivors." -- but maybe this can be clarified. The last version is an improvement, methinks. I don't know how to photoshop, period, so all efforts are appreciated! JNW (talk) 15:00, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Ceoil wrote the text, we probably need clarification from him as to what he meant exactly. I still like the second version which demonstrates the double pyramid composition immediately. Although from the text there seems to be overlap like the last version...Modernist (talk) 15:22, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

JWN, if you could copy edit thoes sentences that would be great. I dont have a very precise eye, and struggled with the para. For my monie, version 2 looks best. Ceoil (talk) 01:08, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Ceoil, I'm hesitant to go into that passage, because some of it's cited, some not, so I'm unsure what to mess with, or if some of what's already there is OR. By the way, I haven't helped much on this article for a while--between you, Modernist, Tyrenius, Johnbod, Lithoderm, etc, it's in great hands. JNW (talk) 05:07, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

The problem may be that a 2d shape (triangle) is used to illustrate a 3d shape (pyramid) which makes it unclear (as you naturally want some symmetry in the shapes which you get here in three dimensions but not in two). The edges of the first pyramid are the rigging and the mast and the imaginary lines between them on the deck, and the second pyramid is composed of the bodies topped by the waving man, so version 4 is correct. It might be clearer if you put the hidden edges in as dotted lines or shaded the faces if such advanced photoshoppery is within anybody's abilities. Yomangani^talk 16:16, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Version 4 also includes reaching figures in the lower right corner and so I think is too too wide. See the quoted text here[2]. However overall this will be a great addition once it is agreed on. Ceoil (talk) 01:12, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I think the diagonal (how you can have a "horizontal diagonal" I don't know) leading from the dead to the living is a separate aspect to the pyramids. Version 2 is very 2-dimensional: the red triangle there is very much a triangle rather than a indication of a pyramid. Version 4 might benefit from having the blue triangle brought to the front, as the second pyramidal structure is the stronger. Yomangani^talk 02:11, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

@:how you can have a "horizontal diagonal" I don't know. Now that you mention it, hmm. Should we loose the quote, although it seemed so plausable at the time. Ceoil (talk) 02:26, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

As it is a quote, I'd let it stand. The idea is sound even if the description isn't. Yomangani^talk 10:11, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Pyramids have sprung forth in versions 5 and 6. They are a bit wonky, perspective-wise, as Gericault wasn't very good at drawing pyramids. They follow the lines on the painting... Ty 03:09, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Too much geometry. Getting dizzy. JNW (talk) 05:07, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

It's the turps that does it, JNW! I think version 6 is what the text means, and the pyramid structure can be seen. Ty 05:11, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Now that you mention it: after the AFD imbroglio I started today, I ran off and painted...lots of medium, little ventilation... JNW (talk) 05:32, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

6 Rocks..Modernist (talk) 05:13, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

What Modernist said (JNW's turps-induced criticism notwithstanding). Yomangani^talk 10:11, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I think 6 is best, though to be ultra-picky I'd start the right one higher (as in 2) & extend both sides a bit to take in the woman's head to the left, & the bumps of backs to the right. Or leave it! Johnbod (talk) 15:51, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Woman? Yomangani^talk 16:16, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry - the guy in drag (or Arab fancy-dress) :) Johnbod (talk) 16:19, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Now now, calm down; there are no women on the internet, Yomangani, don't get all excited. I've moved 6 onto the main page anyhow. Great work with this, Ty and all. Ceoil (talk) 21:25, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Excellent! JNW (talk) 21:28, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Numbers could be clearer

Not having a book on the actual event to hand I'm a bit confused about the numbers and have a couple of questions. The article says there were 15 survivors but that Géricault depicts 20 figures: 5 more than in reality including 2 extra corpses.

