Jump to content

Talk:Portraits of Mozart

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit]

Prior content in this draft duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: https://hekint.org/2018/05/15/visualizing-mozart/. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)

For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, provided it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. CurryTime7-24 (talk) 03:27, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draft improvement ideas

[edit]

@NeoGaze: Thanks for your patience and work here. Please let me go over some of the major areas where this article needs improvement.

  • The draft currently seems to be confused over whether it is a list or article. If the latter, it seems to impart little apart from what is already addressed in the article on Mozart's physical appearance. A separate article ought to address the history of Mozart iconography, its evolution, how these may be reflective of changing perceptions of Mozart's music or even contemporary socio-economic trends. There also seems to be confusion about what precisely is being addressed. The quotes from Schurig and Einstein suggest that the draft is about Mozart iconography in general. However, it immediately goes on to address only those paintings that were made of Mozart during his lifetime, with a secondary element about questions of authenticity—then takes another sharp turn into posthumous likenesses which are indisputably and obviously inauthentic. So what is this draft about exactly? Maybe it should only be about likenesses of Mozart for which he is confirmed to have sat for as model. Or maybe it should encompass all paintings made during his lifetime, including the inauthentic ones, with a discussion of related research and verification. Or maybe it ought to be about the iconography of Mozart generally, which would encompass all kinds of depictions such as those on Mozartkugel.
  • If a list of Mozart paintings is the intention here, consider reading WP:LISTPURP. You may also want to consult similar lists such as those devoted to paintings, especially ones rated GA and FA such as this one.
  • Although the draft appears to be extensively sourced, it has pervasive WP:SYNTH, WP:SUBJECTIVE, and WP:OR issues. The section on Dora Stock's portrait, for example, begins with "[it] shows an elegant side-profile of the composer with a notably exhausted expression, perhaps reflecting the increasingly desperate financial situation of the composer". It then cites Solomon's Mozart bio. The cited link you provided goes nowhere, so I pulled my copy of the book off my shelf and consulted the pages you cited. It only discusses his performances in Leipzig and Berlin, the "wretchedly meager" profits he earned in the former, and doubts over whether he indeed played for the Prussian queen, Sophie von Dönhoff. Solomon makes no mention therein of Stock or the portrait. The entire statement that begins the section on the Dora Stock portrait is pure original research or, at best, your personal synthesis of what Solomon actually said. This is unacceptable.
  • Aesthetic judgments and personal evaluations are not properly attributed. Instead, they are stated throughout the draft as if they are objective facts. Again, this is unacceptable. Please read WP:VOICE and WP:NPOVFAQ to learn how you can improve this.
  • Returning to the matter of WP:SUBJECTIVE, the draft is written throughout in a way that seems more personal reflection than objective statement of facts. Please read WP:IMPARTIAL, WP:SUBSTANTIATE, and WP:ENCSTYLE for more information.
  • The page ranges in your citations are unacceptably wide; for example, the aforementioned Solomon citation encompassed five pages. As much as possible, please cite the exact page. A range of up to two pages is fine, but any more than that may inadvertently further lend the impression of WP:SYNTH. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 21:36, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@CurryTime7-24: Thanks for your feedback, for now I will revise every citation and remove the aesthetic judgements you mention.
The overall layout and format of the draft was inspired by the article on the portraits of Johann Sebastian Bach, and so I thought it would be fine as it seems that article has raised no issues with Wikipedia standards. Also the centralidea of the draft was to bring the most common and relevant portraits of Mozart and categorize them as "authentic", "dubious" and "inauthentic", with all the relevant info as of why. I had no intention of creating a sort of overarching "history and evolution of Mozart iconography", and almost all the sources I consulted and are included in the draft neither attempted to do such a thing.
For the introductory paragraphs I took the info provided in the article about the "Appearance and character of Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart" (no straight copypaste mind you, if that is what you think), but the main body of the draft, the categories and painting descriptions, were almost completely written by myself with different aims. So I disagree with what you say that it "impart little apart from what is already addressed in the article on Mozart's physical appearance". Even when the same paintings are addressed (example; the Lange or Krafft portraits) the wording is almost completely different. In that article the portraits are given a more general overview, while in this one each are individually talked in detail: 1) a general visual description of the painting (this part will be removed as said before), 2) when and by whom it was created, 3) the circumstances surrounding its creation (if they are relevant), 4) under what category the painting falls in view of the evidence and the opinion of Mozart experts 5) the technique and support used, 6) its owner and current location. I think this approach differentiates enough between said article and this draft.
If you still believe that the drafts needs to substantially change in its aim, I think that the best possibility may be to just include the portraits realised during Mozart's lifetime. Limiting it to just authentic ones leaves out a wide number of portraits that also are relevant, frequently used and talked about (most notably the Greuze and Edlinger paintings). On the other hand, I don't think a general list of Mozart portraits is feasible due to the sheer quantity of them.
Again, thank you for your help and your comments. I will be waiting for your answer before making more drastic changes. I just hope this draft doesn't end up being canned since I invested a lot of time and effort.
That is all for now. Have a good day. NeoGaze (talk) 13:45, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know nomination

