Nominator(s): ‑ Iridescent 17:10, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's fair to say that The World Before the Flood divides opinion. Dismissed by John Constable as "a revel rout of Satyrs and lady bums as usual" and condemned in the press for obscenity, it also drew great praise in some quarters, and was the subject of a ludicrously effusive poem by John Taylor. Having spent the last century on display in Southampton, which is something of an artistic backwater, it's not particularly well known, but it's an interesting aside in the story of English religious art. ‑ Iridescent 17:10, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The article uses the same reliable quality sources as those used in previous Featured Articles in the series. I added a couple of archive URLs and removed a dead URL from another ref that there wasn't an archive available for.
Subject
Both paragraphs start "The World before the Flood ..."; could the second para perhaps be re-jigged slightly?
Second paragraph: "...Archangel Michael, Michael ..."; can the immediate repetition be avoided?
Reception
Second paragraph: "The Athanaeum considered it ..." followed by the next sentence "Colburn's New Monthly Magazine considered it ..." replace one of the "considered it"?
Legacy
Final paragraph: It states paintings remain at York Gallery and Southampton Gallery "as at 2015" - should this be "as at 2016" as they seem to still be held there?
These are all just very minor nit picks in another very interesting article. SagaciousPhil - Chat 11:10, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
All fixed. Realistically neither painting will ever go anywhere—austerity has come to an end, so the risk of local authorities having to sell off their art holdings to make ends meet has dropped considerably, but someone will no doubt complain if it doesn't include a couple of ((asof))s. ‑ Iridescent 15:01, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - thanks for tweaking so quickly. SagaciousPhil - Chat 15:21, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Great to see this here, reading through now... CassiantoTalk 17:25, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"William Etty was born in 1787, the son of a York baker and miller. He began as an apprentice printer in Hull" -- Etty or his father?
Expanded a bit on this—I try to keep this background bit as short as possible, as I'm aware that someone reading through this series is having to read essentially the same story a dozen times. ‑ Iridescent 19:27, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And indeed you should. But the clarification you've made seems good enough without being too detailed. CassiantoTalk 22:00, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"with a few pieces of chalk crayons" -- who said this? Unattributed quotes, I find, are always unhelpful.
Alexander Gilchrist—the reference seems to have been lost somewhere along the line, re-added. ‑ Iridescent 19:27, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
On reflection, I've removed that "chalk crayons" bit altogether. It doesn't add anything, and it means this article avoids the use of Gilchrist's hagiography altogether. ‑ Iridescent 08:02, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"Etty was the first British artist to specialise in the nude" -- At all other times he was fully clothed?
This was raised at the Dawn of Love FAC as well—I don't think any reasonable reader can misinterpret it in context given that it follows "Etty tried to replicate its success by painting nude figures", and mangled phrasing like "specialise in artwork primarily featuring people in a state of nudity" just makes it harder to read.
"Following the exhibition of Cleopatra..." -- Should the shortening of The Arrival of Cleopatra in Cilicia receive itals? If the painting was known as simply "Cleopatra" this should also feature in the parenthesis, no?
Paintings at this time didn't have titles, which were a Pre-Raphaelite invention in the late 1840s. There is no "right" and "wrong" title for Cleopatra, just various names by which it was known. ‑ Iridescent 19:27, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"The painting shows the stages of courtship as described by Milton" -- New para, new full title. I've noticed you've done the same elsewhere.
I'm not entirely clear what you're saying here; if it's that each time it's mentioned for the first time in a paragraph The World Before the Flood needs to be written out in full, I'd strongly disagree with that. ‑ Iridescent 19:27, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, that is not what I meant; for instance: "The World Before the Flood is strongly influenced by A Bacchanalian Revel Before a Statue of Pan (1632–33) by Nicolas Poussin" speaks of two paintings, this one, and A Bacchanalian Revel Before a Statue of Pan. The next para then starts with: "The painting...".
Ah, I'm with you. I've changed the second occurrence to "Etty's painting", to avoid having two successive paragraphs start with "The World Before the Flood"
"grave" -- what do the quote marks add to this?
