Jump to content

Talk:The Goldfinch (painting)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Featured articleThe Goldfinch (painting) is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on June 27, 2020.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
February 15, 2020Featured article candidatePromoted
Did You Know
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on September 8, 2014.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that the 1654 trompe-l'œil painting The Goldfinch (pictured) by Carel Fabritius has been in the collection of the Mauritshuis in The Hague since 1896?

WP:PRIMARYTOPIC

[edit]

I won't contest the notability of this painting via AfD, but it seems to have most of its notability by way of the novel, in which case the novel should be the primary topic of the disambiguation page, per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. I would say the majority of those typing in "The Goldfish" into the Wikipedia search box are looking for information about the novel. Per PTOPIC this is determined by seeing the "What links here" are heavily weighted towards the novel; the traffic stats still need a few days to see since the painting article was just created; and Google searches are mostly about the novel. -- GreenC 01:31, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see a problem with the article titles. – Editør (talk) 16:03, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the novel is a primary topic. Have started a Request for move discussion here. -- GreenC 16:53, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The novel derives its title, and the narrator's epiphany too, from this long-familiar painting, a detail from which the alert reader will recognize peeping through the feigned torn paper of the book's cover. We had an amusing Talkpage discussion when some jejune editor insisted that the Judgement of Paris should direct to a Parisian wine-tasting of the 1970s, of which the witty name eluded the oenophile editor.--Wetman (talk) 14:31, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, but Primary Topic isn't the original, rather the popular. In 12+ years of Wikipedia, no one created an article about the painting until after the highly popular novel was published and won a Pulitzer Prize. -- GreenC 14:57, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Martinet "collection

[edit]

Was "E. Martinet" simply the heir of Louis Martinet (1814-1895), genre painter and art dealer, in boulevard des Italiens? Among the exhibitions Martinet organized in his gallery was one of Chardin. --Wetman (talk) 13:40, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I can't answer your question. Do you have a reference for the Drouot catalogue? – Editør (talk) 18:47, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sold in 1892

[edit]

Article says Thoré bought it in 1865 and sold it at Hôtel Drouot in Paris on 5 December 1892. However by 1892 Thore had been dead for nearly 23 years. -- GreenC 04:38, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Mauritshuis states it was "his sale" which seems to refer to Thoré: [1]. Could it perhaps be Thoré's family or company? – Editør (talk) 14:23, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know, probably yes, but the source is unreliable on this point - it's plainly not true Thoré himself sold the painting. We can leave the dubious tag forever, or modify the wording to something else such as "sold by Thoré owners" which wouldn't contradict the source, but would resolve the contradiction in in the source. -- GreenC 14:44, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've changed the wording without speculating about the seller. – Editør (talk) 14:54, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
He left it to Apolline Lacroix, now sourced Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:56, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Informal review by Aa77zz

[edit]

The overall structure looks fine to me.

  • Given that there is a limit on how many images you can reasonably fit in (and I don't want anything that resembles a gallery}, I'd rather illustrate the symbolism associated with the species. Incidentally the 30,000 × 17,078 pixels original of the Bosch had my elderly editing software groaning at the seams! I think I'll add the Mignon image as a useful external link for now. I suppose the alternative would be to link it in the text as I've done with the copyright Tartt book cover, but I'm not sure that that would be an improvement Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:07, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Subject

  • "a blue container that is fixed to the wall by two half-rings. The bird is perched on the upper ring, to which its leg is attached by a fine chain.[1]" Not supported by source (Tidd 2014) which only has "Fabritius ... depicts a captive goldfinch, its colour and form caught by the play of light. Against a flat white wall, the bird is depicted life size, perched on a hoop encircling its box, which appears to stand out from the flat surface of the wall." Looking at the picture, the lower ring clearly doesn't support the feeder and it is doubtful whether the upper ring provides any support. It looks as if there is a lid at the top of the feeder with a hinge that is attached to the wall. Why is Ursula Tidd an authority on the painting?
  • Ref 5, Lederer 2019, should be p.22 alone (and not pp. 15, 21) - see here
  • "Many of these devotional paintings were created while the Black Death pandemic gripped Europe.[8]" - cited to Friedmann p.15 but the Black death is not mentioned on this page. P.66 has "The greatest single production peak of these pictures coincides roughly with the time of the Black Death fairly late in the second quarter of the fourteenth century. This quarter century witnessed the creation of more such works than all the rest of that century and nearly as many as were produced in the whole of the fifteenth century."

