I would like to propose an external link for Anthony-Maria Browne, 2nd Viscount Montagu. The link is to a modern edition of Montagu's 1595 Book of Orders and Rules, but there is an inherent conflict of interest in my adding the link since I am the one who created (and hosts) the web page for the editor. If some other Wikipedian thinks the link is appropriate, please add it:
Thanks - PKM (talk) 19:54, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Are are here. Any photo of any 2D PD art scanned form any book anywhere is the world is now acceptable.
Where's that bottle of virtual champagne I had stashed away? - PKM (talk) 19:45, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
I've arrived to ask your advice on a couple of things related to 'im above.
I'm inching my way into the FAR of Edward VI of England (now his picture's saved, might as well save his article). I've decided I'm not happy with the image of Edward Seymour (right). My suspicions were aroused when I noticed that Jennifer Loach, who is an excellent scholar, doesn't include it among the illustrations in her biography of Edward VI. Chris Skidmore, a markedly less good scholar, does include it in his biography, but, like us, he attributes it to Holbein, which makes my eyebrows disappear into my hat and come out behind my ears looking like startled meerkats, to be honest. I mean, one thing's for sure, surely–that's nae a Holb, even the face. Loach has instead this portrait. The only trouble is, she has it in black and white, while this German one has a dead link for a source. So, here's my first question: how can I use this alternative portrait now that FAs are so strict on sources? (I've gone about twenty pages into Google images looking for another good version, but no joy.)
The other question is, what do you think about our piecrust-shirted friend above? In Tudor and Jacobean Portraits, Strong seems to think that the Weston attribution only goes back as far as a nineteenth-century engraving of a picture he thinks is of a French sitter, which was then used to name the painting. Strong comes up with a miniature of Seymour painted by Hilliard in 1560 from an earlier painting (as Hilliard helpfully notes on the back), this being the closest we have to an authentic picture of Somerset (again, it's reproduced in black and white, and I can't find it online). What I like is, as Strong shows, that the darkish looks in the Hilliard are similar to those in our German image; they also look very like the geezer standing next to King Edward in the Edward and the Pope picture—though, annoyingly, there's some dispute about whether that one's contemporary or Elizabethan (Loach favours its being contemporary; Margaret Aston argues from the iconography that it's not). All in all, though, I think the present picture should go out of the Edward VI article and the German one come in, with some of my blundering description notes attached. (It will be nice to get rid of that shockingly daubed shirt, if nothing else.)
Is this complicated enough yet? :) qp10qp (talk) 17:28, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
(outdent) Good catch on the "Hereford"; I was about to post that on comparing the fur-collared gown to other portraits I'd guess at 1530s rather than late 1540s, assuming he would be portrayed in the latest fashion. Many inscriptions are later than the portraits and include titles the sitter didn't have at the time of the portrait (and of course many are just plain wrong, based on family tradition or a desire to make the painting seem more important - but you know that!) Therefore an inscription with an intermediate title suggests that this painting (or its source if it's a copy) is probably dated between 1537-1547, and could be called c. 1540. Which is (a) original research (when not rank speculation) and (b) doesn't help me choose to categorize it as "1530s fashion" vs "1540s fashion". (Costume historians date clothes based on dated portraits; in the absence of documentation, art historians date portraits based on the clothes. Vicious circle.)
There are some engravings in the NPG, need to see how they describe those. - PKM (talk) 16:42, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
… for bringing William Morris to GA status!
The Special Barnstar | ||
I award you the special barnstar for your good work on bringing the William Morris article to GA status! Tirkfl (talk) 08:06, 25 August 2008 (UTC) |
Thank YOU!! - PKM (talk) 16:44, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
I was away seeing this with him. Naturally your name came up! Last day of a wonderful show you would have have had a whale of a time at. It's going on to Bruges next March - Bruges, Groeninge Museum 27 March 09 – 21 June 09. I'll add what I can to MAM, & maybe more from the fuller info on-site there, next time I run out of scented candles. Johnbod (talk) 01:00, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
No doubt, like me, you were unaware of this recent "landmark decision" at Commons - relevant to Ed VI & others: [1]. Good news from the image police station for once! Johnbod (talk) 13:34, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
I have nominated my new scan of Elizabeth I of England - Darnley Portrait for Featured Picture status - comments encouraged on the nomination page.
