Talk:Guernica (painting)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Portal:Basque
 Basque Portal

This article is within the scope of the Basque WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Basque people, Basque Country, Basque language, history and culture. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.

Contents

[edit] "Quite possibly apocryphal"

I cut this from the article.

A story, quite possibly apocryphal, circulates about Guernica. During World War II, a German officer sees a copy of the painting for the first time, in the presence of Picasso. In a wondering tone he asks Picasso "Did you do this?" and Picasso replies: "No, you did."

If it is "quite possibly apocryphal" and we have no attribution or citation, it does not belong in the article. -- Jmabel | Talk 02:33, Dec 14, 2004 (UTC)

Except that this is extremely widely believed and noted. I recall hearing the equivalent when I was at the Prado. - Taxman 02:40, Dec 14, 2004 (UTC)
Then someone should be able to find a citation at least of the anecdote being told. (& was Guernica ever in the Prado? In the early 80s it was in an annex to the Prado and then was moved to the Reina Sofia, no?) -- Jmabel | Talk 07:32, Dec 14, 2004 (UTC)
Duh, yeah that is what I meant to say. It has been 4 years since I was there. Yes, I would think someone could find a source for that being a common anecdote. - Taxman 13:32, Dec 14, 2004 (UTC)

The most specific version I could find as that Picasso is supposed to have said this in 1937, replying to German ambassador Otto Abetz, as he was visiting Picasso's studio[1]. Then there are versions that have Picasso handing out postcards (sometimes autographed, even) to Germans while making this quip[2], but the most popular is probably the one that uses an anonymous German officer bringing/seeing a postcard/photograph[3]. None of these sites mention sources, of course, but this one[4] has an interesting addition:

Picasso himself probably had contributed to Barr's and others' perception of him having behaved rather boldly throughout the war when, immediately following the liberation, he told an American correspondent for Newsweek magazine that on the day when a German army officer had recognized a sketch of Guernica pinned to the wall of his studio and had asked him, "Did you do that?," Picasso coldly had replied, "No, you did."

Now the tale originates with Picasso himself and is told to Newsweek, which makes this version much more credible than the others, since it's hard to see how a response to Abetz or a group of officers would not be better documented, while it's equally hard to see how a reply to a single anonymous German officer could be known at all. Unfortunately, no other site corroborates the Newsweek detail. I've sent a mail to the Newsweek editors and I'll keep you posted. If someone could check out some Picasso biographies to check whether they mention the anecdote (and what source they give, if any), that would be great. JRM 13:14, 2005 Apr 25 (UTC)

  • We can certainly cite the fact that Picasso himself told a (possibly apocryphal) story. It makes the line his, even if it's not clear he really said it in the claimed circumstances. -- Jmabel | Talk 16:05, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)
    Yes, if Picasso really told it. So far, no sources are backing up that website (or even just repeating that version), so I'm not too keen on it. Otherwise the whole thing is just as apocryphal as before. JRM · Talk 16:46, 2005 Apr 26 (UTC)
    If anyone is up for some library work: old Newsweeks are pretty easy to find. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:31, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Nudity?

I reverted this from Category:Paintings containing nudity to Category:Paintings. Clearly, the fact that one naked female human breast is visible in the painting is a very minor fact about the painting; no one by a very weird obsessive would look for it there. It is primarily a political work about war. I could make a case that it is a perfect illustration that nakedness is not always nudity, but I think it suffices to say that if we are subcategorizing Category:Paintings, we should come up with a category for this that has far more to do with its nature. -- Jmabel | Talk 00:12, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)

I see three or four naked female human breasts. Nudity and nakedness point to the same article. What about Liberty Leading the People? --Error 01:14, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
If Nudity and nakedness point to the same article, that's just ignorance, but it's not an area in which I wish to take up writing articles. Nudity implies sexualization; nakedness does not. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:28, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] UN date

The date of the Colin Powell / "blue curtain" incident at the UN was recently and anonymously changed, without citation. Since the original date wasn't cited either, I am not reverting; however, the date should be considered dubious until there is a citation. -- Jmabel | Talk 17:43, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sorry

Hi, I don't know how but I was trying to add some information from school work onto the page and it has messed up and now it's not showing anything and I'm really sorry. is there a way to get it back? Please don't ban me or anything as I use the site frequently and really enjoy it. I am so sorry. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.103.125.20 (talk • contribs) 22 Sept 2005.

