Talk:William-Adolphe Bouguereau/archive 1

Dusk

I think the Dusk picture should remain, it is more representative of his works, which are mostly nudes. If you have reason to change it from the origional picture then please let me know here. --ShaunMacPherson 15:23, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I question this. Fred Ross of the ARC claims that less than 10% of his over 800 paintings were nudes.

Also, I notice that user Antaeus Feldspar mentioned two links (below) which point to Wikipedia articles for Dusk and Evening Mood, which are skeletal articles and are likely to be deleted unless substantial encyclopaedic information about those paintings (actually the two copies of the same painting -- one of them should be changed to a redirect to the other) is added. Alternatively, if there is not enough info for a whole article, the image should be hosted on the Wikimedia Commons and linked to from there, not on Wikipedia. Any thoughts on this?

--TouchGnome 03:26, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

I was recently at the Philbrook Museum of Art, which owns Bouguereau's painting "The Shepherdess". They have his name as Adolphe-William, rather than William-Adolphe. Google returns about 8,300 hits for "William-Adolphe Bouguereau" -wikipedia and about 14,400 hits for "Adolphe-William Bouguereau" -wikipedia. I'm inclined to trust Philbrook on this one as "The Shepherdess" is their "signature" work. (The piece they put on all their postcards and book covers and such). However this is WAY out of any field of expertise for me. Does anyone have any better information? Dsmdgold 02:57, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)

Dusk vs. Evening Mood

Dusk and Evening Mood appear to be the same painting. Is one of them mislabeled? -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:16, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

There are pictures here on wikipedia of Dusk and Evening Mood which seem to be the same picture. I'm quite confused over this. The only references I can find to a Bouguereau painting "Dusk" on Google is on Wikipedia and clones. I think therefore that this is in fact the same painting. Could someone clear this up? --jacobolus (t) 14:14, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The original titles that Bouguereau gave his paintings were in French, and there is some variance in the English translations or English alternative titles. If you want to be really accurate, use the French titles. --TouchGnome

It is quite clear that Dusk|Dusk (separate article) is NOT a painting from 1862 as article states. Bouguereau was painting in a very different style in 1862.

The generally accepted English name of the painting shown is "Evening Mood", as found in the wiki article Evening Mood.

For internal consistency, the painting shown in this article should also be labelled Evening Mood.--Nemonoman 15:55, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Bouguereau's Name

His correct name is William Adolphe Bouguereau. In several sites (and in some places on this page) his name is listed as Adolphe-William Bouguereau, which is incorrect and my own site for a while perpetuated that mistake. I'm editing it to make all of the names on this page consistent. For waht it's worth, during his life he just went by the name "William".

Sampling

Somebody should check this sampling, there's a total irrelevant photograph there.

Omernos 04:52, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, somebody overwrote an image with their own. It's been reverted now. User:Angr 14:50, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

See Also

Why are we linking to Alfons Mucha in the See Also section? There is no reference to Mucha in this article and his style is not art nouveau. I think both of those links should be removed because they are confusing.

on expanding the article and mixed pov

There's a section in the article now which mentions some can view the art establishment as engineering his disappearance, while its likely that larger societal factors were at play. This may or may not be POV based on how its phrased, but my problem isn't that, but that its simply not necessary to make these contrasting viewpoints. The situation was as follows: there was a large change in the intellectual elements of society at the turn of the century, and those who entered the establishment, who had different reasons for disliking Bouguereau, were key to removing him from museums and mentions in text books. This had already started by the turn of the century, even though in some places he was still represented. Then after Word War I, which strengthened intellectuals convictions about the death of old Europe, he was represented less. Among the general population, which still viewed academic works before WWI and was still looking at populist illustration post-WWI, often kitsch, there was always some appreciation for him. Tastes of the public generally turned to more populist topics besides Venuses, but its a shift of attention. When Bouguereau started gaining attention again later in the century, he did so at the resistance of those in the art establishment. The point is, yes, it happened because of changes that affected the whole of society. But yes, the art establishment played an instrumental role in his visibility and representation, and often conflicted with public tastes. Thats why both are true, but the view highlighting the role of the art world might be a little more worth mentioning.

But the larger point, is that when this article is expanded, it should be possible to avoid a presentation of 'mixed' POV. There's a single story here that can be represented accurately.

The picture at the beginning of the article

As the edit summary does not allow for enough space to put all the necessary detail in I will post this here. The rule at the top of the list for images is:

• Start the article with a right-aligned image.

