Talk:Still life paintings by Vincent van Gogh (Paris)

Two Fritillaries in a Copper Vase

I am sure that someone would like to delete one of the two Fritillaries in a Copper Vase images, but if we can leave it in that would be great. It serves two purposes: 1) example for the comparison discussed in the intro and 2) I have information specific to that painting in it's own section + it's referenced as showing Impressionist techniques towards the bottom of the article. So, if we could leave the two, that would be nice!--CaroleHenson (talk) 21:01, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

numbers

There are more than 80 images in this article and this statement does not ring true - In total Van Gogh made about 230 paintings while in Paris of a variety of subjects: landscapes, figure studies, portraits, and still lifes. Still lifes made up about 30 of the 230 paintings ...Modernist (talk) 03:24, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Good catch! My mistake - it's about 30 paintings of still lifes of flowers. Since I added sunflowers tonight the count is higher. I'm not sure how the "about 30" was tallied (e.g., vases of flowers, any flower composition). I made the edit to the article to say "still life for flowers". Any additional thoughts about this?--CaroleHenson (talk) 03:39, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Just counted 47 paintings of flowers (with sunflowers and without plants). There's a lot more images in here than I realized!--CaroleHenson (talk) 03:43, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Carole I think the 230 - 30 has to change...Modernist (talk) 03:59, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't know how she got to the 30 count, so I removed that from the sentence. Does that work now?--CaroleHenson (talk) 04:25, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm tired tonight and getting a bit flaky. I went ahead and removed the last paragraph from Mancoff entirely. That should solve the problem.--CaroleHenson (talk) 04:59, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Image displays

It's good to see all these pictures brought together in an overview. Nevertheless, I wonder whether the display of all the images could be improved upon. I realize that there is an attempt to distinguish between the larger (perhaps more important or significant) images and the others which are placed in galleries. However, the resulting effect is rather confusing and a bit untidy. It may be preferable to use galleries throughout apart from the images at the beginning of the article. But perhaps others disagree? - Ipigott (talk) 07:35, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Here's where I am coming from - while we await input from others. When I a picture to the right and make it larger, it's kind of a highlight picture - something a little larger that shows some of the detail in the paintings that is difficult to discern in the smaller gallery images. I like this especially for this article because there was such a dramatic change in his work, reflected through the still lifes. Of course, it is not my decision - but I just thought I'd throw out there the reasoning. Would it help if there was just one "highlight" picture in the intro and "other flowers"? Thanks, Ipigott for your focus to make the articles the best that they can be!--CaroleHenson (talk) 13:33, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

I went ahead and took a stab at what that would look like. I consolidated the two images in the intro so that it's in one frame and actually better shows the transition - and just have one highlight picture per section now. How does that look Ipigott and anyone else that would like to weigh in?--CaroleHenson (talk) 14:16, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I think we're making good progress here, particularly with the lead image. To tell you the truth, I don't think I have ever seen an article quite so full of images! However, if you are interested in a GA on this one, I really think there should be a lot more explanatory text in each section. It could be argued that the sections where there are images alone could just as well be in Commons, providing the right categories and explanations are there. But this is another very new article and so I am sure there will be more to come. I don't want to sound like a preacher but WP is a kind of encyclopedia which means that articles can be "illustrated" with images but the meat is really in the article itself. If we can work together along these lines, I would be happy to assist in adding content to your increasingly inspirational articles. And BTW, if you look at Trees and Undergrowth (Van Gogh series) you will see there are other options for separating the key picture from the gallery. But if you don't like what I've done with that one, just revert. - Ipigott (talk) 20:12, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Regarding progression of this article / text, you may want to see the next section - if you have anything in addition to the numbered items below, that would be great to hear!!! Yep, I'll take a look at the Trees and Undergrowth - there I liked a larger size, too, as a highlight to illustrate how he used light in the forest interior paintings. Thanks again, always going for quality! (Oh, maybe that should be your slogan!)--CaroleHenson (talk) 20:29, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Good or featured article status