To indicate that I'm using this archaic terminology because it's the term used by Milton, and that it's not in Wikipedia's voice. ‑ Iridescent 19:27, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"As Milton considers" or something similar then. As I've said elsewhere, unattributed quotes are most unhelpful. CassiantoTalk 21:54, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
On reflection, I've removed that altogether, as we already have Milton's text running alongside here so it's superfluous. ‑ Iridescent 08:02, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Up to here, more to come... CassiantoTalk 18:07, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. - Dank (push to talk)
I guess I'll add my voice asking for a slight rewording of " Etty was the first British artist to specialise in the nude". The issue is unintended humor.
How about "the first British artist to specialise in paintings of nudes"? ‑ Iridescent 19:09, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"and the reaction of uneducated audiences to these paintings caused concern throughout the 19th century.": I have a slight preference for "and these paintings caused concern throughout the 19th century." Most readers will get what you're saying, but some won't, and a misreading would be unfortunate.
The issue was specifically concerns about the reactions of the uneducated lower classes to paintings on public display—Artists and connoisseurs were generally trusted to approach images of the undraped figure with contemplative composure but audiences uneducated in the intricacies of art criticism tended to be regarded with suspicion if you want chapter-and-verse. (The definition of "obscenity" in English law is based on whether it has the potential to corrupt its audience, rather than on what's depicted; up until 1959 the social class of potential audiences was taken into account when deciding whether something was appropriate for distribution.) Realistically, someone demanding a citation for "the English assume that anyone from a different background to themselves isn't to be trusted" is right up there with this guy. ‑ Iridescent 19:09, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"[35]),[36]", "[35]),[27]": Reference formats aren't my thing, so I won't comment other than to say I don't usually see them written this way.
The MOS editors seem to change the preferred placement of citations more often than they change their underwear, but I think that's the current approved format when one citation supports the comment in parentheses, and the other supports the surrounding statement. Moving the [36] and [27] to the immediate end of the statement they support rather than after the first succeeding punctuation mark will mean a footnote appearing before punctuation, which I'm given to understand means the world coming to an end. ‑ Iridescent 19:09, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have read through the article and found very few issues. All the content is nicely referenced but I'm afraid I have not checked any of the sources themselves.
Composition:
The text refers to "early versions" and the caption to "preparatory sketches", but I only noticed a mention of the study at York. Checking again from the top, I see "worked through various configurations for the characters in the painting before settling on his final design" earlier in the Subject section. I would like to see a sentence or two about what other studies are extant or mentioned in sources (Burnage 2011b or whatever). For example, were they drawings or paintings of individual characters or groups, or other sketches of the whole composition? Do we have any idea how long he worked on it?
Other than the two versions shown here there's nothing to say about any of them; literally all that has been written about the preparatory sketches is pencil 89⁄10×71⁄5, on folded envelope, small sketches for this composition. Regarding how long it took to paint, there's no way of knowing as he didn't keep notes and was so pathologically shy we don't have any accounts from visitors to his studio of what he was working on. His paintings usually took three days to complete once he got started on the final version (one day inking outlines, one day painting, one day glazing and overpainting) but for his showpiece paintings could take anything up to a couple of years. ‑ Iridescent 19:09, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
OK. How about changing "In early versions the right-most..." to "In the study and other preparatory sketches, the right-most..."? I think that would prevent the "what other versions?" question. --Mirokado (talk) 22:49, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've amended it to "In Etty's oil sketch and in preliminary drawings the right-most…" which ought to address it. ‑ Iridescent 14:57, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Reception:
Please check my copyedit to The Athenaeum link
Yes, you're right—that one slipped through. ‑ Iridescent 19:09, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support (assuming sensible responses to the above!) --Mirokado (talk) 17:48, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No further issues from my point of view. Thanks. --Mirokado (talk) 15:44, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As with the above review, my comments are mainly in the way of small quibbles:
Lead: I'd delete "which greatly pleased Etty", not that I doubt he was pleased, but the observation doesn't seem leadworthy.