I have interpreted this to apply to all articles. Infoboxes automatically go to the right and pictures are to go there too. One of the reasons for this is so that there is a uniformity in the look of the beginning of each page. This uniformity also includes the fact that doing this allows the contents box to be in the exact same location at the left had side of the page. When B's pic is put on the left of this page the contents box moves to the middle of the page which looks out of place (to me anyway and yes I know that this is just an opinion). I have edited at least 5000 different pages here at wikiP and have never seen the first image on the left hand side - that doesn't mean that there isn't one it just means that I havn't seen one. Now the exception section to this that you are using, while it does allow for the contents to be moved to the right, also states:

• Portraits with the head looking to the reader’s right should be left-aligned (looking into the text of the article) when this does not interfere with navigation or other elements.

Now the image used does have his head towards the right, but, if you look closely, he is looking to the left. So the only way to have him "looking into the text of the article" is to leave it on the right side of the page.

All of this is just one editors interpretations of wikistyle guidelines and, as it is different from your interpretation (not forgetting that other guideline Wikipedia:Ignore_all_rules), I would like to suggest that, in an attempt to avoid an edit conflict, that you might take your concern to the Village Pump or the Admin notice board. If there is a consensus that it should be moved I will be okay with that as I hope that if the consensus goes to leave it as is that you will be okay too. Thanks for your time and happy editing. MarnetteD | Talk 16:34, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I assume you're not serious - the guideline is about which way the head is facing, not about the direction the eyes might be looking. Look at any magazine article and you'll find the same rule is applied. Like you I hope this doesn't lead to an edit war, because I really do think the guideline is quite explicit. Paul venter 19:12, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

The guideline clearly states that it wants the eyes looking into the text of the article. That is a natural perspective feature to draw the eye of the reader to the text. The picture in question has the body facing right, the head facing about midway between right and center and the eyes facing left. Wikipedia is not a magazine and I have seen plenty of magazine articles that have the head and the body facing in a variety of directions on any given page. In my opinion with the picture on the left and the contents on the right the opening paragraph jammed into the top af the article and it looks ugly. As I say please feel free to take this to any of the outlets including arbitration that you wixh and I will abide by there decision. MarnetteD | Talk 19:28, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Arbitration might not be a bad idea.....like you I'll abide by such a decision. Paul venter 21:03, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

"Portraits with the head looking to the reader’s right should be left-aligned (looking into the text of the article)"

Eyes???!!!! Not a single mention of eyes.............Is it possible that you're twisting the Manual of Style to support your POV? Paul venter 21:34, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

So you are able to look at something without using your eyes. Interesting. As stated before where the portrait is looking is a natural perspective feature to draw the eye of the reader to the text. As has been suggested before take your POV case to arbitration and I will gladly state mine and the wikicommunity can decide.MarnetteD | Talk 21:47, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Of course......"the house overlooks the park"..... no eyes involved. You need to get out more. Paul venter 06:58, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

A flower can be described as "looking' towards the sun, my head can "look" left while my eyes gaze right and my feet can be "looking" for a sturdy perch. It's ridiculous to assume the word "look" connotes the presence of eyes.

Hi, it seems to me the eyes of the subject look straight at the observer in this case, so I do not think they can be made to look at the text.Gregorydavid 22:06, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

The MoS says "Start the article with a right-aligned image", except "[p]ortraits with the head looking to the reader’s right". The portrait has a head looking directly at the reader, which is not "looking to the reader’s right". QED. More importantly, the MoS says in section 2:

In June 2005, the Arbitration Committee ruled that, when either of two styles is acceptable, it is inappropriate for an editor to change from one style to another unless there is a substantial reason to do so. For example, it is acceptable to change from American to British spelling if the article concerns a British topic, and vice versa. Revert warring over optional styles is unacceptable. Editors should ensure that articles are internally consistent. If an article has been stable in a given style, it is not converted without a style-independent reason. Where in doubt, editors defer to the style used by the first major contributor. See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jguk.

