Talk:Marriage License

Images

Recommend exporting the image to commons and using the crop tool to place an image of the bored man (by far the most interesting thing about the work) in the desc section. As a humorous aside: what he probably told them[1]. Ceoil (talk) 12:43, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the painting is still under copyright. I am going to think if we have enough text to justify a close-up. That video is perfect. -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 14:24, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Glad you liked the vid. I'm sure you can bunch all the text about the older man to justify fair use. Its very much a historically significant image, and I genuinely think the article would fail to properly inform the reader if it was absent. Ceoil (talk) 14:27, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Sorry and joking aside, but feel so strongly about this that would like to ping resident expert Nikkimaria for advice. Ceoil (talk) 14:42, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi Ceoil, if the painting is copyrighted it (and any crops) can't go to Commons. It might be possible to justify having a crop as fair use locally - what would you say as regards purpose of use? Nikkimaria (talk) 18:02, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi Nikki, thanks for responding. At the current thumbnail size, and even if you click through, the resolution isn't nearly high enough to either gauge his age, turn of head, facial expression or the precise "old fogey" way his fingers are crossed. See here. So I think educational value. Ceoil (talk) 20:41, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Put it another way - and I know i cant say this in a rational, but I far better appreciate the work now that have seen the crop just linked. Ceoil (talk) 20:48, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Well, you can - if you can make an argument that seeing the crop enhances reader understanding. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:10, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Comment

This article has improved a lot while it has been at FAC, but one point keeps nagging away at me.

There is a suggestion that the brick building outside (with classical details) is based on Vermeer. Perhaps. But isn't it also just the Housatonic National Bank building, which just happens to stand next to the old city hall, outside the window of this office? (The bank is named in the painting, as the sponsor of the calendar, incidentally.)

This is the building: [2] The old town hall is the gothic-ish brick building to the left, with its arched door and windows. And the bank is the classic-ish brick building with white columns and triangular pediment to the right. Also here, if this works: [3]

Not sure it matters much, but there we are. Theramin (talk) 01:56, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

@Theramin: There is a chance that I am wrong. This is what the Norman Rockwell Museum's description says: "Set in the town clerk's office just footsteps away from Rockwell's first Stockbridge studio on Main Street, Marriage License captures Rockwell's fascination with the somber wood-paneled interiors of his favorite seventeenth-century Dutch painters. Indeed, the building itself is fashioned after one pictured in Jan Vermeer's A Street in Delft." I assumed the Vermeer painting was The Little Street since it is the only street scene from Delft in his works. Other sources do not call out a particular Vermeer painting that influenced Rockwell. Meyer 1981 (p. 196) speaks to on location photo that were used, so maybe it is that brick building. -- In actu (Guerillero) ^{Parlez Moi} 12:53, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

• 

Sure. Vermeer undoubtedly influenced Rockwell - a widely noted and obvious example is Walking to Church (eg [4] and see the gallery above before some fair use zealot deletes the comparison) - I'm just making the point that there is a prosaic reason for the brick building being depicted outside the window in this painting, which is that the building outside that window in the painting is the one that Rockwell has painted there.

I suspect much of this comes from Rockwell being described by at least one art critic as "America's Vermeer" due to his style and subject matter.[5] That is far from a universal view.[6]

For my money, there is something to be said for the comparison, albeit you can take it too far. It is just a bit too easy to point to one small detail and say "after Vermeer".

As I said, I'm not sure it matters much (and if the comparison is sourced, then fine) but there are. Theramin (talk) 01:15, 13 March 2023 (UTC)