Removed from the lead, although I think it should remain in the body text; there is some significance to the fact that it was bought by a member of the aristocracy and not northern new-money (who at the time were the main market for experimental art, as they didn't have the public-school background and expectations of what Great Art was supposed to look like). ‑ Iridescent 16:03, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Background:
The words "in painting" in the second para seem unnecessary.
Agreed—per my comment to Cassianto above, I try to vary this "background bio" part slightly on each article in the awareness that someone working through this series is going to read what's essentially the same story 14 times, so glitches slip in. ‑ Iridescent 16:03, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Again a small quibble, but the words "nude" or "nudity" appear six times in the final paragraph, and I feel that a reduction by a couple would help the prose – for example "distribution of such material"; "portraits of unclothed males" (just suggestions).
Does that work? Nude is a specific term of art for this type of painting, so I can't really get rid of it any further. ‑ Iridescent 16:03, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Subject:
"Among the visions of the future the Archangel Michael shows to Adam, Michael shows Adam the world after..." Some awkward repetition in that construction. Suggest: "Among the visions of the future the Archangel Michael shows to Adam is the world after..."
Yes, that works. This paragraph is tricky, as Adam's vision in Paradise Lost is of events which are in our past but in his future. ‑ Iridescent 16:03, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure from Genesis 6 that it was the taking of wives that so excited the wrath of God against man that he decided to destroy his creation. After all, there had been rather a lot of wife-taking in the previous chapter, which recounts the ten generations from Adam to Noah. Rather, it seems, successive generations became over-mighty and corrupt, so that "every imagination of the thoughts of [man's] heart was only evil continually", and God decided to wipe them out. (Gen. 6:4–7)
I don't know—looking at Genesis 6, it does seem fairly explicit that the sequence of events is "taking wives", "bearing children", "wickedness of man is great", "And the Lord said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth". Our own Genesis flood narrative article seems to concur with this (while I'm normally leery about taking Wikipedia articles seriously, I'd assume the key Christianity articles accurately reflect current thinking as there are so many people who'd jump on any mistake.) ‑ Iridescent 16:03, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Composition:
Is it really accurate to say, in the caption, that Etty "reused" the figure of the seated black soldier or, in the text, that this figure had "previously appeared" in the earlier painting? The figures have similarities, but there are distinct differences in posture; one is seated, the other kneeling or possibly climbing aboard the barge.
Farr (writing in the 1950s) describes him as "one of the negro warriors first seen in the Cleopatra"; for (I hope) obvious reason this is a case where I don't consider it appropriate to use the original wording. If you consider it problematic it can be removed, as it's tangential at best
You say that Etty did not give the picture a title. Can you say who gave it the title "The World Before the Flood", and when? (If I overlooked this information in the article, I'm sorry)
I've done some digging in the full catalogue, and there's no date given for the first use of The World Before the Flood as a title. Looking through catalogues for the exhibitions at which it was shown, the earliest reference I can find to this name is at the 1862 International Exhibition; I've added a note to this effect (and broken my longstanding dislike of inserting Google Books links, as this is one case where I can imagine people wanting to check for themselves). ‑ Iridescent 16:03, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Reception: No issues
Legacy
The quoted letter does not form part of "legacy", and I am uncertain whether that is indeed the best title for this section, as there is little in it that might be described as the legacy of this work. I don't gather that the painting had any lasting influence on later painters, which is generally what the word "legacy" implies. What this section really is is the painting's "later history"; whether that's a sexy enough title, I don't know.
Yes, that's fine—I tend to use "Legacy" as a default section heading for the "what happened afterwards" final section of articles, but I have no attachment to the term. Changed. ‑ Iridescent 16:03, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Would it be possible, perhaps by way of a footnote, to indicate the likely present value of the painting, which I'm sure would make an interesting comparison with the lowly figures quoted in the final paragraph?