1. Only 19 figures are immediately obvious. The vague smudge on the sail is supposed to be one? Or is the 20th figure supposed to be sat next to the man with his head in hands? (as perhaps claimed by in Hagen and Hagen - I don't see that reference there: "Two of the raft's ten survivors are seen in shadow at the foot of the mast;", could it be made clearer?). The deterioration of the picture probably makes this less clear than when first exhibited, but it is hard to track down number 20. One of the preparatory sketches shows a vaguely head-shaped object at the bottom of the mast but that's the closest I can come to number 20.
2. Which are the two "extra" corpses? 5 of the figures look fairly kaput, but if only the 2 hideously white ones are dead then this is "two corpses" rather than "two extra corpses" or "two more corpses". The article says "A number of bodies litter the foreground, waiting to be swept away by the surrounding waves" though, so we are implying that those are all dead which makes the numbers funny again. Basically, I'm asking how many bodies were recorded on the raft at the time of rescue and how many of the bodies in the picture are corpses. Yomangani^talk 14:19, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Data taken from the source, which says, "Géricault ... added two historically incorrect corpses. A total of twenty figures occupy Géricault's raft, five more than reality's".[3] Ours not to reason why. According to Rupert Christiansen then, reality had 15 figures; Gericault had 20 figures. I take it that the 2 corpses are historically incorrect, as there were no dead bodies on the raft at the time of discovery. The other figures then would be dying, rather than actually dead. Ty 00:52, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not a big fan of regurgitating sources without question, especially when we contradict them in the article (We also have Muther claiming that most of the men are naked when they are mostly semi-clothed). Perhaps we could reword the bit about the corpses to lose the numbers and swap the detail of "two dying figures"-one of those has surely got to be one of Christian's corpses and we refer to him as dead later-for the one further up on this page showing the Argus (which is harder for the casual viewer to make out). As for the twenty figures, can anybody see number twenty or find another source that says there are twenty? I'd hate to see a miscount immortalised on the page. Yomangani^talk 10:33, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Cooke

No disrespect to George Cooke, but despite his having made a copy of the Raft, is there consensus that he belongs in the opening alongside Manet, Turner, etc.? JNW (talk) 22:41, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, I was only dimly aware of the long running JNW vs George Cook dispute; very interesting ;) No your right, will remove from lead. Ceoil (talk) 22:49, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Alright, I'll come clean: He stole a commission from me, then he stole my woman. And my horse. If ever I find the man... JNW (talk) 22:51, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree, I left him in there against my better judgment..but I didn't know he stole your horse and your woman, should've put him on a raft! Modernist (talk) 22:56, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes. And I really miss the horse. Sniff. JNW (talk) 22:58, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

How effective are internet based possies? I have seven reasonalby ruthless socks (dont tell anybody), and a bunch of meat puppets just around the corner. I dont see much noise from Cook at the moment. Easy. Ceoil (talk) 23:15, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Just keep a watchful eye, ya never know...Modernist (talk) 23:20, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Pop

Homage/Pastiche in Asterix. A small subtly-worded addition to the Legacy section might help fend off the addition of "In popular culture" later on. Yomangani^talk 10:44, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that will be enough. It's also featured on album covers[4] and elsewhere.[5] Ty 11:00, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

"Re-enacted with supermodels". But Ceoil told me there are no women on the internet. Yomangani^talk 14:14, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

You can also check out "The Raft of George W. Bush". (Not that I would want to see that in the article, mind you). Lithoderm 05:55, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Five or Six

According to this [6] there were six, if another ref says five then please change it. I'm gonna return to six otherwise...Modernist (talk) 12:47, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Give me a few minutes, just trying to work out whether it is five or six. Savigny is all over the place with them. Yomangani^talk 12:51, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

OK, if its five then change the lead too...Modernist (talk) 12:54, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

No, it was six. Counted them myself and found a little sketch, sorry about that. Yomangani^talk 13:05, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Carpenters

There does seem to have been a carpenter on the raft:[7]

"He also made numerous studies of the survivors such as the ship's carpenter, Lauillette, and Sauvigny and Correard" -- Jonathan Miles, The Wreck of the Medusa, first paperback edition, Grove/Atlantic, Inc., P. 176, ISBN 080214392x, ISBN 9780802143921. See Amazon search inside.