I think the portrait looks better on the right; the MoS seems to be in agreement, even if it's not, it's not 100% binding; article precedent seems to be in agreement. I think the image should be on the right. Studerby 22:01, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I found an earlier self-portrait that's looking left. Problem solved. Studerby 22:22, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your time and effort in resolving this situation. MarnetteD | Talk 22:59, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks from me as well, and a great job in putting all the images in a gallery! Paul venter 18:52, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one article was rated and this bot brought all the other ratings up to at least that level. BetacommandBot 08:23, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Gallery - a "picture article"

Awful to see it - a relatively short article with some 150 images as gallery!! As galleries are supposed to be positioned at Commons, I suggest to delete the gallery here and to link to Commons instead. C.Anemes 13:11, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree, and the Commmons link is at the bottom. Any images already there don't need to be on here except for a few examples illustrating his style. If anyone wants to see more of Bouguereau's work, that's where they'd go. BrokenSphere^{Msg me} 18:56, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I would disagree. Some subjects, such as art need many images to fully understand the topic. Indeed in one sense the images are more important than the text. I do not think that commons is a good place to store all such picture galleries. Unsophisticated users will not know what the commons link is, and may not realize that they are being taken out of Wikipedia. Commons in also a multilingual project. The Bouguereau page at commons contains 10 languages currently. This is not good idea for an English language encyclopedia. (Although, I do note that it is a great idea for commons.) I would agree that the text of this article could be expanded significantly. Dsmdgold 22:05, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

While art is a visual medium, 1 artist doesn't need as massive gallery as Bouguereau has, while some representative examples of his works for each period may be helpful, there are still too many in the gallery. Looking at it on my screen, the amount of space taken up by all the gallery images is larger than the text! Look at Leonardo da Vinci which is a GA and isn't flooded with images. Subtance over style - the gallery needs to be severely cut down. BrokenSphere^{Msg me} 02:05, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I guess we diagree. I by the way think that the Leonardo article has far too few images to qualify as a GA of an artist. It especially unfortunate that his one his most important paintings (The Last Supper) is shoved to the end of the article, beyond the main text. Dsmdgold 02:35, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Maybe I have more faith in the average user.  :) In looking at this gallery and the Commons gallery, they are almost pic for pic duplicates of each other, making this massive gallery seem less and less feasible to me. Of course a few representative examples of work can stay on here depending on how they fit within the text, but only a few at present. If that Commons picture gallery needs work, then it can be fixed up. Because most if not all of these pics are Commons-hosted, even if no Wikipedia version at all is using them, they do not get deleted for being orphaned the same way that pics on here do. I think that the average user will figure out soon enough that they have migrated out of the English Wikipedia onto somewhere else, the Commons link does give an indicator that they are going there. BrokenSphere^{Msg me} 02:39, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Maybe its because I have seen the confusion caused by people being migrated ou of the encyclopedia by acciedent, I have an understanding of what happens. I have been looking at Wikipedia with people who were new to wikipedia, gone to commons and then watched them enter a new search term at commons expecting to go to the wikipedia article. If I had not been sitting there to catch there mistake, they may have figured it out, or they may have left in disgust. They did think think it was an odd way to structure things. The gallery on commons is identical to the gallery in the article because until recently it was free standing article. It was transwikied to commons at the same time it was added here and the free standing gallery was deleted. Dsmdgold 02:54, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

We can't guard against some users being less sophisticated than others with regards to how they will handle migration from one Wikimedia project to another. Simply put, I am of the opinion that someone will go to this page to find out more about Bouguereau rather than to just peruse his works, and the gallery is detracting more than adding to this particular article in this regard while as a result, the Commons gallery/category for him may be underutilized. If they want to see more paintings, they are directed to a resource that is more geared towards that objective. BrokenSphere^{Msg me} 18:01, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Again we disagree. If Wikipedia is to become the universal kmowledge source envisioned, it must be as accessible as possible to as many people as possible. We should especialy take the concerns of less sophisticated users into consideration, since they greatly outnumber us insiders. I also think you learn about an artist by "perusing his works" than by reading text about him. Dsmdgold 14:00, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

The gallery has been carefully sorted into various periods and appropriate captions added. This may be more difficult to achieve in commons. Commons is intended as a repository and is a bit remote from the article in question. It was possible for me to observe quite quickly that the artist made use of a model in the 1900's, and she was probably not around in the 1850's.Gregorydavid 14:48, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually Commons allows galleries to be set up as well. If you take a look at the gallery for Bouguereau (the category is linked to as well), it is largely the same as this gallery, captions and all.

