Talk:The Bookworm (Spitzweg)

OR

A lot of this seems to be based on the writer's own view of the painting, particularly regarding what the bookworm is thinking and what certain elements symbolise.... -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 05:39, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Most of it is a normal description of what an educated eye detects in the painting, like an expanded caption, which simply sends the viewer back to the illustration. It sets The Bookworm in its cultural context, making it encyclopedia material. Does the text trouble any standards of neutral, mainstream discourse? What in the article is the least bit controversial? Is some statement not liked? No doubt it can be edited to satisfy even the most fastidious standard of intellectual honesty.--Wetman (talk) 12:14, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, its true, I have found myself doing that too. I think their should be some cement policy about how much description can be ventured by the editor - I think at least some is nigh inevitable. Cheers, -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 11:53, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps some of us would prefer common sense applied on a case-by-case basis to a hardcore policy, whether cast in cement or cast in bronze. --Wetman (talk) 14:47, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I still think there should be a vague guideline of sorts detailing approximately where information ventured by an "educated eye" crosses over to become opinionated speculation. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 08:17, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree we need to remove that section. Call me LORDiNFAMOUS (talk) 01:14, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Incorrect location

The location of the work cited on the page,The Georg Schäfer Museum, is incorrect. The Bookworm is located in the Milwaukee Public Library. MPL Matthewwarrenlee (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 05:14, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Unacceptable Article

I'm going to start ripping out the "fluff" from this article. Way too much original research. Plus it's a painting, people shouldn't be told or described what it is in such a way, the viewer should create his own ideas about what is going on in this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by OutCoppinH (talk • contribs) 02:24, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Interpretation of the Description

This article contains far too much of one persons interpretation of this painting, which is considered original research. How the painting is described in this article is one persons interpretation and the most beautiful thing about artwork is that it is up to the viewer to decided what is going on in it, the only definitive guide is the artist who painted the work. This is article reads more like a review on new york times (yuck). Not something we want on wikipedia! 76.119.62.144 (talk) 02:59, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

• Log in (yuck) and be taken seriously.--Wetman (talk) 04:23, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
• {{original research}} added, please don't blank the section. Gryllida 02:15, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

FACTS before FICTION

I've noted that the subject of where the original is housed was broached in 2008 and no one has bothered to investigate further. Debates about objectivity and subjectivity of the content aside, how about starting an article with correct facts about the subject in place? If I wanted to see the original and consulted Wikipedia in order to book my flight, I'd be extremely peeved when I turned up in Bayern only to discover that I should have gone to Milwaukee!

I'm currently awaiting confirmation from both Museum Georg Schäfer and the Milwaukee Public Library that it is, in fact, housed in Milwaukee. Small wonder that Wikipedia has such a bad reputation. Using it as a forum to express personal opinions is seriously irritating. Using it to disseminate misinformation is unforgivable. Why has no one asked for citations as to the most fundamental, tangible facts surrounding the piece? This has resulted in misrepresentation of the Museum Georg Schäfer - using this piece as being representative of its collection - in translations and references all over the web. Utterly irresponsible! Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:09, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

There are three paintings of Spitzweg which are titeled "Bücherwurm". The first one was painted ca 1850 and Spitzweg called it in his sales list "Der Bibliothekar" (# 102). It was sold 1852 to Ignaz Kuranda of Vienna and this painting is owned by Museum Georg Schäfer in Schweinfurt. A very close piece in the very same size was painted by Spitzweg one year later and was sold to his New York based art-dealer H. W. Schaus (sales list #156). This exemplar has the Milwaukee Public Library, donated by art collector René von Schleinitz. A third and final version was painted 1884. The images shows the Schweinfurt-version. See also german article -Artmax (talk) 09:32, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying this for me, Artmax! When I started trying to research this, it occurred to me that there was more than one version. It is not uncommon for artists (as artisans rather than the current romantic vision of artists as being impoverished bohemians) to create prototypes or create more than a single version of a piece, but I had no response from Museum Georg Schäfer, whereas the Milwaukee Library contacted me immediately. I can can cancel the further inquiry I made regarding their version's provenance. Thank you, also for pointing to the German article. I will update the English version of the page (as well as the Russian and Ukrainian versions) to reflect the fact of there being three versions. I'll also contact the Milwaukee Public Library in order that they reference the fact that theirs is the second version. Perhaps they'd be prepared to release an image of their version for use in Wikimedia. It would be excellent to have another example of the piece. I certainly find the German entry to be far more comprehensive and less emotionally leading in its analysis of the piece. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 10:41, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

What I said to you is no secret. I have it mainly from a source which is mentioned in the article: Jensen, Jens Christian (2007). Carl Spitzweg. Munich: Prestel Verlag. ISBN 3791337475. Mr Jensen is a very comprehensive Spitzweg-expert. But obviously nobody did a look in this book. . --Artmax (talk) 11:32, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately, English Wikipedia reflects English speaking academia in that it views any sources in languages other than English with extreme prejudice. I'll try to get a translation through but, at some point, it is bound to be questioned as being unreliable under the pretext that English speakers can't read it! Ironic, don't you think? Most of our sources for ancient civilisations and history are translations based on transcripts of medieval transcripts of ancient translations of original sources which no longer exist. I've encountered this problem trying to use Soviet documents recently released which can be read by anyone who knows Russian, yet they are not accepted because they have not as yet been formally 'recognised' in any English language conference papers, dissertations or even badly written internet blogs! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:04, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

1857 or 1850?

The first sentence dates the painting to 1857, but the "History" section and the info box say 1850. Can someone clarify this? Is the "1857" just a typo, or does it refer to one of the later versions? Elsquared (talk) 00:09, 9 July 2019 (UTC)