This scan is made possible by the new Commons policy on PD art (trigger applause). - PKM (talk) 17:06, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
You asked for feedback about this article. I'm a relative newcomer to Wikipedia, so I'm not sure I'm qualified to give the best feedback. That being said, here's my quick take. The article is a good biographical sketch, but it doesn't say anything about the quality of aesthetics of his work. My thinking is that people who look up these articles often want to know as much about the art itself as about the person. It's not easy to find the right balance of both. However, I did a quick Google search and found quotes like this: "In workmanship he was extremely fastidious, giving personal attention to every stage of the process, so that the final result was not so much a photograph of a painting as a translation of its qualities into photographic terms."(Luminous Lint) I'm a fan of adding critics' opinions and quotes from the person to give a more-rounded picture of both the artist and the art. You've got a great start - now it needs to be filled in. Lexaxis7 (talk) 04:36, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
I have some additional information which would be easier to email to you. My email is tgreyhavens@gmail.com. Please send me an email address, and I'll send you what I have. Otherwise I can paste it here if you would prefer. Lexaxis7 (talk) 04:03, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
Congratulations and keep up the good work, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:06, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
I was wondering if it might make some sense to add a bit about when his pics came out of copyright. If only to annoy those who think they can charge for their use. Good work. Victuallers (talk) 09:44, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Sorry - the image load has ruined the pic in your article ... could you help by renaming temporarily? Victuallers (talk) 11:23, 6 September 2008 (UTC) Fixed.
The problem arose cos the image is so good/large that it takes a while to load to wikipedia for the dyk appearance. May need to think of a solution if there a lot more large images. sorry for the panic Victuallers (talk) 11:35, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your contributions! - Mailer Diablo 11:54, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, Image:Darnley stage 3.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. jjron (talk) 14:09, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
|
I'm prepping Edward Burne-Jones for a run at a GA over the next few weeks, if anyone wants to help. I could especially use some more info on Aestheticism (that article barely touches on visual arts and could use some help as well.) - PKM (talk) 20:16, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Back from my business trip. - PKM (talk) 18:47, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi PKM,
Just to let you know that the Featured Picture Image:Elizabeth I Steven Van Der Meulen.jpg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on October 20, 2008. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2008-10-20. Note that in order to write a decent POTD blurb (actually I didn't write it; I just used what you had), I had to insert the image back into Elizabeth I of England -- that's where the main focus of this image is, not the artist or the cultural depictions articles. Regards, howcheng {chat} 06:47, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
Did you see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Fashion#Wikipedia_0.7_articles_have_been_selected_for_Fashion - changes must in by 20th. Johnbod (talk) 19:33, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
I see from the paper [2] ! Johnbod (talk) 23:05, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
Hi PKM, I lookiing over the article, and my first impression is that it is far too condenced. I get the feeling you are assuming that the reader has more knowledge than they might actually have, and I think that at times you make leaps of logic that might be above the head of the average person. I think its a fine article for sure, and was delighted to read it, but at times I found myself scratching my head. Take the section "The young queen": Portraits of the young queen, many of them likely painted to be shown to prospective suitors and foreign heads of state, show similar naturalness and restraint. - similar to what? And later what is a face pattern? You should clearly explain techincal terms, and make each section self contained and not reliant on statements made in earlier headings. I hope you don't take this as critism, I'm only saying because I think this article has huge potential. Ceoil sláinte 22:46, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your contributions! - Cheers, Mailer Diablo 17:46, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
Note to self: I have to clean up Penelope Blount, Countess of Devonshire (aka to rest of the world Penelope Devereux, Lady Rich). If I don't do something about the women all identified as "the former so-and-so" and the "Lord this" and "Lady that" I shall puke. Really, she deserves better than the 1911 EB.
Does anyone one know the current thought on the identity of the Hilliard miniature supposed to be her?