Now can either of you point out to me any other examples of other artists with as massive a gallery in their article as Bouguereau? I haven't seen any other artist articles yet with such large galleries. Now while what Dsmdgold said about Wikipedia's objective is true, there are other Wikimedia projects that have evolved to focus on more specialized subjects and fields, lest everything and all of that information be placed into one source. Why aren't these other projects like Commons being used like they can and should be with regards to free use images instead of putting so much emphasis on an article like this one that is duplicating the effort already invested in the Commons gallery? If every artist's works that already available there were put into large galleries on their article space like the one here, then we are defeating the purposes of having any of that person's works hosted and showcased on Commons anyway. With regards to less sophisticated users, this is largely pointing them away from the Commons as a resource, which is disregarding its purpose as a free use image repository. That seems more of a disservice than by giving them the chance to get exposed to more Wikimedia projects and discover how they all tie into one another and complement each other. BrokenSphere^{Msg me} 15:05, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Lorsch Gospels. An encyclopedia is, by its nature a refernce work containing information on all topics. I don't see other wikimedia projects as being dedicated to specific topics, but rather as being different types of reference material. Wictionary is a dictionary, Wikiquotes is primary source repository, Wikinews is for current events, etc. Wikicommons was created so that an image had to be only once in order for it to be used in all the wikimedia projects. (It used to be that if someone on the French Wikipedia wanted to use an image on the English Wikipedia, they would have to download the image to hteir computer and then upload it to the French site). The images were origianlly sorted into galleries abd categories mainly as a means of helping editors on other projects find apropriate images. I note that you haven't remarked on the multi-lingual aspect of Commons. The Bougereau gallery already has ten languages on it. As the project matures it will get more. How will an unsophisticated user English speaker be served by sent away to another site where his language is buried amongst dozens of others? Dsmdgold 15:45, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

The Lorsch Gospels article can also have a Commons link to it (it doesn't have one yet). As for the language thing, an English speaker will have to deal with the multiple languages the same way any other language speaker will - by having to look for the language they understand at the top of the page where the information is provided. I would not put it at the top of the list in order to provide English language speakers with an advantage or bias it towards them. I would also go so far as to say that the prevalence of English on Commons disadvantages a non-English speaker to some extent, especially with gallery captions; for multiple languages someone usually has to click on the image to bring its page up. I do not think that the learning curve for migrating around here or on Commons is high and that it can be picked up pretty quickly. If people get frustrated or can't find what they want immediately (even I have trouble doing this), that is part of the experience and hopefully you learn from that instead of giving up when with just one more try you find what you're looking for. BrokenSphere^{Msg me} 16:02, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Again we disagree. I see it as a problem to send a reader, without warning, to a multi-lingual page on a different project. You speak as someone who has more than 16000 edits in less than a year about a learning curve. I am concerned about readers, the people who come here solely for information, not for the experience of building an encyclopedia, and not for the editors, like you and me. There should be no learning curve for these people, beyond that needed to use a web browser. If we are not building this for readers, then why are we doing this? Dsmdgold 00:24, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I think our ideas of what would constitute a suitable page for an artist are conflicting here. For me, samples of their art are good, but I am primarily coming here for the written info. Do I want to see the whole gamut of their life's work? Maybe or maybe not, but are we here to handhold, spoonfeed, and babysit every reader that comes through to the degree that this article takes it? Maybe to some extent we are, because navigating Wikipedia and the associated Wikimedia projects may not be conducive to newbies who are coming here for the info as you have noticed. But I see the purposes of images as adjuncts and supplements to, written information, not to become the focus of an article like this one has. Even if I am just reading an article for general knowledge, I think that overillustration detracts rather than adds to the article. BrokenSphere^{Msg me} 01:25, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, our ideas are in conflict here. Textual descriptions of an artists life and work are important, and can help one understand an artist. However, actually looking at the art is much more important than any amount of text. I would rather see an article on an artist with no text and only images than the other way around. (Although both would be a bad idea.) I don't actually see presenting the whole gamut of artist's work as hand-holding or spoon-feeding, but rather as challenging the user. I also cannot see images in art related articles as adjuncts to the text. I actually agree that placing the gallery at the end of the article is not the best possible solution. I personally believe that a free standing gallery works better for a variety of reasons, but the current and, in my opinion, misguided consensus runs against free-standing galleries. That I said, I think that putting galleries on Commons is the worst available option for the reasons I have discussed above. (Plus a few more I haven't mentioned.) Dsmdgold 03:31, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