Fabritius

  • I suggest you include the first name in the section title

I'll add additional comments later. - Aa77zz (talk) 15:25, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Aa77zz, thanks for comments so far, I'll try to sort them the rest over the weekend Jimfbleak - talk to me? 17:03, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Pliny associated the bird with fertility, and the presence of a giant goldfinch next to a naked couple in The Garden of Earthly Delights triptych by the earlier Dutch master Hieronymus Bosch perhaps refers to this belief.[6]" cite is to Cocker (2013) pp. 500-502. This is the wrong reference - the cite should be to Cocker (2005) p.450. - Aa77zz (talk) 19:26, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Aa77zz thanks again Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:07, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Fabritius was born in 1622, ... St Luke painters' guild in 1652.[5][12]" where 5 is Lederer 2019 and 12 is Martin 1936. There are sourcing problems here. The article has "his father and two brothers were painters". Lederer has "his father and three of his brothers were painters" while Martin only mentions one brother Barent. Now Brown 1981 (Brown, Christopher (1981). Carel Fabritius: Complete Edition with a catalogue raisonné. Oxford: Phaidon Press. ISBN 0-7148-2032-6.) page 15 has "Barent and Johannes, who were also to become painters, were born in 1624 and 1636 respectively." The RKD Foundation in The Hague here has "broer van Barent en Johannes Fabritius". So here the wiki article appears to be correct - but it doesn't follow the cited sources.
  • The article has "gained him a place at Rembrandt's studio in Amsterdam, along with his brother Barent." Neither of the cited sources mentions that Barent was a pupil of Rembrandt and nor does Brown. That Carel and not Barent worked with Rembrandt is mentioned on page 18 in Brown. The RKD page on Barent here doesn't mention that he was pupil of Rembrandt (cf the page on Carel).
  • I consider the catalogue raisonné by Brown a much better source than the page in Lederer's book. Did you receive my email with a scan of pages from Brown as an attachment?
  • Aa77zz, Thanks for the very useful scans, I received the email after my earlier comments here. rewritten as above using Brown

More later. - Aa77zz (talk) 11:53, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Fabritius died young, caught in the explosion of the Delft gunpowder magazine on October 12, 1654, which destroyed a quarter of the city, along with his studio and many of his paintings. Only about a dozen of his works are known to have survived.[15]". The cited source (Houbraken 1718) doesn't specify how much of the city was destroyed nor how many works survived. (Brown would be ideal for the number of surviving works but I didn't scan the appropriate text. The BL copy is kept at Boston Spa so I can't just pop-in to check) - Aa77zz (talk) 15:15, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've tried moving the Fruit Still-Life with Squirrel and Goldfinch to the end of para 3 of "Subject". Is it better there or as an EL, do you think?

Final comments

  • Ref 6 Friedmann 1946 - suggest add oclc=294483
  • Ref 10 Noble 2009 - I don't think Mauritshuis should be an author
  • Ref 18 Jowell 2003 - suggest use sentence case for article title
  • Ref 20 Charreire 2016 - spurious comma after Magali
  • Ref 21 Schneider 2003 - title case for book title
  • Ref 16 Houbraken 1718 - but the year for this edition is given as 1753 on the title page (top left on page). The Internet Archive has Vol 3 p 337 of this edition here and also a 1721 edition here. The pagination looks the same. Looking at worldcat here it seems the 3 volumes were first published between 1718 and 1721 - with Fabricius covered in Vol. 3 from 1721. Now I would cite the 1721 book - but this is probably unnecessary. (One becomes obsessed with dates when looking at precedence for bird names)

I'll look in again when you take this to FAC. - Aa77zz (talk) 19:00, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Aa77zz, thanks, all done inc 1721 Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:21, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Images

[edit]

I know you've said that you "don't want anything that resembles a gallery" but I would reconsider. It's much easier to put art in context when you can compare it to other works, and the current arrangement disappears off the screen almost immediately on anything that isn't displaying text in HUGE mode. Perhaps something like The Disasters of War#Plates at the end of the subject section. Or at least put some images left and some right to contain the trail off. Yomanganitalk 10:40, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yomangani, thanks, I've followed your suggestion, thanks. I suspect the gallery needs more formatting, are you able to help with that? Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:09, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'll try to have a look later. There's some more details in the French and German articles about symbolism and the restoration, I don't know whether you've seen those? (I always forget there might be usable stuff in other language wikipedias because nine times out of ten there isn't). Also, I'm quite disappointed that European Goldfinch wasn't FA when I went away and still isn't when I've come back - what have you been doing with your time? Actually, it's nice to see that not all the old timers have left. Yomanganitalk 16:19, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yomangani, perhaps it's one to work up when this has been through FAC, for some reason I had in my mind that it was FA, certainly a decent article to start from. Do you think it needs much more on symbolism? I don't want to wander too far from the painting itself. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 19:25, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's not necessary as it is a bit of stretch to connect this painting to the crucifixion through the bird's diet and French etymology (sometimes a bird is just a bird, and I'd guess the choice of a goldfinch was most probably because it was a common bird to see in this context so more likely to take in the observer than an osprey or a quetzal, say), though it might make an interesting footnote if you are into that sort of thing. The restoration is probably worth mentioning though as it was "live" in the museum. Yomanganitalk 09:11, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This article from Andrew Graham-Dixon has some more meat for various sections (though his sources would be better). Yomanganitalk 09:38, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This has quite a lot too (I can see three pages but you know what Google books is like, it will either deliver sixty first editions to your house or deny that any such book ever existed); though it does ask "where the bucket and glass might be" like they are part of the bird's anatomy. Yomanganitalk 10:03, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bredius's account of the auction