I am delighted to have found a newly discovered portrait of Charles Blount, 1st Earl of Devonshire, which is how I got there from here. - PKM (talk) 04:13, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
Somehow I missed this: a previously unrecorded miniature of Elizabeth I by Hilliard auctioned at Christie's in June 2007 for £276,000. It's another variant of of Elizabeth as Cynthia, and it's very pretty.- PKM (talk) 04:17, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 20:19, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
Remember this image, misidentified on a German website as a triple portrait of Elizabeth I? I found the correct attribution totally by accident. The girls are the daughters of Thomas Egerton (d. 1599), elder son of Thomas Egerton, 1st Viscount Brackley. See article here. - PKM (talk) 20:43, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
I think I am finally done with Portraiture of Elizabeth I, although there are doubtless corners to be smoothed out and nooks and crannies to be filled. If it feels like anything is missing or mis-stated, please let me know or have at it. We need an article on Crispijn de Passe, but I'm not the one to write it, not now anyway. Taking a short break. - PKM (talk) 19:50, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
Now that we've done Hans Eworth and Rowland Lockey we probably need to look at Marcus Gheeraerts the Younger. An editor's work is never done... - PKM (talk) 21:20, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
DYKBot (talk) 17:50, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
Does anyone have a source that supports this image being what the article says it is or being by Gheeraerts? - PKM (talk) 16:58, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
BorgQueen (talk) 12:25, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
The Epic Barnstar | ||
I qp10qp award this star to colleague PKM for fine work on Portraiture of Elizabeth I. It's a daunting topic, and one that cried out for an article. Now it has an exceptional one, which will become my first port of call on the subject. qp10qp (talk) 14:39, 21 November 2008 (UTC) |
I'm going to have a look through the existing Holbein images before uploading anything. Is it just me, or is the featured picture Image:Hans Holbein d. J. 065.jpg not up to scratch? The reproductions in my books have less pink tinge and sharper detail, such as miraculous dots of white stubble on his chin. I hesitate to replace a featured file; but I'm thinking of adding a separate version, anyway.
(Beware, I'm probably going to pester your eye a lot for the next few weeks.) qp10qp (talk) 15:24, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. Nice catch on Creswick, to my knowledge the source I used didn't say anything about him. Funny how these things work out.--Cúchullain t/c 03:59, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
I have transcribed the inscription on this portrait of William Vaux, 3rd Baron Vaux of Harrowden as "Willm. Lo. Vaux AE. de 40. ans 1575" but I think it ought to be "Willm. Lo. Vaux AE. sue 40. ano 1575" (possibly with a line over the N of ano. Can anyone make it out better than I can (a larger monitor might help)?
Christie's is hopeless; whoever wrote up the catalogue doesn't know the conventions and clearly struggled with the Secretary hand of the name; they have it as 'Willm. Lo. Gauge Al. de 40. ans 1575' even though they identify the sitter as William Lord Vaux of Harrowden (1535-1595). - PKM (talk) 09:17, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
U or V to my eye. So I suspect you are are right, possibly a corrupt inscription or a bad restoration. Thanks for looking. - PKM (talk) 20:52, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
If anyone has a copy of Chambers' The Elizabethan Stage could you please add the appropriate info and citation for Lord Vaux's Men to Edward Vaux, 4th Baron Vaux of Harrowden, assuming Chambers actually says the 4th Baron was their patron? What I've been able to find on the net is tantalizing but inconclusive.
I also can't find anything about the 4th Baron's activities in the Civil War, but my library is very thin in that particular period. - PKM (talk) 04:11, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Hello! Your submission of Edward Vaux, 4th Baron Vaux of Harrowden at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed. There still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! —Politizer talk/contribs 01:37, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
BorgQueen (talk) 02:32, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
BorgQueen (talk) 14:42, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Well, there are large unsourced portions, which I don't remember being there when I gave it the A. Have you been adding to it? (not that there's anything wrong with that). Also, for an article of this scope you should probably have a longer intro. Daniel Case (talk) 02:18, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
BorgQueen (talk) 06:23, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
BorgQueen (talk) 11:43, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
(Regaining breath after machetéeing my way through a thicket of DYKs) Have you any views on whether the Holbein portrait (I'd put up a better scan) inscribed as above at Windsor should go in the Anne Boleyn article? I've proposed it in the bottom part of this thread. The scholarship is conflicted, but I think there's enough on its side to justify its inclusion, with reservations noted, of course. I'd also like to do a little article on images of Anne (or perhaps one of those "cultural depictions of" thingies), which is a fascinating subject, but I'm put off by the fact that two key items, the medal and the ring, might count as 3D. I've asked what Johnbod thinks, as well.qp10qp (talk) 01:54, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
BorgQueen (talk) 16:28, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
BorgQueen (talk) 13:40, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
BorgQueen (talk) 13:40, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
Have a smashing holiday and a happy new year. I've enjoyed working with you this last year (such a luxury to know there's someone else who is interested in obscure Renaissance portraits). Long may it continue. qp10qp (talk) 14:24, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
BorgQueen (talk) 21:45, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
Thanks so much, PKM!--Cúchullain t/c 08:31, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
Hello! Your submission of Robert Brandon at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Nsk92 (talk) 19:54, 28 December 2008 (UTC)