Talk:Thomas Eakins

Phrase

This phrase:
The Gross Clinic is impressive for its ambition as well as its subject, that of a renowned Philadelphia surgeon, Dr. Samuel Gross, presiding over an operation to remove part of a diseased bone from a patient's thigh.
conflicts somewhat with the The Gross Clinic page, which states a tumour is being removed. Whichever it is (I dunno and don't care, so I leave it up to the Art History Majors here at Wikipedia), they should match for continuity's sake. 82.93.133.130 22:53, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

• The website for Jefferson Medical College, long-time owner of the painting, refers to the removal of diseased bone as the subject of the operation portrayed. JNW 04:42, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Recent news of the painting's sale on November 11, 2006 added. Plus, and I hope it isn't a problem, the end result was his artwork, not photographs, so I replaced the photo study of the jumper in motion (a few photographers did such studies back then) with a very beautiful portrait of Maud Cook he did in 1895. All in all, Eakins was simply an outstanding artist.Carajou 03:42, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

first heading on article

It looks like someone has deliberately step into this article and the first heading that is shown is "He was gay!" with a perhaps irrelevant sentence; i reverted some changes for this reason; it is just not in a formal tone; such titles or the description of his works are absolutely indecent, especially if this is to be found in an encyclopedia or just not expressed in the right manner.

150.176.93.182 01:53, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Philly Wikiproject rating

The article has a good overview of Eakins life, but lacks references, which is particularily problematic when discussing his work. Medvedenko 00:26, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Expansion

I am expanding this article--so far have added to youth, early career, and teaching, and will continue with photography, portraits, legacy, and, in time, am planning to add a heading for figure work (boxers, wrestlers, swimmers, female nudes). JNW 17:32, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

• Enough for now. JNW 02:36, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

• Still needs a passage on sculpture. JNW 13:30, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

The article has improved greatly, good work. It's great to see. I think to be considered A-Class the introduction needs to be expanded according to Wikipedia:Lead section. When you have the time, can you include your book sources' ISBN and cite websites in a proffesional format. (as seen at Wikipedia:Citation templates). Medvedenko 19:36, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

It's great that you added so much JNW, but this expansion relies almost entirely on the work of Lloyd Goodrich's very outdated biography - much work has been done since then - three or four biographies, two published very recently, including one which demonstrated that Goodrich repressed a lot of information. I thought I'd put the newer biogrpahies (by Adams & Kirkpatrick) on the further reading section last fall? And references to scholarship on sexuality too? Weren't they also there at some point? The text about those conversations is still in the main body (which is great). We need contributions from others, to even out the tone and blend of sources, no? Judyholliday 18:52, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, your contributions to 'further reading' last year were deleted by a vandal. I see now that I reverted their vulgarisms, and did not notice the further damage that had been done. Thanks for restoring the references. Granted, I relied heavily on Goodrich's biography. His access to Eakins' widow and friends, and his general perceptiveness of Eakins' qualities, make his scholarship, if flawed, the touchstone for subsequent studies. When expanding the article I did want to take care not to delete the material on his personal life, and sought to add to it by giving some account of sexual scandal and inappropriate behavior, without having it take over the article. JNW 21:54, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

It is an incredible entry - still marred by bits of wild overstatement - "most neglected artist" of the period? I think the women and african american and native artists who don't even have entries here would disagree. he was head of instruction at the PAFA, and controversial - but it isn't like he was anonymous or unknown! and, i notice my own scholarship - regularly suppressed by conservative publications - has still not been restored in further reading. i am proud of my work on the artist, and dismayed to see my scholarship as well as my early work on this entry disregarded! I'm the author of "Sex, Scandal, and Thomas Eakins's The Gross Clinic", an article from Representations (1999). We used to have articles in this entry - an important resource for students who want to know more!Judyholliday (talk) 22:40, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Eakin's dismissal from the Pennsylvania Academy Of Fine Art

A recent biography of Eakins by William S. McFeely, the Pulitzer Prize winning biographer, documents and presents convincing evidence that is was NOT the "loincloth incident" that caused Eakins to be pressured into resigning his post as professor at the Academy. See chapter 13 of McFeely's book "Portrait: The life of Thomas Eakins" although I concede the stripping off of a male model's loincloth was a convenient excuse ... to obscure a more scandalous reason Eakins was booted out. The real scandal? Eakins was in the habit of going on outings with some of his adoring male students skinny dipping, wrestling in the nude, and what we called "messing around" when I was a teenager. That Eakins was gay is no longer controversial or disputed as is in the case of his dear friend poet Walt Whitman. Five male students went directly to the board of directors of the Academy and presented evidence of Prof. Eakin's "unmanly" behaviour. Interestingly the whole city of Philadelphia was fascinated with the controversy and most Academy students sided with Eakins: demanding his re-appointment, holding rallies in his support, even founding the Art Student's League as a rebuke to the Academy. Many years later the elderly Eakins was offered his job back, but he politely and proudly refused. 76.124.111.230 (talk) 22:27, 21 October 2008 (UTC)buddmar

Messages from "The Conversation"

Disclosure: the information presented in the messages (or web pages) mentioned here might be anywhere from authoritative (likely to be reliable) to "crowd-sourced" (perhaps less likely to be reliable). I do not know.