Not easily, Etty's figure studies come up for sale fairly frequently (generally at around £5000–£10,000 apiece), but almost all his history paintings are in the hands of public institutions so comparable works rarely come on the market. Flipping through auction sites, the most comparable piece I can find which has recently changed hands is A Bacchanalian Revel, which sold for £37,250 in 2009; were this to come on the market it could go for anything from £10,000 to £200,000 depending on who was bidding. Victorian art prices are notoriously volatile (it's not that long since Flaming June changed hands for £50), and tend to reflect whatever the last exhibition at the Tate happened to be, and whether it's a piece Andrew Lloyd Webber needs to fill in a gap in his collection—I'd be quite reluctant to put a price on it in Wikipedia's voice. ‑ Iridescent 16:03, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
An excellent short piece. I look forward to your responses. Brianboulton (talk) 22:18, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support: Happy with all responses, no further adjustments needed. Brianboulton (talk) 17:26, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks—sorry for the delay in replying ‑ Iridescent 19:42, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
File:Etty - The World Before the Flood (Southampton).jpg: Image the article is about, putting it in the lead section is clearly OK. Copyright-wise, the painter William Etty has been dead for more than 100 years and thus his works are out of copyright (seems like ((PD-US-1923-abroad)) would also apply but that's just a formality). Our policy is that we consider faithful reproductions of a out-of-copyright 2D work as out of copyright as well, so the license is correct.
File:Hill & Adamson – William Etty at easel.jpg: Image of the painter, seems pertinent in the section on the background of the image. Source link is pointing to the image directly rather than a file description page, which makes it harder to trace back the information. Copyright wise Hill & Adamson died long enough ago that their works are out of copyright.
File:Etty Cleopatra.jpg: Another painting by Etty, it's discussed in the section that the image appears in. Same copyright considerations as the lead image, perhaps without the 1923 aspect as it may have been unpublished. Also, a word is missing after the "to" in "1922: transferred to from Lord Leverhulme's private collection".
File:Nicolas Poussin - Bacchanal before a Statue of Pan - WGA18284.jpg: Image of a painting of a painter that apparently inspired Etty to his painting. This painter lived in the 17th century so same copyright considerations apply as the Cleopatra image. Image is discussed in a different section, seems like.
I've capitalized some of the ALT text (also Large number of semi-naked people for some reason makes me laugh). Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:00, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
For UK artworks, "publication date" is irrelevant unless the creator is anonymous; as long as the creator is known (which is the case for every image here), copyright expires 70 years after their death. The most recent creator of any image used in this article was David Octavius Hill who died in 1870. All these images are well and truly in the public domain. ‑ Iridescent 17:33, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. I was specifying that the PD-US-1923-abroad statement would not apply however, but it doesn't make any difference. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:28, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You might mention that the Poussin was bought by the NG in March 1826, 2 years before the Etty was exhibited. Before that it was chez a banker in Cavendish Sq, but was copied by Henry Bone in 1819 and exhibited in the British Institution in 1816 (per: Wine, Humphrey, National Gallery Catalogues (new series): The Seventeenth Century French Paintings, 2001, National Gallery Publications Ltd, ISBN185709283X).
I don't have the source to check; was it definitely bought by the NG? AFAIK in the 1820s the collection consisted only of John Julius Angerstein's collection, plus some paintings which had been donated by George Beaumont. ‑ Iridescent 18:50, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It would be nice to have more emphasis on the unusualness of a Christian Bacchanal, sources permitting.
It would be quite tricky to source without crossing the Original Research line (although one could say something like "artists such as Titian, Poussin and Rubens had previously painted Bacchanals but all were based on scenes from Ancient Greek religion, not on Biblical themes" and allow the reader to put two and two together). ‑ Iridescent 18:50, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"The World Before the Flood was bought at its 1828 exhibition by The Marquess of Stafford for 500 guineas (about £39,000 in 2016 terms[36]),[37] to add to his private collection of nudes by Titian." - the implication of the wording seems a little unfair to his lordship, who went to considerable trouble to allow public access to his collection, which had many other subjects and artists.
Hi, Johnbod, I think this is about ready to promote so pls jump in ASAP if you have more comments. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:52, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support, although it would be nice at least to see the comment about the Poussin acted on. Johnbod (talk) 11:49, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, thought I'd already added that. Added. ‑ Iridescent 16:28, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You mention "Milton" without first name, link or connection to Paradise Lost (or the painting), so it might be worth making the connection and full name/linking him.