"The Raft is a tableau vivant: a living picture whose figures, drawn from contemporary events, re-enact the tragedy of the Medusa's castaways. Like Savigny, Correard, the carpenter Lavillette, and the sailor Jean Charles, they are waiting for the Argus ... Gericault made the fate of common men -- a surgeon, an engineer, a carpenter, a sailor -- the theme of his immense tableau."[8]

"In his studio he had Corréard, Savigny and the raft's carpenter help him build a scale model of the vessel"[9]

In fact there seem to have been at least two carpenters on the raft, but one, Dominque, "sided with the mutineers", which I think was a fatal mistake.

Ty 15:34, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Savigny says Lavillette was a "workman" (as was Dominque) and "ex-serjeant of the artillery". That's not to say that he wasn't a carpenter (workman on a wooden ship is likely to be chiefly a carpenter), but assigning him the role of "raft's carpenter" sounds a little like an official role, as if he was assigned to the raft as a carpenter in case repairs were necessary, which is what I was trying to avoid. I've reworded to use his name instead. What do you think? Yomangani^talk 16:00, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Per NPOV it would be incorrect not to follow the source. There's nothing to conflict with that, as far as I know. A carpenter is a workman. Miles says on p. 112 and p. 142 that Lavillette is "the workshop foreman". IIRC the carpenter(s) built the raft, so Lavillette would be the raft's carpenter, i.e. he constructed it. Ty 16:33, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm a bit lost as to what you mean by "Per NPOV it would be incorrect not to follow the source". Our former formulations left out his name, so didn't follow the sources exactly. I've merely replaced the term "raft's carpenter" with the more generic "carpenter" and/or his name, so only deviating from Christiansen and actually following the other sources more closely. Yomangani^talk 16:54, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I just meant that if the source called him "the raft's carpenter" then so should we. But I'm not familiar with the other material, so I defer to any decision which takes wider sources into account. I didn't know what his name was before! Ty 11:43, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Portrait

Just in! Genuine portrait of the artist himself in 1816 now available at File:Théodore Géricault by Alexandre Colin 1816.jpg. Ty 15:53, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Auntie Alexandrine

The article doesn't mention Alexandrine. Was this a concious choice or just an omission? (Didn't want to add something if you've already discussed it and decided to leave her out). Yomangani^talk 02:33, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually I don't think she worked on the painting...although she worked on him. Maybe she should join the article on him...There isn't mention of their son or his uncle either..I don't think it would be helpful here.Modernist (talk) 03:52, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

The end of their affair is quite a popular explanation for his state of mind while producing the picture: the "mournful descent", and I've even seen parallels (albeit somewhat strained) drawn between Géricault and De Chaumereys in that they were both forced to abandon their dependants (I told you it was strained). I won't insist, but perhaps a passing mention? Something like: "Géricault, who had just been forced to break off an affair with his aunt, shaved his head and from November 1818 to July 1819 lived a disciplined monastic existence"? Yomangani^talk 09:58, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

How about just - "Géricault, had just been forced to break off a painful love affair, shaved his head and from November 1818 to July 1819 lived a disciplined monastic existence deeply immersed in his work." Modernist (talk)

Homer

I added the Homer...and I like it there, I think it's well placed..Modernist (talk) 23:48, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Good. Ceoil (talk) 02:29, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Major

According to what I've read he hadn't shown anything in the salon for several years and this painting was a considerably ambitious departure from anything he had done previously and this is a major work for a 27 year old, or for anyone, although he had submitted to the salon years before...Modernist (talk) 12:49, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Goya

"...Géricault was influenced by the human pathos as expressed in such earlier works as Francisco Goya's The Third of May 1808..." Géricault could not have seen the painting.--Wetman (talk) 06:51, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

It's certainly unlikely he'd seen it. That sentence and the corresponding mention further down are a bit weaselly as they suggest he was influenced by those works while only stating that he was influenced by pathos. Perhaps we could reword them to break that implication. Yomangani^talk 08:29, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Bad phrasing & some conjecture I guess. Well spotted, gone now. Ceoil (talk) 23:13, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

The meaning of the verb "to embark"

"In June 1816, the French frigate Méduse embarked..."