If I may add my 2 cents worth. I mostly agree with Dsmgold on the general issue of galleries & images in WP - there is a commonly held and completely incorrect view that there is (somewhere...) a policy against galleries in articles per se. There isn't and there never has been. Most visual arts articles have too few pictures, partly because of this strong prejudice on the part of many editors (usually those not really involved in the articles). Having said that, personally I think this particular gallery is rather too big, and does not use the captions to explain & analyse the individual pictures sufficiently, which is a common failing of WP galleries, and indeed WP pictures in general. It does pretty much repeat what is on Commons. If you want to see exemplary use of lots of images, with explanatory text, the History of fashion design series are outstanding in my view, largely thanks to User:PKM. I find Brokensphere's description of what he wants from an artist's article extremely odd - he doesn't seem to be very interested in the art at all, and just wants "samples". One of the great advantages of WP, in my view, is that because we take a semi-piratical US-based view of copyright law, we have a huge advantage over most other resources in the number of images we can use of 2-D art over 100 yrs old. Most readers interested in art appreciate that, I believe. 11:50, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I strongly agree with Dsmgold's arguments. Text is fine on an artist, but to really understand the work you have to look at it and study it. That content should be within the encyclopedia, not in a general storehouse on another related project. However, there is still a need for editorial judgement, so that an accurate and balanced representation is given. If in a particular decade he painted (this is a hypothetical example) 30 nudes and 10 Madonnas, it would not be helpful for the gallery in that decade to contain 10 Madonnas and only 1 nude: that would be misleading.Tyrenius 14:44, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

For what its worth it matters a great deal to the understanding of the visual arts to be able to see paintings, sculptures, and prints in depth. Basically the language is visual, and these paintings are important to be understood in relationship to the article. I agree strongly with Dsmdgold, and the comments from Tyrenius and Johnbod. Modernist 15:03, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

To respond to Johnbod - the example you provided is what I meant by the use of samples of an artist's work within the text of an article. I admit that an article like this one may strike me as a primarily non-art reader as I am not used to seeing such large galleries in other articles (this is the largest one I've seen to date), possibly because the subject matter cannot utilize fair use images in the same way. If as has been pointed out, the use of galleries for artists' articles is underutilized, is it possible to integrate them into the artists' articles without appearing using what may be seen as too many images while at the same time working with Commons to provide an additional resource that the reader can go to? I notice that Tyrenius has just relocated the gallery to follow the text so from that standpoint it looks better in a sense.

On an unrelated note, I notice that a few of the selected works link to specific images of the paintings only while others lead to short articles about them - are these supposed to link to articles about the paintings or it doesn't matter? BrokenSphere^{Msg me} 15:07, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

What is the "example I provided"? Presumably the links are to articles where they exist. I notice btw that the Leonardo da Vinci article has 28 images & may well illustrate a higher % of his very small oeuvre of paintings than this one does of Mr B's. Johnbod 15:15, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Thought it was clear - History of fashion design, not User:PKM. BrokenSphere^{Msg me} 15:18, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok, but obviously that is not actually an article on art as such. Johnbod 15:20, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

It might be useful to check out List of notable works by Vincent van Gogh (this is liable to considerable expansion), Self-Portraits by Vincent van Gogh (again liable to expansion), Sunflowers (series of paintings), The Décoration for the Yellow House, The Roulin Family, Vincent van Gogh's display at Les XX, 1890, Auvers size 30 canvases, Double-squares and Squares. If you take these cumulatively, they add up to a large gallery. Likewise Haystacks (Monet), London Parliament (Monet), and Rouen Cathedral (Monet). There are more images that can be added to the Monet articles, and I think that would be beneficial. Tyrenius 16:00, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

The difference between the images in those articles and the ones here is that they're not all in one big gallery in van Gogh's article. I like those - if the same kind of thing can be done for Bougueareau (the degree of scholarship on him is obviously not as much), that would work. BrokenSphere^{Msg me} 16:42, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree it needs more text to make sense of the gallery, explaining his subject matter, its background and evolution over time. I'm not against a large gallery per se, but it needs to be crafted, just as text does. That requires a level of knowledge, which I don't have, about the subject. The gallery could, I'm sure, be a bit more selective, but again that needs someone who knows what they're doing. Tyrenius 16:50, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment via Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Visual arts: I think it comes down to aesthetics and usability, which are just as much considerations as quantity of information in an article. You reach the end of the text, then have to scroll down through an interminable gallery to find the external links and (if/when any come along) references. While I agree that there's a mistaken idea floating around that big galleries are banned, I think the article should have some representative images, and link out elsewhere for the full gallery - for the same reason that any other single section occupying disproportionate space seeds a new article. I don't think it much matters whether it's at Commons or, like the examples Tyrenius mentions, Wikipedia. Gordonofcartoon 16:52, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Can I just mention that when the gallery was first made, it was made as a separate article William Adolphe-Bouguereau gallery. At that time, the William-Adolphe Bouguereau article contained a sample of the artist's more notable works in a mini-gallery with a link to the fuller gallery from the main article. I believe the gallery is appropriate for Wikipedia since the content fits almost exactly the dictionary definition of encyclopædic. However, it was never intended to be included in the main Bouguereau article.