In my slowing down mode (i.e., not taking on anything new right now), this is an article that I would dearly love to expand to Good or Featured Article status, researching at the library, etc. to make it sing. My thoughts would be to 1) gather more information about the paintings, 2) continue to expand upon Van Gogh's development during this time, 3) how he took the spirit of new techniques, but not necessarily "to the letter" - he came up with his own version and 4) adding information that someone could learn something about art (like the color theory info + table in the article). This article, for some reason, really reasonates with me (he's transforming artistically into a butterfly, excitement about the number of movements and genres he incorporates into this work, seeing the transformation before our eyes in the span of work done over the two years.) Any thoughts about that?--CaroleHenson (talk) 16:09, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Good plan, I'll help you when I have more time...Modernist (talk) 17:11, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. This is a really good collection of many of VG's most significant works - and they are, of course, startlngly evocative. But let's go forward one step at a time. I still have great hopes for Langlois Bridge at Arles (Van Gogh series) which has been in the GA queue for well over a week now and I can see there are quite a few others in your collection which deserve to be upgraded. One feature of this (and other) articles about VG which I would dearly like to explore is how his works have been received (appreciated) over the years and how they have attracted attention in VG's own correspondence, in special museum events, auctions, more recent literature... I don't quite know how to go about this without exploring VG history in much greater detail but there could be some good accounts (books, catalogues, student dissertations) of what has transpired over the years in relation to this series and others. And despite what Johnbod had to say, I really believe that very many of VG's paintings have an interesting story of their own which is really worth telling in some detail. Once I have completed my current work on the Danish 19th century artists (see for a starter Danish Golden Age and especially the Skagen Painters, I would be happy to devote more time to your increasingly compelling articles on Van Gogh. - Ipigott (talk) 20:47, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Ok, sounds good! I'm hoping that the articles I've put together so far: provide enough background and references so that someone who is so inclined could 1) expand the existing article or 2) pull out pieces of the series for more targeted focus a painting or a few paintings. If nothing else, it should be better than nothing and the one line articles.

Just as a heads-up, I'm not intending right now to write anything new for Van Gogh. I'm focusing at the moment on going back and doing some copy-edit, bibliography work - and linking articles to other WP articles. The only one major piece of writing that I'm interested in at the moment is expansion of this article. I'm looking to dial-down the amount of hours I'm spending on this, but it has been incredible!--CaroleHenson (talk) 21:01, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Truly incredible! I've seen the number of hours a day you've been putting into this. Your intention to go back through all your Van Gogh work is to be commended but others should also contribute. After all, this is not a one-man show and many hands make light work. But you have, none the less, made a tremendously valuable contribution and I'm sure you won't stop now. - Ipigott (talk) 21:19, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Expansion - what fun!

Hi Modernist, What fun to come and see more added to the article! I added a citation needed template for Van Gogh meeting Paul Signac and Georges Seurat at Cormon's studio - that's not in the Beaujean ref.

Question for you - I went back to the Wallace ref to verify - it just says he learned Japanese woodcut prints - it doesn't mention the term "Ukiyo-e". How should we handle that citation wise?--CaroleHenson (talk) 05:04, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

WP:UCS is my favorite guideline :), my mistake about Cormon, concerning Ukiyo-e - we know that is what Hiroshige did, so we exercise common sense and we reference as much and best as we can [1], [2]...Modernist (talk) 05:16, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Yep, I found a reference for the guys. I'm cool with common sense ruling on Ukiyo-e. Or, whatever you thinks needs to be done.--CaroleHenson (talk) 05:42, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Link under References

By adding a bibliography, some people may not know what to do with "Tralbaut, 999" - so, I added a sentence: "For books, also see the Bibliography using the author's last name."

There is another option, to code a link to the author's name in the Bibliography. It's a bit more work, so I chose this as an easy route. If you want to: 1) suggest other verbiage for the reference section or 2) scope out the approach to link the author's name to their book in the Bibliography, please see Still life by Vincent van Gogh (Paris)#References - example created for "Wallace". If there's no qualms about the sentence under the reference line, we're good. (I wish I could say, and the message will self-destruct in 60 seconds.)--CaroleHenson (talk) 02:36, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Commentary

Is there a way to add appropriately commentary (and identify it's commentary), such as "Georges Seurat's Sunday Afternoon on the Island of La Grande Jatte is an example of Impressionist's use of color for shade"? --Thanks!--CaroleHenson (talk) 14:26, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Rename

I'd move this page to 'Still lifes by VvG' or something else, and change the opening sentence somewhat, bothe title and lead seems confused at present. Ceoil 19:20, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Yikes! I got I was going to change the name to "Still life paintings by Vincent van Gogh" as worked out with Modernist. I'm taking a break right now, but can do it when I get back. And, I've not forgotten this article, I'm just waiting for three books to come in - and needed a short break from Van Gogh.--CaroleHenson (talk) 20:05, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

I can, really, really, understanding you needing a break. And yes, the naming conventions for the types of articles you are working on can be extreamly difficult. You made a good choice here. Ceoil 20:09, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Well it was with Modernist and RHaworth's help. I'll fix the links when I get back from my short break today (i.e., in a couple of hours or less). Good catch, I totally forgot about changing the article names!--CaroleHenson (talk) 20:16, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

There is no hurry! Ceoil 21:24, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

 Done found and replaced article names for Holland and Paris.--CaroleHenson (talk) 23:52, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

File:Roubaix Emile Bernard garcon.JPG Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Roubaix Emile Bernard garcon.JPG, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests October 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 18:38, 2 October 2011 (UTC)