Passengers and crew embark (meaning to go on board); ships themselves simply leave, sail or depart.PiCo (talk) 03:06, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

You're quite right- sorry, I think that was my copy edit. I have amended it. Petropoxy (Lithoderm Proxy) (talk) 07:38, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

The Pogues

Hi. Can someone add in a note that the painting was used for the cover of the Pogues' album "Rum, Sodomy and the Lash" with the musicians painted onto some of the figures? Cheers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 221.127.77.218 (talk) 03:09, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

See WP:TRIVIA. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:14, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that should certainly be mentioned! Clevelander96 (talk) 03:14, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Independently of this conversation, I tried to add this, and User:SandyGeorgia removed it. I'm going to add it back.--Mike Selinker (talk) 04:06, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

No, please don't. See WP:TRIVIA, unless there are reliable third-party sources verifying this, trivia should not be included. Also, even if you do find a reliable source, integrate the information into existing sections rather than begin a new popular culture section; these are discouraged. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:20, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I tried to integrate it into the text; User:SandyGeorgia deleted it. Then I tried to make it its own section. This is a well known album with a well known use of the painting. I understand about sourcing it. Does this page on the Pogues seem a reliable source to you?--Mike Selinker (talk) 04:30, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

This has absolutely nothing to do with this painting, and does not belong in this article..The Pogues can put it on their page. This article is about a great painting..Modernist (talk) 04:43, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Alright, how about adding this paragraph?

The painting has been parodied and imitated in many forms, among them on the cover of The New Yorker in the wake of Hurricane Katrina, in a panel of the comic book Asterix, and on the cover of Rum, Sodomy, and the Lash, an album by the Irish rock band The Pogues. The Pogues later paid homage to the painting with their song "The Wake of the Medusa".

Does that help put its modern appearances in context?--Mike Selinker (talk) 05:15, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Against adding 'in popular culture' and trivia sections, per Sandy Georgia, Dabomb87, and Modernist above. JNW (talk) 05:32, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Much as I like the album, I too am against the addition of a trivia/popular culture section. Kafka Liz (talk) 07:00, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Why don't we just add in The Raft of George W. Bush while we're at it?!? Best not to go down this path. Although, in a parallel case, the Viva La Vida reference is in the legacy section of Liberty Leading the People, we've had to remove it from Eugene Delacroix several times. Petropoxy (Lithoderm Proxy) (talk) 07:35, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

• Why not include The Raft of George Bush? It speaks to the painting's continuing influence. But I see you all don't want such chocolate in your peanut butter, so I'll drop the subject.--Mike Selinker (talk) 13:29, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

It seems to me that in the case of the Raft of the Medusa and other very well-known works, imitative and derivative artworks are worthy at least of some mention. How about Andy Warhol's Mona Lisa, which is mentioned under a section titled "Legacy" in Mona Lisa? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Clevelander96 (talk • contribs) 18:27, April 10, 2009

Actually I don't agree. Although there are in my opinion certain iconic works that are so familiar those sorts of homages and parodies might merit mention. Works like American Gothic, Nighthawks, Christina's World, and the Mona Lisa seem to fit more easily into that category. Certainly Marcel Duchamp's treatment of the Mona Lisa merited attention...Modernist (talk) 18:48, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Speaking of chocolate:[10] The problem is that the album cover itself has not received recognition as an artwork in its own right- the article needs to cover the painting's substantial artistic legacy- its influence upon other artists, I mean. By that I mean their attempts to come to grips with the substance of the work and to adopt it to their own artistic goals. The album cover is a relatively small facet of a larger artwork, the album itself. It plays upon the recognizable appearance of the painting for the one line joke of inserting the musician's appearances into the painting. Had they created an album of songs inspired by Gericault's work, I might be more sympathetic to its inclusion. Petropoxy (Lithoderm Proxy) (talk) 19:28, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't agree. How would inclusion of the album cover deepen our understanding of this painting? Is it a tribute to the painting's artistic legacy, or is it a superficial knockoff that has nothing to do with the artistic issues confronting Géricault? The Mona Lisa does have a status as an icon that is easily parodied or referenced, I think, because the painting itself is ambiguous. Therefore, those referencing or parodying it can work with somewhat of a blank slate, content-wise. The Raft of the Medusa is content heavy. Ripoffs do not, for the most part, demonstrate awareness of the painting's artistic features or it "legacy" in the art history sense. —Mattisse (Talk) 19:42, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Mattisse, the painting depicts a monstrous tragedy; human injustice; and desperation at its most scandalous and painful frontier...a serious subject discussed here at length; not easily lent to diluted and deluded spoofs...rather contemplate the painting..Modernist (talk) 19:49, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, the percieved tone of an article on wikipedia has never been a measure for what should be included within. Art, whether it be film, music or a painting of the relevance of The Raft of the Medusa should have a section about it's legacy and in this case, the painting's influence spans more than it's own field.  Red157  20:02, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