[edit]

Wij zijn helaas in Nederland maar enkle werken van Carel Fabritius rijk. Ik verheug mij er over, één dier stukken veroverd te hebben voor het Mauritshuis: "Het Puttertje". Al is het een klein stukje en een eenvoudig onderwerp, het is toch een wonder van kunst.Uit een aardigheid vertel ik hier hoe die aankoop plats vond. Het stuk was toen in de Vente Martinet (1896) te Paris en ik had maar beschikking over het enorme bedrag van f3000. -, dat toen voor aankoop voor het Koninklijk Kabinet van schilderijen op de jaarlijksche begrooting stoond. Ik liet Kleinburger op de veiling bieden. Toevallig stond dicht bij mij op de verkooping een heer, die al maar op het schilderijtje bood. Weldra was het cijfer 6000 frs. bereikt. Toen draait die man zich om en vraagt mij lachend: "Vindt u dat niet meer dan genoeg voor zoo'n klien vogeltje?" Ik zeide "Och, iedrereen moet dat maar zelf beoordeelen." Ik was nog de laatst bieder; de hamer viel en 't Mauritshuis was een Fabritius rijker. Weer draait de heer zich om, en zegt: "nu zou ik well eens willen weten, wie de kooper is!" "C'est moi", luidde het antwoord.

Via google Translate (which did a pretty good job I think):

Unfortunately, we only have a few works by Carel Fabritius in the Netherlands. I am delighted to have captured one animal for the Mauritshuis: "Het Puttertje". Although it is a small piece and a simple subject, it is still a miracle of art. For the sake of completeness, I will tell you how the purchase took place. The piece was then in the Vente Martinet (1896) in Paris and I only had access to the huge amount of f3000. -, which was then the annual budget for the purchase of paintings for the Royal Cabinet. I had Kleinburger bid at the auction. Coincidentally, there was a gentleman close to me who was already bidding on the painting. Soon 6,000 frs. was reached. Then the man turns and asks me with a smile: "Don't you think that is more than enough for such a little bird?" I said, "Oh, everybody should judge that for themselves." I was the last bidder; the hammer fell and the Mauritshuis was a Fabritius richer. Again the gentleman turns around and says: "Now I would like to know who the buyer is!" "C'est moi", was the answer.

BREDIUS, A. (1939). Een vroeg werk van Carel Fabritius. Oud Holland, 56, 3-14. Retrieved January 22, 2020, from www.jstor.org/stable/42722845 Yomanganitalk 12:17, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yomangani, that's great, added a footnote with part of the quote Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:49, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Another image

[edit]

Not wanting it to be all images and no text, but you might want to swap one of the Madonnas for this one. Almost contemporary, similar composition for the detail, demonstrating the water drawing, and showing where the Fabritius might have been mounted. Yomanganitalk 16:35, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yomangani Not sure what image you refer to, but the Mignon image already shows this Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:03, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I meant this one that I added over there -> and you've put in now (and in a better way than swapping it for one of the Madonnas). I realised you already had the Mignon for showing the water drawing behaviour - it's better than this one for that, as it actually shows it "in action" drawing up the bucket - but I thought this one better showed how the pet goldfinches might have been displayed to passers-by and it has good lighting on the bird. Yomanganitalk 14:20, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
A Girl in a Window with a Bunch of Grapes.
Gerrit Dou 1662
Liedke discusses and illustrates this one. Johnbod (talk) 18:18, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Johnbod, great, added now

More bits

[edit]

Portrait of a Carthusian - living creature tromp l'oeil on the frame, a bit different to the other examples.