Don't worry, we try not to bite the newbies. You should get a look at Wikipedia:How to edit a page. And if you will open an account, it will be much easier for people to communicate with you. -- Jmabel | Talk 02:50, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Skull?

Just where is that "outline of a skull" formed by various objects? I just can't find it. Maybe someone can add an image where that outline is, ahem, outlined in red or such? -- mawa 06:17, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

<image now removed>

Here's a rough drawing (skull is marked roughly in bright green. The nose is clearest; the brows seem reasonably clear. If someone wants to do this in the article, they will want to start from Image:PicassoGuernica.jpg, do something much neater than I just did, and upload it to Image:PicassoGuernica-Skull.jpg -- Jmabel | Talk 06:03, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Partial Image!

the jpg you show is incomplete; missing the right-hand component; not an unusual mistake; but the work is significant; so get the image right; please! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.49.148.13 (talk • contribs) 18 May 2006.

I agree! If someone finds it, fix it! --212.247.27.196 21:24, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Looks like it was fixed, though I'd love to see a higher res image up there. 101kb jpeg hardly does a 30 foot painting justice.Sammermpc 14:34, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Article reorganized with new History section

I reorganized the article, separating descriptive material about the painting from the painting's history. The article could be improved if contributors add information about how Picasso conceived and painted Guernica and insert it into this new section. --Dkwong323 17:59, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cubism

A citation is needed for cubism. However, the comment that the mural is not cubist because is was created in 1937 is off-base. The Microsoft Encarta describes Guernica as a "cubist collage". Someone might want to look at what the curator at Museo Reina Sofia in Madrid says. --Dkwong323 19:14, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Symbolism in Guernica

The article's information on symbolism is not representative of consensus interpretation of the work. For example, The Encyclopedia Britannica says the creature on the right is a bull (not minotaur), and that it represents "the hope of overcoming the unseen aggressor, Fascism". This is diametrically opposite of what is indicated in the article, and this needs to be examined: Note that the bull is often used as a symbol for Spain itself and Picasso would not want a painting intended to be sympathetic to the Spanish government's cause be interpreted otherwise. Certainly, the creature that stands in an opening to the "room" doesn't look like it is poised to threaten or destroy the grieving woman with dead child under it. Given the Britannica narrative, I've deleted the sentences. Overall, the article should at least provide a review of the different mainstream symbolic interpretions of Guernica. --Dkwong323 19:14, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Not external links

The following three items were in the "external links" section of the article. They are clearly not external links; it is not obvious to me that they belong in the article at all; I have brought them here to the talk page. - Jmabel | Talk 06:39, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
[Begin cut material]

[End cut material]

[edit] Links

What do others think of the recently added "Guernica for rent" link? I'm inclined to remove it: the linked page is probably one big copyvio, since it seems to be basically reproduction without commentary of details from the painting. - Jmabel | Talk 02:59, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Numbers

I see that some anon removed the high end of the range of estimated casualties, which I have now restored. We have been dealing with this over and over in Bombing of Gernika, where the numbers are explained: or at least they are except when this person removes all the sources he disagrees with. - Jmabel | Talk 08:06, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What Did Picasso say?

I cut from the article: "The Spanish struggle is the fight of reaction against the people, against freedom. My whole life as an artist has been nothing more than a continuous struggle against reaction and the death of art. How could anybody think for a moment that I could be in agreement with reaction and death? ... In the panel on which I am working, which I shall call Guernica, and in all my recent works of art, I clearly express my abhorrence of the military caste which has sunk Spain in an ocean of pain and death."

But in fact Picasso did not say anything about the painting, or write anything about it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.3.137.211 (talk) 18:00, 26 January 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Spelling

Why is it referred to, in the "See Also" section, as the "Bombing of Gernika" rather than the "Bombing of Guernica" as it is in BOTH actual articles? Why are we contradicting ourselves here? It may be "Gernika" now, but come on. Basic contradictions should probably be rectified before an article is protected.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../g/u/e/Talk%7EGuernica_%28painting%29_57f5.html"