It already has an appropriate section about its legacy: see WP:TRIVIA and WP:NOT. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:04, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

And not every reference to an artwork merits inclusion. Most don't, for the good reasons enumerated above. Anyone want to have a crack at this [11]? Textbook example of the way in which trivia...trivializes. Echhh. JNW (talk) 20:15, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Per Mattisse and Modernist (I think Petropoxy is making a similar argument). The topic of the painting is human tragedy; the album cover is a sly and knowing dig at the habits of its musicians. Ceoil (talk) 20:34, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I believe we should not make a judgment here as to whether the Pogues' parody is or isn't, is meritorious or a mere "knockoff." If there has been discussion of this parody by art critics or historians, or some external source makes a claim about its significance, we can simply reference it here; if not, then it would be original research to make our own claim of significance. Clevelander96 (talk) 20:46, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Which was exactly my argument... Petropoxy (Lithoderm Proxy) (talk) 20:51, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Believe me, the Pogues artwork, while clever to a degree, is low on the cultural scale comapared to the scholarly work and other painters influenced by the work who might also be included here. Are you serious. Ceoil (talk) 20:56, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I might have made my OPPOSITION TO INCLUDING THE ALBUM COVER more clear had not someone else been waiting behind me to check their email- and it was his computer... I meant to contrast works of fine art that are based on the artist's reaction to and personal interpretation of the substance of the painting, as opposed to works of applied art that are insignificant outside of their relationship to another artwork that they decorate, and which play only upon the recognizability of the painting rather than its substance. Example: Homer's The Gulf Stream enters into a dialogue with the Raft of the Medusa, while the album cover graphic is cheaply photoshopped crap that would not be notable had it not appeared on an album cover, and therefore is important only in relation to the album. Perhaps some interpreted my statements about artistic influence as applying to the Pogues artwork: THEY DID NOT. Petropoxy (Lithoderm Proxy) (talk) 21:20, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I may be wrong, but I don't think Ceoil's "are you serious" remark was directed at you, Lith. Kafka Liz (talk) 01:45, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

My bad. Comment was directed at Clevelander96; I was very much agreeing with and backing up Lith. I apologised for the misunderstanding on Liths talk. Ceoil (talk) 14:18, 12 April 2009 (UTC) Ceoil (talk) 08:22, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Exhibition in Dublin

This is a wonderful article -- but I am greatly surprised to find no reference to Bullock's exhibition of this painting in Dublin, just after its run at the Egyptian Hall in London -- this is mentioned in all the studies of the painting, and is especially significant since in Dublin it competed with the Marshalls' Panorama of the same subject. Clevelander96 (talk) 03:13, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I have now added a reference to this in what I think is the appropriate spot. Clevelander96 (talk) 17:54, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Clevelander. I hope there are no hard feelings about the Pogues from above...Ironically, all here seem to be fairly serious Pogue fans! Strange or wha' Ceoil (talk) 14:20, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Seconding Ceoil's sentiments re: the Pogues--I'm a sucker for 'Fairytale of NY'--and for the addition of the Dublin exhibition. JNW (talk) 16:23, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Agreed on both points! Johnbod (talk) 17:11, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Peach black

