Talk:Gustav Klimt

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
This article is supported by the Arts and Entertainment work group.


Contents

[edit] Famous?

How is Klimt famous? Was Klimt famous when he was alive? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.70.164.86 (talk • contribs) at 14:15, 26 April 2005

yes he was actually very famous when he was alive, being one of Vienna's most prominent painters during his era. -- 76.179.69.188 20:05, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Kiss

Do we have free photographs of The Kiss? David.Monniaux 09:24, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Klimt and J.D. Rockefeller

The staff of the Special Collections Research Center at the University of Chicago cannot find evidence linking Klimt to the seal of the university. The design of the U of C Seal was a reworking in different form of the slightly earlier design of the U of C Coat of Arms. The Coat of Arms was designed by Pierre de Chaignon la Rose, a heraldic specialist in Boston working under contract to the Board of Trustees. The information in the University Archives is that the Seal was designed in 1912 by the Boston firm of John Evans & Co., architectural sculptors for Shepley, Rutan & Coolidge of Boston, the firm then serving as the architects for the University of Chicago.

See "The Phoenix and the Book" in The University of Chicago Magazine 6:7 (June 1912): 243-248.

[edit] I removed the following section about a Klimt painting lawsuit

...because it is extremely biased and does not have much to do with Gustav Klimt:

"On June 7, 2004, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that 88-year-old Maria Altmann, the niece of Klimt model Adele Bloch-Bauer, could sue Austria in a U.S. court for the return of six Klimt paintings stolen from her uncle by the occupying Nazis in 1938. Kept by Austria after the war, the paintings are currently displayed in Vienna's Belvedere Palace. The paintings include the celebrated Adele Bloch-Bauer I and have a market value estimated at more than $150,000,000." and he is a wanka of an aritst Just one example: Adele Bloch-Bauer wanted Austria to inherit these paintings. This is clearly stated in her will [1]. The Nazis stealing the paintings however prevented this wish to be carried out. All in all this is a very complicated juristical case, which can definitely not be summed up in several lines. Wikipedia should be a place for facts, not to express views of one side of warring factions.

While the will did bequeath the paintings to the gallery, it was determined that Adele's husband, Ferdinand Bloch-Bauer, was in fact the owner of the paintings, not Adele herself. He had had paintings for over ten years before they were stolen, and it was determined that they had never been in Adele's posession. [2] This information probably really belongs at the article about the suit, but it's good to clear up any misinformation anyway lest people be misled. Theshibboleth 21:43, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] speculation

"There is speculation that Klimt painted female figures decaptiated and in gross sexual detail prior to painting his signature necklaces and robes. It has been suggested that the high angle of the head almost universally present in Klimt's paintings is an indication of the dismembered forms painted beneath."

needs to be sourced (I am not even sure what it means -- decapitated? Like in a horror movie?) Sdedeo 08:20, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

What does this do cos i am board out of ma skull "gross sexual detail" mean? Sure, there are several Klimt works which could almost be considered pornographic, by the way. (Sorry, never mind the second sentence, I was thinking about Egon Schiele. Excuse me.) 85.226.122.205 02:03, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] main image

The main image on the top right should be the one of klimt, should it not?

otherwise its out of sync with almost allother wiki pages...

Removed the "gay" remark at the references...--RexNecros 01:04, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removing the "gay" remark

--RexNecros 01:10, 16 June 2006 (UTC)Hey, if anyone knows that Mr. Klimt was gay please don’t put it in the notes section without an explanation in the notes. I removed the “gay” word from the notes, I personally don’t know if was either intended to be informative or just pure vandalizing.

In all likelihood, vandalism. Jobjörn (Talk | contribs) 20:49, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] legacy

just after his influence on egon schiele this article notes that on of his paintings inspired a danielle steel novel. come on. i take that off, if trashy romance novel need to have a place in this article too, maybe there can be a section trivia or something trueblood 12:50, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Catalogue of his work?

