Talk:A Harlot's Progress

Artistic interpretations
Should the explanations of the pics get into artistic interpretations? It seems a little close to NOR for me... 68.39.174.238 06:08, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Hmm, not entirely. There is a citation at the bottom for some of the interpretation.  There could be more citation as we're pretty much restraining to the things that everyone agrees on.  (The left right thing, for example.  Look how it plays out: in every frame, left = authority and = greater respectability with one exception:  Hogarth puts Gonson on the right.  Every other frame puts the doctor, the clergyman, the minister, the strong houses, the housewife on the left, while the whore, the dying girl, etc. is on the right.  It's so common an observation as to be virtually un-notable, so we just say it's there and don't go into too much detail about relative values and painterly intentions in each frame.)  I did think twice, though, and if I can lay my hands on it I'll get Ronald Paulson's book on the prints to cite and offer up even more.  I.e. yeah, there's some 'common knowledge' interpretation, but there is a world more that could be added, but only with citations.  I think the left/right is the only interpretive bit in there.
 * If you mean that even identifying the symbols is interpretive, then I have no hesitation, as that's beyond dispute. There really aren't very many arguments about the objects and persons identified in this article.  Now there are speculations about the identities of each and every figure in the plates -- every one of the mourning girls, the landlady, the Jewish businessman, the bailiffs, etc., but none of that was included, as each identification would have required a citation and would have introduced controversial material, IMO.  Geogre 04:24, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Left /Right, Good/Bad symbolism
"Throughout the series, those items on the viewer's right are the sitter's left, the sinister side, while those things on the viewer's left are the sitter's dexter side, and Hogarth divides good and bad on the left and right. "

Can this be cleared up, it's a little confusing (viewer vs sitter perspective)? I think the author is just showing off their latin. How about editing to something like -

"Throughout the series, Hogarth symbolically divides the pictures so good items appear on the (viewer's/sitter's?) right and bad items appear in the (viewer's/sitter's?) left. This follows an artistic tradition of relating the left to evil: the latin for 'left' is sinister." --mgaved 11:08, 14 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure if that is even correct. In image 2, the only thing in Moll's right is the African boy, while most of the figures are on the left. I'm removing this until someone can replace it with verification from a third party.-- Aronzak (talk) 12:24, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Jewish?
How can we tell that the merchant is Jewish?--71.127.61.156 02:02, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Plate 4's "African" woman
How do we know the woman in Plate 4 described as "African" is not (what is far more likely in 18th Century London) West Indian? Or is the author using "African" in a well-intentioned effort to avoid the "B" Word, or, heaven help us, the "N" Word? Just a question. Writtenright 04:15, 3 November 2007 (UTC)Writtenright

B-Class Assesment required
This article needs the B-Class checklist filled in to remain a B-Class article. If the checklist is not filled in by 7th August this article will be re-assessed as C-Class. The checklist should be filled out referencing the guidance given at Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment/B-Class criteria. For further details please contact the Comics WikiProject. Comics-awb (talk) 11:23, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I see no reason for Hogarth's moral print series to be considered 'comics', so I've deleted the Comics Project header, under WP:BOLD. If I'm wrong for some reason, just revert. David Spector 03:24, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Better references to the pictures
The description of what's going on in the pictures is good, but often there are a lot of figures. Could the images include numbers or something? Alternatively, magnifications of the image could be used. -- Aronzak (talk) 12:13, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Why is the boy on Plate 2 cropped out?
It seems awfully fishy for the work to have been cropped down like this, especially seeing as the rest of the plates haven't been cropped. It's also annoying considering the claim that "this is a faithful photographic reproduction of a two-dimensional, public domain work of art" - if it crops a significant amount of content, it isn't a faithful reproduction, for it has been purposefully edited. 82.36.144.164 (talk) 15:03, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The boy isn't cropped out, he is the figure next to Moll with the turban, no? Paul August &#9742; 17:33, 18 December 2013
 * What a very strange observation. No, he isn't cropped out: this is the entire plate. What, exactly, would the 'fishy' objective be for cutting him out? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:56, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on A Harlot's Progress. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051125064520/http://www.ackland.org/art/exhibitions/reasonfantasy/harlot1.htm to http://www.ackland.org/art/exhibitions/reasonfantasy/harlot1.htm
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.stuartbingham.info/pages/research/hogarth.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 10:46, 24 June 2017 (UTC)