Talk:Ozias Humphrey

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article incorporates text from the Encyclopædia Britannica Eleventh Edition, now in the public domain.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
Stub	This article has been rated as stub-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]

I have merged the Ozias Humphry and Ozias Humphrey articles. Also removed proposed deletion notice - IMHO: if an artist is sufficiently notable to be elected as a Royal Academician, he is worthy of inclusion in the Wikipedia (to delete Humphrey would also leave a 'gap' in the list of artists named in the RA piece. Paul W 11:58, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I've added more - there should be no question of notability. The Austen, Blake & Stubbs connections each would probably make him notable. Did you realize how topical this is? Why did you go for Humphrey as the title - Humphry seems more common. Johnbod 01:00, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Out of date?

How out of date is this article? Are his works still in the Morgan collection? The intial article came from the Brittanica, so we don't guarantee that it's still up to date. Corvus cornix 22:54, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I tried the Morgan Library website, but the online catalogue doesn't cover paintings; they seem to have some papers. I imagine any miniatures are there or in the MMA, which got a lot from Morgan. Johnbod

[edit] Rice Portrait

I eased the terms "perhaps" of Jane Austen to "said to be" of Jane Austen. The arguments against this portrait being Jane Austen are strong and compelling, although there is little doubt that it was some member of her family. Artemis-Arethusa 22:19, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not really sure "said to be" is weaker than "perhaps". I think there is much doubt that it was of a member of her family, though clearly owned by one later. Johnbod 23:23, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. It's certainly not her. Artemis-Arethusa 01:37, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I've changed it to "claimed to be...". My impression is that the fashion argument is less strong against it than the fact that Austen's family were in no financial position to commission such an expensive portrait of a daughter probably some way pre-"coming-out". Johnbod 02:14, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

That's a perfectly reasonable edit. It is "claimed to be", but it cannot possibly be her ("perhaps" allows for some possibility, after all). I should not have spoken about whether it was or was not some member of Miss Austen's family, as I am not familiar with the history of this painting -- not my area of expertise and I apologise. There are several different good arguments against this painting's being of Jane Austen. I had thought of the expensive-portratit-middle-class-clergyman argument as well, which is a good one. However, the fashion argument is in fact very strong -- near watertight to anybody familiar (in a historian's capacity, not as a recreational reader of popular fashion histories) with the fashions of that era. You cannot fudge that painting to as early as they want to. Artemis-Arethusa 11:45, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

This portrait probably does not even belong in this article. If, as evidence strongly suggests, it was painted around 1810, Humphrey cannot have painted it. He went blind in 1797. Artemis-Arethusa 17:34, 10 August 2007 (UTC)