Does anybody know what book (or website) would be the most comprehensive guide to his work? This article doesn't indicate how prolific he was. A good friend likes his work very much and such a book would be a nice gift. Thanks. 193.1.172.163 22:36, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] liberace's piano

Upon a moment of exhausted rambling about my favorite artist- Klimt, today at work in the University art department, I made a remark about a piano I have seen photos of which was decorated by the artist. I mentioned that it was created for Liberace, and after thinking, realized that is impossible. Klimt died in 1919, the year Liberace was born. I am sure though, that I have read that Liberace owned a piano of the sort however. Is anyone familiar with this? If so, are there any photos available?

[edit] Restructuring biography

I'm going to try and restructure his biography so it has different sections fo each of the eras in his life. It's a little hard to read with everything jumbled together. --76.179.69.188 20:05, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Elfen Lied

Only the opening sequence features his work, not the end, I believe,

edit: yup it's verified, i'll take the initiative to change it

Ending theme "Be your girl" by Chieko Kawabe

66.75.229.195 18:45, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Picture of Klimt

From which year is this picture of Klimt? The file name (and the article) says 1902. The description however says 1912. - Face 13:46, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Stop removing legitimate links

JNW, please stop removing legitimate links. Using the rollback feature is for obvious vandalism ONLY. The way you are using it is considered edit warring, and is not tolerated on Wikipedia. If you have a legitimate concern, please bring it up here on the Talk page instead of trying to force your particular views on everyone else without any sort of discussion. According to the sourced interview linked from the Kevin Wasden article, Wasden considers Klimt and Degas to be influences. That is what the "influenced" field in the infobox is for, and there is nothing anywhere that says those listed there have to be considered "masters" in order to be listed there. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 21:14, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Will reply later, but to argue that there is no distinction regarding an artist's notability does not seem very encyclopedic. JNW 21:17, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
You are the one who indicated that an artist had to be a master to be listed there (at least that's how I interpreted your comment). If you go to the {{Infobox Artist}} template, the field description says only "artists who have been influenced by the artist". It says nothing about them having to be considered a master. Your abuse of the rollback tool to force your opinion onto these two articles is completely unacceptable. Whether or not Wasden is considered a master has no bearing on this discussion and only serves as a distraction from the real focus here: what the "influenced" field is for. As the template itself states that it is for listing "artists who have been influenced by the artist", your removal of the link to Kevin Wasden is not acceptable. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 21:23, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
For more on why your use of rollback is not acceptable, please see Help:Reverting. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 21:31, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Honest, I'm headed out the door. I will check the link as you advise. If I have acted inappropriately, please accept my apologies. There is no intent here to abuse any tool for editing, nor to force my opinion. While you are correct that the template does not make such a distinction, it seems to be in the nature of an encyclopedia that it is best served in doing so. Thanks again, JNW 21:36, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure how only listing "masters" in the "influenced" field is the best thing for the encyclopedia. That would exclude almost any contemporary artist from being listed (as very few would likely be considered "masters" yet). That's a very narrow view, and detrimental to the encyclopedia, IMHO. One of the largest benefits of having an online encyclopedia is that you can easily link related articles to each other, allowing those using the article to follow links which interest them. This can be used in a very positive way to link to articles which may not have as much exposure otherwise, as long as that lesser-known article is related. In this case, as the sourced interview in the Wasden article includes a statement from Wasden that these artists influenced him, linking to the Kevin Wasden article in the "influenced" field in these two articles is a completely legitimate use of the field. If you want, I can even include a source on both the Klimt and Degas articles showing the legitimacy of the link and claim. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 21:57, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
I agree with JNW. The "key facts" nature of the infoboxes implies a certain notability that is not met in this case. Otherwise you could jam these infoboxes with lists of hundreds of artists who have been influenced by Klimt, Degas et al.Twirling 22:34, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