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by SL93 talk 08:38, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(
)
Portrait of Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart (c. 1763)
Portrait of Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart (c. 1763)
  • Reviewed:
Moved to mainspace by NeoGaze (talk). Number of QPQs required: 0. Nominator has fewer than 5 past nominations.

NeoGaze (talk) 00:44, 10 January 2025 (UTC).[reply]

What an interesting and thorough article! Review below.

General: Article is new enough and long enough
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px.
QPQ: None required.

Overall: The article has been revised to address my concern, and it is now good to go. Unfortunately, I see some too-close language from this source. They say The Mozart scholar Volkmar Braunbehrens points out that, while Mozart did stay in Munich in 1790, there is no mention in his letters of any portrait of him being commissioned by the Elector or anyone else during his short visit to the city, nor does the name Edlinger occur anywhere in his correspondence. Indeed, Mozart writes that he only intended to stay for 1 day in Munich but was persuaded by the Elector to stay for 6 days to entertain his court guests; during this time he also busied himself by visiting his many friends. and the article says The composer wrote in a letter that he only intended to stay for one day, but was persuaded by the Elector to stay for six days to entertain his court guests, also visiting many of his friends. [...] On the other hand, scholar Volkmar Braunbehrens pointed that, while Mozart did stay in Munich in 1790, there is no mention in his letters of any portrait being realised, nor does the name Edlinger appear. Please revise this section to avoid close paraphrasing. But the other Earwig hits all look like quotes and unproblematic phrases, so I think you're OK after you tidy up that one. Please ping me when it's ready for a second look. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 06:05, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reopened per WT:DYK. Massive amounts of unsourced content in this.--Launchballer 01:08, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Plopping this icon here so this nomination isn't moved back to approved. SL93 (talk) 01:46, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies if I misunderstood DYK's expectations for sourcing. In my review I checked for WP:MINREF statements and considered the rest to be covered by the general "sources" section at the end. In future should I check that everything is cited inline? (I am still getting the hang of DYK.) The article appears to now be quite different from the version I reviewed last month, so it should probably get a fully fresh review. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 03:18, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Which parts of the article are unsourced as you claim Launchballer, or that have any other issue? Also, as LEvalyn mentions, I can agree that a second review is probably needed at this point. NeoGaze (talk) 11:17, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I added a bunch of {{cn}} tags.--Launchballer 14:52, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have adressed every citation requirement you have put. If the result is satisfactory I think we can proceed to a second review. NeoGaze (talk) 12:30, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies for not spelling this out, but all paragraphs should end with a citation.--Launchballer 22:19, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, okay. I will keep working on that then. NeoGaze (talk) 09:19, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@NeoGaze: Please address the above.--Launchballer 09:50, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Launchballer: With the exception of the initial paragraph, each one has now a reference in the end. I hope the result is satisfactory. NeoGaze (talk) 12:29, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Almost; one sentence in "Stock's 1789 miniature" needs one. Otherwise, nice work.--Launchballer 12:44, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Launchballer: I accidentally passed over that one. I contacted the user that added it and it was removed after no backing source was found. --NeoGaze (talk) 17:41, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Article new enough, long enough, well-sourced and presentable. Image free and legible at low resolution (i've added (pictured) to the hook). Hook short enough, interesting, and in the article, with foreign-language, non-primary sources in the article accepted in good faith. No QPQ required. Good to go. Tenpop421 (talk) 02:15, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]