Is it worth clarifying that The Hull Packet is a newspaper? (I had to have a quick search to answer the question the name raised)
Added "local newspaper" ‑ Iridescent 10:18, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The sentence "flesh tones accurately, and for his fascination with contrasts in skin tones" feels like it's slightly repetitive and could perhaps be re-worked a little?
I can't see an obvious way around it, as they're two different elements. That he explicitly tried to use models of different skin colours in his works is directly relevant, as one of the criticisms of this painting at this time was that it showed an ethnically mixed group rather than traditionally pale English women, while "well respected for his ability to capture flesh tones accurately" implicitly shows that this ethnic mix was intentional on his part and not just that he used a darker shade of paint than intended. ‑ Iridescent 10:18, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Would "Following the exhibition of Cleopatra, over the next decade" be better reversed to read "Over the decade following the exhibition of Cleopatra"?
I'm neutral either way as the meaning is identical—swapped it for "In the decade following the exhibition of Cleopatra Etty tried to replicate its success". ‑ Iridescent 10:18, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Composition
Two points on A Bacchanalian Revel Before a Statue of Pan:
Firstly, I'm not sure on the naming of artworks, which can be a complicated area, but the National Gallery (who hold the piece) call it A Bacchanalian Revel before a Term.
Artworks in this period were rarely given titles, so the name under which they're exhibited nowadays is generally at the whim of the curator. When mentioning artworks I generally try to use the name by which it's referred elsewhere on Wikipedia to avoid confusion (and realistically, whatever the National Gallery may think 99.9% of readers are not going to know what Term (architecture) means and think that "before a term" means they're a group of students celebrating the start of the academic year). I've compromised on A Bacchanalian Revel Before a Term of Pan, which is a valid translation of "Bacchanale devant une statue de Pan", has been used in at least one academic source so isn't pure original research, and is nearer to the title the NG currently use but hopefully less confusing. ‑ Iridescent 10:18, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Secondly, is it possible to raise the image up from the subsequent section to have the image sitting alongside the reference to it? Either that, or it could sit next to The Triumph of Cleopatra (as you have with the preliminary sketch and final version, below?)
No; in my view it's more important that Cleopatra be in this spot as it's more directly relevant to this particular work. Using ((multiple image)) is very much a last resort when two images need to be forced to display side-by-side (as in the case of the preliminary sketch and the finished work here); not only does it force an image width regardless of the reader's thumbnail size preference, but it breaks should any of the constituent images be resized on Commons. ‑ Iridescent 10:18, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Footnotes
A. Should well respected be hyphenated (I have no idea on this, but it feels like it should be)
There's no hard-and-fast rule on hyphenation in this case. Since the noun follows the adjective, it's not incorrect to use a hyphen, so in the absence of any reason not to I've added one. ‑ Iridescent 10:18, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
F. "As of 1844" feels very wrong: surely "In 1844" or "By 1844"? ("As of" looks like it should be followed by a current date, rather than something historical)
No, "as of" is the standard Wikipedia phrasing for "we know it was there at such-and-such a date but don't know how long before that". ‑ Iridescent 10:18, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Are you sure? The guideline (and I know it's only a guideline) at WP:ASOF says: "Usually "as of" is used only in cases where an article is intended to provide the most current information available, and will need updating in the future. It should not be used for historical information that will not change." All the use I've seen on Wikipedia (and in more general reading) would think "As of 1844" to be in error if not written in or soon after 1844. – The Bounder (talk) 12:28, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'd still consider "as of" appropriate in this particular instance, but reworded "By 1844 at the latest" which should be non-controversial. What I don't want is the give the impression that there's any significance to the 1844 date other than that's when it was catalogued—there are almost certainly sources knocking about somewhere that prove it was on display earlier than that. ‑ Iridescent 15:54, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
References & bibliography
A couple of the references and bibliographic sources show pages in the xxx–xx format, while others are in xxx–xxx format.
That's an artefact of the mandated referencing style changing midway through the writing of this. I think I've caught them all now. ‑ Iridescent 10:18, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
All very interesting, and I thank you for such an illuminating article: I hope these comments are of some use. – The Bounder (talk) 09:38, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the ((featured article candidates)) template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 00:58, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