Newspaper art critics/correspondents views:

  • Yomangani, I've seen the free-to-read BBC and Guardian, at the moment I don't think I need them, same with the Independent, which I hadn't seen before. I have no access to the paywalled Times, WSJ or Australian, and they don't seem to have free limited access like the also paywalled Telegraph, so I won't be paying to use any of those Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:30, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Odd, the Australian let me read the whole article for free yesterday but today it wants money. I thought the Lubbock article would make a good counterpoint to the some of the other critics. Yomanganitalk 16:52, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Lots of them give you say 2 free articles a month; then they want to collect. Johnbod (talk) 16:53, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It didn't even mention money- there was a preview and a "faded out" rest of the article but when I clicked on the faded bit it just showed the whole thing. Completely different today. I wish I'd captured it yesterday as the review had a more biographical than stylistic bent. There might be access to The Times copy through the local library. I'll see if I can find my library card later and log in. Yomanganitalk 17:07, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I thought that the Lubbock was too much a personal opinion Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:24, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Spacing out sections with pictures

[edit]

I created a draft here: Draft:The Goldfinch (painting)

Is the use of spacing here to separate sections with pictures against the manual of style? I hate the way pictures in one section overflow into the next and break the section linings. And I personally prefer the white space aesthetically. Can anyone confirm this is a no-go in terms of presenting the article?

The draft also has a smaller version of the painting in the infobox. I know this is already an FA, but does it really need to be so big? --occono (talk) 18:40, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

occono I don't see any overflow of pictures or breaks of section headings in the mainspace version, and none of the multiple FAC reviewers have commented on that although several have discussed what images should be included and where they should go, so not an oversight. I don't know what you are seeing, but I guess that you are viewing on a different screen. For example, in your draft I see a good 10 cm of white space at the end of the description section where there is none in the existing version, so I'm definitely not keen on that, although I don't know if it's against MoS
I'd caution about making significant changes to a newly promoted FA unless there is consensus. @Theramin: @Johnbod: @Aa77zz: @FunkMonk: @Yomangani: for comment
Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:39, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It depends on what skin (Vector: Current, Draft; Minerva: Current, Draft; Modern: Current, Draft; Monobook: Current, Draft; Timeless: Current, Draft) and CSS you are using, what size your screen is, what resolution you are running at, what your image display preferences are, what software and hardware you are using to view the site. One person's perfect layout is another's hideous mess. I think it is fine as it is. Yomanganitalk 08:57, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it's impossible to make one size fits all layout configurations. I'm seeing one thing on my PC screen, and another on my laptop. FunkMonk (talk) 09:17, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Yomangani:, your examples are really useful. With the smaller fonts of Modern and Monobook, I can see the picture leakage now, but in Vector, which I use, it's not there, and instead the draft is full of white space. As you say, without a single mandatory skin, device and resolution, there is nothing that will please everyone. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:48, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, and that's why our guidelines are vague (and little changed in 12 years). We are being told da youf all read on mobiles anyway (although I'm sceptical this is true for articles like this). I have my image preference set at 400px anyway, so I can actually see the pics, and I've got used to the inevitable "leakage". I tried several of the options User:Yomangani kindly set out, & the current was always better for me. Johnbod (talk) 14:57, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

On the symbolism of Jesus' Crucifixion and Redemption

[edit]

The Latin text of the Adoro te devote, at the verse "Lord Jesus, Good Pelican", shows that during the Middle Age Jesus Christ Lord was compared to unique holy bird which is used to give his blood to feed his sons in order to avoid them die. The 1th-century innovation of the goldfinch is actually poorly sourced and probably need to be corroborated by more believable and authoritative sources.

[edit]

Hello! This is to let editors know that File:Fabritius-vink.jpg, a featured picture used in this article, has been selected as the English Wikipedia's picture of the day (POTD) for August 23, 2022. A preview of the POTD is displayed below and can be edited at Template:POTD/2022-08-23. For the greater benefit of readers, any potential improvements or maintenance that could benefit the quality of this article should be done before its scheduled appearance on the Main Page. If you have any concerns, please place a message at Wikipedia talk:Picture of the day. Thank you! Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.9% of all FPs 11:23, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Goldfinch

The Goldfinch is an oil-on-panel painting by the Dutch Golden Age artist Carel Fabritius of a life-sized chained goldfinch. Signed and dated 1654, it is now in the collection of the Mauritshuis in The Hague, Netherlands. The work is a trompe-l'œil painting that was once part of a larger structure, perhaps a window jamb or a protective cover. It is possible that the work was in Fabritius's studio in Delft at the time of a large gunpowder explosion on 12 October 1654 that killed him and destroyed much of the city. A common and colourful bird with a pleasant song, the goldfinch was a popular pet, and could be taught simple tricks including lifting a thimble-sized bucket of water. It was reputedly a bringer of good health, and was used in Italian Renaissance painting as a symbol of Christian redemption and the Passion of Jesus. The Goldfinch is unusual for the Dutch Golden Age painting period in the simplicity of its composition and use of illusionary techniques. Following the death of its creator, it was lost for more than two centuries before its rediscovery in Brussels.

Painting credit: Carel Fabritius

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Goldfinch_(painting)&oldid=1205169761"