Talk:Admonitions Scroll

Viewing
An impressive piece! Might it not be better to say, instead of: "Since 1914 the painting has been housed in the North Wing of the British Museum, although it is not currently on public display" something like "The scroll is very rarely on display for conservation reasons, but it will be displayed in the exhibition marking the end of the A History of the World in 100 Objects"? I think this isa the case. Johnbod (talk) 13:22, 16 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I can't find any refs for an end of AHOW exhibition that will publicly exhibit the Admonitions Scroll. If you have a reliable source for this please make the change. BabelStone (talk) 19:36, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes I couldn't see anything on the websites, but I'm sure I have seen it somewhere. Your inside contact would know. Johnbod (talk) 14:30, 20 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Probably, but you know that we can't just go by word of mouth. There will be time to add something when the exhibition is publicly announced. BabelStone (talk) 23:03, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Allignment
I think this is a brilliant article and would love to see more of its kind produced on WP. I was wondering though whether the passages of verse underneath the scroll pictures might be easier to read if they were accompanied by their English translation on the same line, like this:


 * 玄熊攀檻，馮媛趍進. When a black bear climbed out of its cage, Lady Feng rushed forward.
 * 夫豈無畏？知死不恡！How could she have been without fear? She knew she might be killed, yet she did not care.

Waygugin (talk) 06:32, 23 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I thought about laying it out that way, but I was concerned that some lines would be too long, and wrap for some screen resolutions. But if you think it would look better in columns as below (using column markup to give better spacing between the English and Chinese) give it a go.


 * BabelStone (talk) 23:11, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Featured image nomination
The image File:Gu Kaizhi 001.jpg has been nominated for Featured Image status at EN Wikipedia, ZH Wikipedia and. Some users may be interested in participating in the nomination discussion. --  李博杰   | —Talk contribs email 06:47, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Copyright of translations
Considering the points raised in the GA review with respect to the article needing a published translation, perhaps an early translation could be used (considering a number of people were studying the text around 1910)? Any translation published before 1942 and where the author died before 1942 is unambiguously out of copyright. I find the following reference I suggest that any translation (or accurate re-print thereof) is either not under copyright (in the case of any extracts in the above magazine) or about to have copyright expire as Binyon (via the BM Trustees) published the translation in 1912 and Binyon died in 1943 Laurence Binyon. Now we might have to wait until 2013 unless someone can find an earlier publication. Fæ (talk) 16:44, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Tiny detail about Gu Kaizhi controversy
On whether Gu Kaizhi painted the scroll (though it bears his signature, it is not originally recorded as having been painted by him): the main article doesn't note this discrepancy, but Britannica catches it: "Admonitions" is a thoroughly Confucian text, while Gu Kaizhi's painting "Nymph of the Luo River" and his essay "On Painting the Cloud Terrace Mountain" were both Daoist; that's quite an eclectic spread of sentiments to express in art. Not a debunking-level split, just an eyebrow-raiser. Worth mentioning? – •Raven .talk 00:07, 28 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm not quite sure what discrepancy you think this article has missed. The "Authorship and dating" section covers the "controversy" of whether Gu Kaizhi painted it or not in some detail. Incidentally, although the painting does now bear the signature of Gu Kaizhi, that is believed to have been added in the late Ming dynasty by its then owner, Xiang Yuanbian, which is something that the Britannica article does not catch. BabelStone (talk) 02:23, 28 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, Babelstone, that's right, that's the existing topic in the article to which I addressed this comment, and which "controversy" I summarized in the first clause. The "tiny detail" concerned not what the section already contained, but what it left out. &#9679; "I'm not quite sure what discrepancy you think this article has missed." – That would be what was discussed following the words "this discrepancy" and the subsequent colon, the bit about the Admonitions Scroll being Confucian while those other works by Gu Kaizhi were Daoist. The section doesn't already mention that. It's the sort of discrepancy in attitudes that would raise doubts if we were discussing attributions for, say, pseudonymous works of American political philosophy, and we wanted to know whether the same person might have written both rigidly rules-upholding and radically rules-rejecting political manifestos. – •Raven .talk 08:29, 28 February 2013 (UTC)


 * This just tells you that Britannica is obsolete. The notion that somebody couldn't have painted a "Confucian" painting because he also did a "Daoist" one is absurd.  More to the point, this sentence in the article overstates the case: "art historians determined on stylistic grounds that the painting cannot have been produced during the Jin Dynasty, and therefore cannot be an original work by Gu Kaizhi."  I don't believe it's by Gu Kaizhi either, but in the very book that's cited here (McCausland 2003), Richard M. Barnhardt leaves open the possibility that it really was by Gu Kaizhi after all (p. 88).  So let's not pretend that the case is closed.--98.111.164.239 (talk) 07:34, 7 April 2020 (UTC)