Was one of the colors that Gericault used really peach black, not pitch-black? If it's correct, then please excuse my ignorance. — Kpalion^(talk) 14:55, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Peach Black is correct: [12]...Modernist (talk) 15:21, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Interesting; I would have never associated peaches with black. I managed to find a little information about it on Google... It appears to be made from (burned?) peach stones and it's "a mild black pigment with a tendency to green". Too bad we don't have an article about this color. — Kpalion^(talk) 16:58, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

We do now! Barely a stub now; feel free to add more. In fact, please do! Matt Deres (talk) 17:32, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Great, I added a link tothe page.... Ceoil (talk) 17:41, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! Matt Deres (talk) 17:54, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Colours

File:Medusa-Palette-1.gif

original GIF image

File:Medusa-Palette-1.png

PNG image 1KB

new PNG image 3KB

The Gif image was originally in the article, and was changed to the Png, which I reverted on the basis that it had changed the colours. This was reverted in turn by a different user with the edit summary, "Rv - the images are completely identical. If they look different to you, it is your computer." They certainly do look different to me, so I wonder if it is my computer and if they are in fact "identical". [13] The most obvious difference is the top left square, which is decidedly darker for me in the Png. The top right square is not as yellow (i.e. not a yellow ochre). Colours in the Png are generally duller. Ty 02:05, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

In my computer they look very, very similar, I don't see a difference. Maybe the ping is more dense but they are really close...Modernist (talk) 02:13, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

What gamma is your screen set to? See test diagram links near the bottom of this page. Ty 02:32, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

If I've done it correctly, 1.79...Modernist (talk) 02:44, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

The options are:

Please choose a target gamma from the following list:

Gamma 1.4

Gamma 1.6

Gamma 1.8

Gamma 2.0

Gamma 2.2

Gamma 2.4

Mac is 1.8. PC is 2.2. "A compromise value of 2.0, midway between the Mac and the PC, is probably a good choice if you're preparing images solely for web publishing." I have a setting of 2.0. Ty 02:53, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I have a Mac 1.8 makes sense...Modernist (talk) 02:56, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

The difference is more pronounced on a PC setting of 2.2 gamma, not so much at 1.8. Ty 03:16, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I've uploaded a new PNG image of 3KB, which is exactly the same as the GIF. The first PNG image was 1KB and had to compromise on the colour because the file size wasn't big enough. Ty 03:48, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

The above remarks apply to Firefox as a browser. I've tested in Internet Explorer, and the problem doesn't occur. Ty 16:19, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Raft project

Notable or no?

In the early 90's, sculptor John Connell, in his Raft Project, [14] a collaborative project with painter Eugene Newmann, recreated The Raft of the Medusa by making life-sized sculptures out of wood, paper and tar and placing them on a large wooden raft. ARTnews, Summer 1993.

I don't think this is notable partially because it no longer exists, as far as I know; however other opinions are welcome...Modernist (talk) 15:32, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Given the statement's relative brevity, I think it is a valuable addition. Anyone can take a couple of seconds to click on John Connell, and while this work itself may not be extant (I'll take your word for it), quickly see what kind of artist, doing what kind of a work, has so explicitly paid artistic homage to the work. The criterion should not be the notability of Connell as compared to Winslow Homer et al., but the fact that he's a notable author who has done something with the Raft in our time that's so distinctly different from the rest of the "legacy" discussed here. In short, if the single sentence is restored, readers' impression of the work's ongoing life will be healthily broadened. (P.S. "rv imo nn" seems a bit harshly laconic to me: "seems to me" was my polite way of saying "this is clearly notable and importance," and the notability derives from the fact that John Connell has an article.) Wareh (talk) 16:52, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I have an open mind, lets get some other opinions on the inclusion...Modernist (talk) 17:22, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough Wareh, you argument for inclusion is good enough. If Modernist is ok with it I'm ok. Bty, do you have any photoes of the work? Ceoil 17:38, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks - open minds are refreshing around here. Great work on the featured articles, by the way. Wareh (talk) 20:29, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Earlier I added this photo:[15]...Modernist (talk) 17:55, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Ta. Might be a streach for FU. Ceoil 18:12, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Asterix

