Talk:Portrait of Adele Bloch-Bauer I

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Portrait of Adele Bloch-Bauer I article.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

	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.

hi my name is lauryn i saw the portrate it was very interesting . but I liked it well I have to go BYlauryn

[edit] What did the will say?

My modest research indicates that this article does not fairly represent Adele's will. I suggest the language be revised.

Another site states the following

"In his 1994 article on "The Legacy of an Object Not Belonging to the Estate," Prof. Rudolf Welser concluded:

That the testamentary disposition of an object not belonging to the estate is valid when the object belongs to an heir, does not apply in the case when the testator sets forth that the heir should upon his own death leave an object from his own separate property to a third party.

Adele's will reads as follows:

I ask my husband after his death to leave my two portraits and the four landscapes of Gustav Klimt to the Austrian Gallery.

In the estate files is a declaration dated January 1926 from Gustav Bloch-Bauer (Ferdinand’s brother), the attorney for the estate, stating:

It should be noted that the referenced Klimt paintings are not the property of the deceased testatrix, but of her husband. "

http://financialservices.house.gov/banking/21000blo.htm

[edit] Why is this just a history of the piece and its political status?

I would think it would be helpful to know WHY this is "our Mona Lisa" as Lauder states near the end of the article. While it most certainly visually captivating, what in paticular about this "Jugendstil" style associates it with Jewish culture and why is that worth 130 million dollars? I am always skeptical of any painting that is sold for this much money so it would be helpful to understand why this is so valuable. From an art-critic perspective, what makes this painting the most valuable piece of art ever sold for over $100 million?

I have added the law.com link in the References section. Could somebody format it correctly? I can't see the other external links while formatting. Yukon guy 23:20, 9 November 2006 (UTC)