I also do now know whether the "implication" that this Wikipedia article has some "room for improvement" (in regard to the topics mentioned) is exaggerated (and hence should perhaps be ignored), or whether some edits should be "considered" (with the appropriate links to "reliable sources").

The web page at this internet address is basically an html "copy" of something that was sent out as an email message (dated "Fri, Mar 16, 2018 at 5:30 AM") recently.

The message says, in part, [that]

While painter Thomas Eakins is considered one of the greatest 19-century American artists, over the past few decades enough evidence has emerged to suggest that Eakins was a serial sexual abuser. Yet his Wikipedia entry doesn’t breathe a word on the subject. Nor do art history textbooks. [...]

where the words [displayed as] "Eakins was a serial sexual abuser" are also a hyperlink to the [world wide web] internet address (or URL) << https://theconversationus.createsend1.com/t/r-l-jyfkijd-hyjkkhpli-i/ >> ... which seems to [auto] "forward" to this longer internet address (or URL) which might be of interest (perhaps to historians... or artists ... or other Wikipedia editors). (If so, here is an "archiveurl" from the Wayback machine, which might help if the original [web page] should move or disappear or something.

I do not have the time nor the interest to investigate what changes ("if any") to this article are appropriate. Someone else ... might. --Mike Schwartz (talk) 20:52, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Imagemap of Eakins

The imagemap below shows Eakins (you can find him with a cursor). He was paited by his wife. Does someone want to include this picture too and get it to FA Victuallers (talk) 11:55, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Find Eakins on the right

New image

The oboe player.

Here there is an image that you may be interested in. Cheers OboeCrack (talk) 18:33, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Article rating

No GA class review, no A class review. Article rating previously was inconsistent with Bs & an A rating. Article needs serious work on wikiformats on references and alt text on all images for a GA/A/FA rating. This article does seem to meet B-class, but needs work as mentioned. I have asked for a peer review. Jrcrin001 (talk) 17:01, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Kathrin

The link goes to disambiguation, and no mention of Kathrin Cromwell or the painting is found. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wezelboy (talk • contribs) 06:29, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Great article and great painter

One of his paintings is up for Featured Picture.TCO (Reviews needed) 19:40, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Thomas Eakins/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Comment(s)

Press [show] to view →

Overall: This is a detailed and nicely organized article, but most of the material was written by a single person using an outdated biography (Goodrich) - that has since been shown to have been very biased (Adams, for example). The controversy provoked by Adams's biography is in fact well worth recording here - for, whatever one thinks of Eakins Revealed, its publication represents one of the most controversial events in Eakins scholarship. And, it has the most complete bibliography of any Eakins book I know. For some reason, I've had to add my own refereed and now often cited work in the field back in (I think for the third time). The paragraph I wrote about sexuality (repeated subject of vandalism) has been put back, but lost its notes? I'm so tired of homophobic vandalism on Wikipedia. It's why I stopped being an active editor here, and with the Warhol swamp. Anyway, this is just a plea to get some more hands on this one. The article is really long (do we really need to know what Eakins's father's family did?), the tone is very reverential towards the artist (and towards earlier scholarship on it) in a way that I think undermines the excellent work the primary author has done. It would be nice to have others editing this entry - he's such a major figure! I think having others jump in and tweek that tone, add balance here and there would make this the best quick reference text on the artist. I know my scholarship doesn't exactly represent the main line but I wouldn't hesitate to identify myself as an Eakins expert - having just chaired three panel discussions on the artist, two at College Art Association, and one at the Pennsylvania Academy of Fine Arts, where Eakins taught. The benefit of Wikipedia is that it allows readers to access a communally created portrait of its subjects When a single person invested in a single perspective writes so much of an entry, we lose the benefit of wiki! I've put my stamp on those sections in which folks would id me as the 'expert' - let's see some others who really know there stuff put some polish on this and make it an A+! Judyholliday (talk) 23:08, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Last edited at 23:08, 11 July 2008 (UTC). Substituted at 08:36, 30 April 2016 (UTC)