The separate gallery article was nominated for deletion three times (see here). In the discussion, it seems that several people do consider the information to be encyclopædic but the end result was that the separate article was deleted with the gallery merged back into the original article.

I very much believe that the gallery deserves to be on Wikipedia as it's an extremely useful reference for anybody interested in the artist. Being able to look at a wide variety of the artist's works in chronological order is really invaluable. But, personally, I think it would be more appropriate in a separate article.

Why should the gallery be on Wikipedia rather than Commons? Firstly, the content is encyclopædic so is definitely in place in an encyclopædia. Secondly, it is more than just a collection of images - it is the images in chronological context. Thirdly, commons is cross-language. English Wikipedia allows us to present the paintings with their English names for an English language audience. Similarly, the French Wikipedia could have the paintings presented with their original French names, etc. Thebrid 09:05, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I would agree that the gallery would be better in its own article. However since the current mood at AfD is such that almost no stand alone article has a chance of surviving, tacking the it on at then end of the article is the second best choice. Having it at commons is the worst choice, aside from not having it at all. Dsmdgold 13:53, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Image source

There's a lovely image collection at here, which has "Download high-resolution" buttons. Adam Cuerden ^talk 18:31, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Pronunciation of his Name

Could somebody put in a note on how to pronounce his name? I have no idea how to pronounce French words. --MiguelMunoz (talk) 10:24, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

2007 MMA exhibition

A number of Bougueraus were in an exhibit of French painting at the Metropolitan Museum of Art last year. Sj. 06:18, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Deleted statement

I deleted an unsourced statement that B's peasants were beautiful, wore pristine clothing and had clean feet. This is quite simply inaccurate. While B's Madonnas and classical subjects are absolute perfection, his paintings of "peasants" are much more realistic in their details. He painted many pictures of peasant girls, usually between about 7 and 14. The girls are shown with dirty feet, clothing which is torn or worn-out in a realistic way, eg the grey bodice of one girl is completely threadbare in one picture. Moreover, their faces, their state of health and their feelings are clearly expressed. A quick perusal of the face of the dark-haired girl in a number of these pictures is sufficient to convince one that relatively benign expression fails to disguise the fact that she hated the artist with a bitter hatred. (This last sentence is, of course, entirely based on Original Research and POV, so don't quote AJM on this one!)

The revival of B's paintings, which are now appreciated for their meticulous realistic quality, and for their popular appeal in depicting angels, cherubs, cupids and Madonnas, for the most part fails to recognised the dichotomy in his works. While the erotic nature of B's Venuses is perfectly apparent to all, the erotic nature of the "peasant girl paintings" is for the most part simply not recognised at all, because the symbolism which was easily read and enjoyed by mid 19th century male patrons is rarely even noticed by those people with whom B is popular today.

Having just put together the gallery below, I'll make a few notes on symbolism. Containers were often used to depict vaginas. Anything that was poked or thrust into another thing could be used in art to symbolise the penis, but this was particularly the case with feet which were put into shoes and stockings. A raise naked foot on a female was symbolic of the desire for a penis. A foot being put into water, (or on the edge of a pool) was symbolic of intercourse. A broken pot was a very common symbol for loss of virginity. At the date at which B. was painting, only peasant women who worked in the fields would show their ankles. Other women, even in villages, were clad in dresses which touched the ground. The sight of the lower limbs was considered sexually exciting. (In the politest society even tables kept there legs discretely covered!)B. often paints girls in such a way that their raised skirt and ankles are a feature of the pic. A well or spring was the "source" in France, and related to the vagina, as apparent in Courbet's painting and drawing of "The Source of the Loue".

Amandajm (talk) 04:03, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

... so... why don't you just say "pedophile" when you mean it... and I agree that it is pretty obvious. Although I wouldn't know if that term did already exist at his lifetime, neither how western society was thinking about it then. -- 77.12.221.64 (talk) 23:16, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

The images by themselves are not sufficient evidence that B. was a pedophile. If Bouguereau were tried in a modern court of law in England for producing images that corrupted public morality, he would almost certainly be found innocent. Amandajm (talk) 09:35, 2 August 2008 (UTC)