Talk:When Will You Marry?

Saatchigallery.com not a reliable source?

New to me, and also the dozens of other editors who cite it in numerous edits.

However Modernist is sure enough of his grounds to revert me twice for this citation <ref name="Saatchi">{{cite web|title=The unlawful legacy of Paul Gauguin|url=http://blog.saatchigallery.com/paul-gauguin|website=blog.saatchigallery.com|publisher=[[Saatchi Gallery]]|archiveurl=http://www.webcitation.org/6WBpYrXR3|archivedate=8 February 2015|deadurl= no}}</ref> and insist I take it to the Talk page.

I dare say he has his reasons. I cannot imagine what they can be. I shall email Saatchi Gallery to let them know that the grand old man of Wikipedia's visual arts considers them unreliable . For myself I don't have the time or patience for this. Modernist can have it. It remains only for me to record my reasons for the citation. That was merely to record that modern opinion takes issue on the question of the purity Gauguin sought: to quote my source

One must suppose “pure” is a relative term, as it is now known that during this time Gauguin acquired three native brides, aged 13, 13 and 14, whom he infected with syphilis, all the while living in a hut the artist dubbed “La Maison du Jouir (“The House of Orgasm”).

The whole world and their cats know that this painting recently got sold for an all time record price for any work of art, reputedly $300 million? Did an American or European art institution purchase it? It's thought not, and I suggest that's not just because they don't have the money. It's a brave gallery indeed who should put that kind of money in the way of a painter so tainted by the charge of sexual misconduct they may not in the future be allowed to exhibit some of his painting on the grounds of taste. C1cada (talk) 17:31, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Blog

Here is the link cited: http://blog.saatchigallery.com/paul-gauguin...Modernist (talk) 00:16, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Well yes. It calls itself 'blog' in its URL cataloguing. I dare say many sites do this. But it's nevertheless commentary (impeccably sourced by the way at the end, check it out) from a very notable art institution. I call that reliable.

But you can have this Modernist as a very small token of my appreciation. Of course one is very gratified to be noticed like this by a pillar of Wikipedia. C1cada (talk) 08:11, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Alleged Buddhist mudra

The suggestion that south Asian Buddhist iconography is present in the form of a mudra seems spurious at best. A clear reference to the artist's intent would be needed to validate this claim. prat (talk) 00:21, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Paul Gauguin - The Ancestors of Tehamana OR Tehamana Has Many Parents (Merahi metua no Tehamana) - Google Art Project

Not in the least bit dubious. Gauguin consciously introduced these ritual gestures into several of his Tahiti paintings. See this academic thesis for example. One of his best known paintings from the period is entitled The Great Buddha: without bothering to do the research, I would say the gesture of the second figure on the right is another one of those gestures.

This is Alastair Smart on Tehamana

In some paintings, one senses another dark truth surfacing, too: that however hard he tried to “go native”, Gauguin always felt like an outsider, unable to share in the islanders’ profound mysteries. Consider The Ancestors of Tehamana (a portrait of his wife, wearing a high-necked missionary dress). Tehamana sits in front of a frieze that depicts the alien combination of a Buddhist idol, indecipherable glyphs and two evil spirits. She smiles at us, sort of, with all the enigma of a Polynesian Mona Lisa. Beneath the Westernised clothing, and in all but the sexual sense, it seems Gauguin found her impenetrable.

The owning museum, Chicago Institute of Art, refers to the Hindu undertones in its discussion of the painting (while repressing that Gauguin's 13 year old 'companion' was impregnated with both child and syphilis by Gauguin).

Finally I provided an impeccable citation that discusses these gestures in Gauguin's paintings in detail.

You will readily understand that I feel justified in removing your templates. If you think the remark needs labouring (I choose the word precisely and do not thank you for this expenditure of my time), perhaps you would like to provide it yourself. C1cada (talk) 08:03, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm much happier with the reword which clarifies this interpretation as just that — interpretation. The previous text implied this was the artist's intent which would have required far more direct evidence to document. prat (talk) 21:55, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, you mean the revision where I begin with "Naomi E. Maurer characterises ... ". That's actually my preferred route of always indicating the critic. I'm afraid I forgot my own standards. I also note that my response above was unnecessarily aggressive and I apologise for that. You were quite right to raise the issue. Apologies. C1cada (talk) 00:12, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Provenance?

Can anyone with access to catalogue raissone (starting at around £230 ) provide some provenance details. I can get that it was offered at Durand-Ruel for Fr. 1500 and multiple sources that Staechelin purchased it at the Maison Moos gallery in Geneva in 1917, when he acquired most of his collection it seems, but I don't feel that's enough for an adequate edit. If you're not happy editing Wikipedia you can just copy-paste your stuff here and I'll take it over. There are no copyright restriction on facts, so that shouldn't be a concern. Appreciated. Normally museums offer this information on their pages, but this painting seems not to have such a page any more that I can find. The Staechelin catalogue might also serve. Thank you. C1cada (talk) 17:02, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

File:Paul Gauguin, Nafea Faa Ipoipo? 1892, oil on canvas, 101 x 77 cm.jpg to appear as POTD soon

Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Paul Gauguin, Nafea Faa Ipoipo? 1892, oil on canvas, 101 x 77 cm.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on January 6, 2018. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2018-01-06. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:51, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Picture of the day

When Will You Marry? is an oil painting from 1892 by the French Post-Impressionist artist Paul Gauguin. Completed during his sojourn in Tahiti, it depicts two Tahitian women—one dressed in traditional attire, the other in Western clothing—sitting in a field. The front figure's tiare flower, as well as the inscription "NAFEA Faa ipoipo" ('When will you marry?') at bottom right, imply that she is looking for a husband. On loan to the Kunstmuseum in Basel, Switzerland, for nearly a half-century, it was sold privately in February 2015 for close to US $210 million, one of the highest prices ever for a work of art.Painting: Paul Gauguin

NAFEAA FAA IPOIPO PAINTING

What is the specialty of this painting Vijayant Kaler (talk) 12:50, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Tahitian text

What would be the correct version of the title in Tahitian? I think "afea fa'aipoipo?" would probably be correct based on my minimal research. Nafea is translated as "how" in Tahitian dictionaries, although obviously Gauguin may have heard a local dialect, or just heardit wrong. Sheila1988 (talk) 22:00, 10 February 2023 (UTC)