Nannerl is singing

[edit]

That is, in the Carmontelle family portrait. (FWIW, I feel it would be odd for her to be standing in that spot, with a good view of Dad and Junior, holding the music the way a singer does -- and not be singing.) That she is singing is the opinion of a leading Mozart scholar, Ruth Halliwell, in her book The Mozart Family, p. 45. Maybe this should be sourced with a footnote; I'm not sure. Opus33 (talk) 23:27, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering this too and couldn't find a definitive answer when creating the article. Leopold Mozart describes it in his letter as "With the other hand she holds sheets of music as if she were singing", so its ambiguous what is she doing exactly. She could be indeed singing, but I find weird a singer to be accompanied by both violin and keyboard. As the best course of action, I propose to put Leopold's description ("as if she were singing") in quotes. NeoGaze (talk) 23:46, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. Opus33 (talk) 23:56, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Request for help on meaning of "loose"

[edit]

Hello, could NeoGaze or whoever wrote this:

The following contemporaries of Mozart signed loose portraits of him

please say what is meant by the phrase "loose portraits"? I'd like to copy-edit a bit but I can't understand the original text. Thanks for your help.

Opus33 (talk) 18:34, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the better word would be "approximate", meaning that many of those portraits are of dubious nature. NeoGaze (talk) 23:56, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Opus33 (talk) 04:39, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Moving a paragraph to this talk page

[edit]

Here is the paragraph:

The following contemporaries of Mozart signed loose portraits of him:[1][2] Pompeo Batoni, François Joseph Bosio, Breitkopf, Joseph Duplessis, Nicolò Grassi, Jean-Baptiste Greuze, Giambettino Cignaroli, Louis Carrogis Carmontelle, Johann Nepomuk della Croce, Dominicus van der Smissen, Martin Knoller, Dora Stock, and Pietro Antonio Lorenzoni, among many others. Although they are not faithful to the physical features of the composer, these portraits provide important iconographic data either on musical instruments or on other people appearing in them.[1]

Here is what I'm thinking: First, it's really quite a mix: the portraits by Carmontelle and Dora Stock, at least, are considered pretty legit, whereas some of the others are very doubtful -- so it's hard, for at least this reader, to see what point the paragraph is making. Second, I feel the paragraph is sort of holding up the article -- if we skip it, we get to the point more quickly, and also arrive more quickly at the useful descriptions of individual portraits. Really, the "background" section reads just fine without it.

So I hope moving it here is ok. Opus33 (talk) 04:56, 23 January 2025 (UTC) Opus33 (talk) 04:56, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I see no problem removing the painter's list altogether, but I think the following part should be preserved somewere in the background part: "Although they are not faithful to the physical features of the composer, these portraits provide important iconographic data either on musical instruments or on other people appearing in them." NeoGaze (talk) 23:44, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hagenauer, hmm...

[edit]

Gosh, I was originally pleased to see the classification of the Hagenauer portrait as authentic (who knew?) until I saw the discussion on Michael Lorenz's blog, here: [1]. Lorenz focuses on the unlikelihood that Hagenauer could have owned an art collection (part of the case for authenticity) and attempts to show some scholarly sloppiness on the part of the Hagenauer advocates. I would like to study the materials on this portrait further, but at the moment I'm feeling it ought to be moved to the "Controversial portraits" section. Lorenz spends a lot of time in archives and has a pretty good track record as debunker and corrector. Opus33 (talk) 19:37, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It was originally on the dubious section when I first drafted the article, but ultimately I decided to move to the authentic part due to the fact that the Mozarteum in Salzburg considers it to be authentic. For now I recommend Lorenz's critical assesment is included in the painting section. Also many thanks for your work on the article Opus33! It is greatly appreciated as I can't edit it myself these days due to lack of time. NeoGaze (talk) 23:50, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ a b Cite error: The named reference Hutchings was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. ^ Zenger 1941.
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Portraits_of_Mozart&oldid=1278663015"