The parody (if that's the right word) in Asterix is certainly notable. For example, this article about the painting discusses the Asterix use. StAnselm (talk) 21:31, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Notability is a concept that applies to article subjects, not aspects within articles. Not everything that can be referenced belongs in an article. Loads of stuff like this has been cleared out already. You're welcome to start "RotM in popular culture" from the history. We don't even have Julian Barnes's extended piece. Johnbod (talk) 21:35, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Call it "significant" then. The thing is, this is something that is discussed in secondary literature on the painting. If Andrew Graham-Dixon sees fit to talk about Asterix when he writes about the painting, why shouldn't this article include it? StAnselm (talk) 21:39, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

As AGD says just above, there are thousands of cartoon parodies. We don't include every other work mentioned by every critic, here or anywhere. Most criticism manages to get by without mentioning Asterix, or the album covers etc etc. You are up to 3 reverts now so be careful. Johnbod (talk) 21:44, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

We do not add every parody of famous works of art, start another article if you have to: Parodies of famous artworks...Modernist (talk) 21:47, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Infobox pic query

Someone has changed the infobox pic from one of 354 KB to one of 9.54 MB, which is certainly better, but may be too big for those with mobile/slow connections. Should we perhaps leave as is, but also link to a "lower res image", or change back, with a link to "higher res image"? Johnbod (talk) 17:41, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

It's a great reproduction but at 9.54 MB impracticable, and would be in favour of a higher res link. Ceoil (talk) 21:53, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

How big should we go for the low res, or the high res? There's one at 4.19 MB that's pretty good. Johnbod (talk) 00:32, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Lead

The French name of this work is simply not used in English. Kindly do not bold it as though it were. — LlywelynII 09:30, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on The Raft of the Medusa. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120330112036/http://www.terraamericanart.org/exhibitions/index.asp?key=33&subkey=254 to http://www.terraamericanart.org/exhibitions/index.asp?key=33&subkey=254

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:26, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on The Raft of the Medusa. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090315065618/http://www.19thc-artworldwide.org/spring_07/articles/newd_atha_print.html to http://www.19thc-artworldwide.org/spring_07/articles/newd_atha_print.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:45, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on The Raft of the Medusa. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160303215057/http://www.nga.gov/feature/artnation/vernet/index.shtm to http://www.nga.gov/feature/artnation/vernet/index.shtm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:11, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on The Raft of the Medusa. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110930060446/http://www.maverick-arts.com/cgi-bin/MAVERICK?action=article&issue=148 to http://www.maverick-arts.com/cgi-bin/MAVERICK?action=article&issue=148

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:13, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Why was Viscount Hugues Duroy de Chaumereys Appointed?

We are told that "his was a routine naval appointment made within the Ministry of the Navy and far outside the concerns of the monarch" but also that he "had been granted his commission as a result of an act of political preferment."

So was it a political appointment by somebody other than the King? It's jarring to see these two statements made in an unconnected manner. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.14.149.59 (talk) 09:24, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

On the source of a well-known story related to The Raft and Delacroix

I mean a story Hubert Wellington goes to quote in the Phaidon edition of Delacroix' Journal (p. XI in 1980 reprint and p. XII in 1995 reprint). Since it is quite popular story related to the article's subject (and Delacroix as well), my question is like, "Is there any thing among Delacroix' body of writing that Wellington quotes from?" Gleb95 (talk) 11:27, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Well, I found it on my own.

Il me permit d'aller voir sa Méduse pendant qu'il l'exécutait dans un atelier bizarre qu'il avait près des Ternes. L'impression que j'en reçus fut si vive, qu'en sortant je revins toujours courant et comme un fou jusqu'à la rue de la Planche ou j'habitais alors.

— Eugène Delacroix, Oeuvres littéraires, vol. 2, p. 233

From Russia with love, Gleb95 (talk) 13:28, 9 April 2020 (UTC).