So do I. Maestro Kevin would not come in the top 10 of artists who have been influenced by either Degas or Klimt. I see "influenced by Klimt" has 553 ghits, btw! No 1 is this from here:" Many artist have been influenced by Klimt's electic and decorative style, notably Chris Ofili and Will Teather" which I have to say I find equally strange. Egon Schiele anyone? Johnbod 22:42, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Also in agreement with JNW. Obviously the infobox cannot and should not list every artist who has ever declared Klimt an influence. Johnbod is right, the obvious 1st choice is Schiele. The rules and suggestions in Help:Reverting do not prohibit this revert; here are relevant passages (bolding is mine, italics are my comments):
  • Reverting is used primarily for fighting vandalism, or anything very similar to the effects of vandalism. (such as an outstandingly inappropriate but good faith edit more suggestive (with respect) of a fan's enthusiasm than of encyclopedic judgement: Whom should the article name as Klimt's most important followers? The goal is to inform the reader.)
How do you get off calling my edit "outstandingly inappropriate"? I'm not a fan as I'm actually fairly unfamiliar with Wasden's work. Before I added the link to the Wasden article, there wasn't even anything in that field. Your comment makes me feel like I'm in a room of art snobs who are sneering at something they consider far beneath them. Adding the link was hardly inappropriate, let alone outstandingly inappropriate, especially given that fact that the field was completely empty before that. Please try to assume good faith without backhanding me in the same sentence. Looking at the works displayed on Wasden's official site, as well as other galleries around the web, the quality of Wasden's work is at least as good as most others out there, IMHO. We likely disagree on that point, though. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 07:48, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
  • If you are not sure whether a revert is appropriate, discuss it first rather than immediately reverting or deleting it. (This seems an easy call.)
  • If you feel the edit is unsatisfactory, improve it rather than simply reverting or deleting it. (Not applicable in this case, there's nothing to do but remove it or replace with a more appropriate name.)
  • Do not revert good faith edits. In other words, try to consider the editor "on the other end." If what one is attempting is a positive contribution to Wikipedia, a revert of those contributions is inappropriate unless, and only unless, you as an editor possess firm, substantive, and objective proof to the contrary. Mere disagreement is not such proof. (It can be substantively proven that several more notable artists than Wasden are widely recognized as important Klimt disciples; pick up any book on Klimt.) Ewulp 02:30, 2 June 2007 (UTC) Addendum: As Twirling has noted, the infobox is useful as a quick guide to the key facts, not indiscriminate facts or trivia. Even if a reliable source can be found that proves that Edward G. Robinson (a very famous Sunday painter) was influenced by Klimt, it sure doesn't belong in the infobox. Ewulp 03:15, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Okay, as it appears that everyone else was reading more into the instructions on the template than is actually there, I'll just drop it. I still, however, strongly object to JNW's blatant abuse of the rollback tool and completely unrepentant attitude about his abuse. The rollback tool is there to be used only for obvious vandalism, not to revert good faith edits you disagree with. If nothing else, I disagree with his methods in this case. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 07:31, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Much said here already. I do want to add a thought or two, if only because I left last night promising to return. And I do so hoping to strike a conciliatory note which will honor what we each try to do here.

I understand that Nihonjoe's edits were made in good faith, and were not vandalism, and my reversions were not intended to signify otherwise. The reasons for the objection are appreciated. As I wrote here yesterday, if I have acted inappropriately, please accept my apologies.

The points made by Twirling, Johnbod, and Ewulp speak eloquently for my rationale (all three have been invaluable contributors, as has been Nihonjoe). I don't think that the distinctions regarding artists are esoteric, though they could be interpreted that way by scholars in other disciplines. To writers on art, and artists themselves, the distinctions are important. Rather than maintain that only 'masters' can be cited, it is better to say that we are relying on the judgments of established art historians (here I smile, because, of course, the whole business will always be subjective, but hopefully time, good sourcing, and a system of editorial checks and balances attains something approaching solid scholarship). For Klimt a strong example would be Egon Schiele, for Degas it would be Walter Sickert.

Finally, under the heading of It's a Small World: Upon further reading, it turns out that Mr. Wasden studied with a friend of mine from student days in New York City. So, my very best regards to Mr. Wasden, and to his teacher, my old pal Andy Reiss. Respectfully, JNW 18:49, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] death

How did Gustav Klimt die?--xgmx (T | C | D | R | DR)