Talk:Grande Odalisque
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
A fact from Grande Odalisque appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column on 14 January 2008. |
 |
 |
This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Visual arts, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to visual arts on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. | |
| Start | Class: This article has been rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale. |
[edit] Ctiticism
"Ingres continued to be criticized for his work until the mid-1820s when Eugène Delacroix appeared". The reference to Delacroix appears to be a non-sequitur; presumably it should say "...Delacroix, who became the centre of criticism of romanticism" or some such.--Grahame (talk) 23:37, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Title
Discussion about the article's title.
From [1]: The Louvre calls the Mona Lisa La Joconde. This is not comparable, as "La Joconde" is not the original title. Books refer to the titles "Grande Odalisque" and "La Grande Odalisque" [2] ([3] / [4]). Encyclopedias Britannica and Universalis use the title "La Grande Odalisque" ([5], [6], [7]). So which title should be used? Korg (talk) 04:39, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
- This is not comparable, as "La Joconde" is not the original title.
- Correct. But we don't have an article called "Prese Lionardo a fare per Francesco del Giocondo il ritratto di mona Lisa sua moglie". We have one called Mona Lisa, its common name. Similarly, I am using the name commonly used in Gardner's Art Through the Ages, a book specifically devoted to the study of major artworks.
- Books refer to the titles "Grande Odalisque" and "La Grande Odalisque" [8] ([9] / [10]). Encyclopedias Britannica and Universalis use the title "La Grande Odalisque" ([11], [12], [13])
- So you've admitted that serious books omit the "La". And Encarta uses "Grande Odalisque". But what I think is most important are the naming conventions that argue against adding definite articles like "The" (which "la" is a translation of) at the beginning of article names. I've listed the alternate spellings as suggested, but I recommend against changing the article name.
- -- VegitaU (talk) 05:33, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
- This naming convention does not apply to specific titles of works, as the policy says somewhere, and you will see very many articles on paintings, works of literature etc use articles. Nor am I inclined to treat Gardner as revealed wisdom. Presumably this is or was known as the "grande" O to distinguish it from other, smaller works by Ingres of Os? If so, there is a case for calling it "the large O". The article should cover this in any case, & also that the Louvre now just calls it "an odalisque". The main thing is to have all options covered by redirects. Johnbod (talk) 14:09, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
-
- Yes, I agree that the common name should be used. As for the naming conventions, WP:NCD applies; the definite articles are not disallowed.
- So you've admitted that serious books omit the "La". - No, I've pointed out that both titles are used. Encarta uses also "La Grande Odalisque" in the French version: [14], [15].
- At this point, I just ask which name should be used for the article title. Korg (talk) 00:27, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- Hugh Honour and John Fleming, A World History of Art, 1982, Macmillan, London just calls it "Odalisque", in effect like the Louvre, but that is a tad confusing, as there are others, like the Baltimore one (which again the article should mention). A Google Scholar search shows that all Burlington Magazine and Oxford Art Journal mentions (of GO) have no "La", using "the" instead, which is good enough for me. Johnbod (talk) 02:35, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] New Picture worse?
User:Evrik has taken it upon himself to change the picture. As seems to be invariably the case when this is done, the new picture seems to me worse, though in fact both are poor. It will be noticed the new one is cropped on all 4 sides, as well as being out of focus, with dull colours. The old one has very sharp detail at small size, though tonal values are poor. What do others think, and can anyone find a really good pic? - these are both book scans I think. Johnbod (talk) 21:08, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
