Talk:Alphonse Mucha/Archive 1

Dancel
Does anyone know where I might be able to order a poster-sized print of ? It's an absolutely beautiful image, and I'd love to have it on my office wall. TIA. Micro tonal ... (Put your head on my shoulder) 03:24, 20 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Here. Pavel Vozenilek 17:39, 20 September 2005 (UTC)


 * That is not the original though. But I know they sell them at the Mucha museum in Prague, I bought one there. Maybe you could contact them and ask them to send you one ? Detnauh 07:49, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Images
We're going to delete Alfons Mucha's paintings from Commons. The copyright details are complicated,


 * '' The case is difficult anyway. Which law has to be applied? Is it the law of the location, where he created these works? He worked in Czechoslovakia, Germany, France, and the USA. Is it the law of the state, he was citizen of, when he created these works? I suppose, he was citizen of the Austrian-Hungarian empire and of Czechoslovakia, at least. Is it really the law of todays Czech Republic, that has to be applied to works created in Paris or Munich by a citizen of the Austrian-Hungarian empire? Is it the law of the location, where copies of the works are intended to be used? Commons images can be used everywhere. Is it the law of the location, where the originals are deposited? Difficult to talk about originals of advertisment posters. As far as can be said from the text on the posters, most of them where created in France. And Alfons Mucha was in Paris between 1889 and 1904, at a time when Czechoslovakia was not yet existing. So, maybe French law is the most relevant. --Franz Xaver 20:36, 11 April 2006 (UTC)}}

It was decided to delete them as per the death of author + 70 years rule. It may still be admissible on English Wikipedia as per PD-US. If you are interested in keeping them, you should move them to English Wikipedia. Thanks. Fred-Chess 14:38, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

The 70 years were up on Jan. 1, 2010. See "Copyright" section below. The photos of the works may still be copyrighted, though.Enon (talk) 04:49, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Personal life
I would like to know what Mucha's religion was in relation to the religious paintings and drawings he created. --Ethii 00:12, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Mucha was raised in a catholic family and was a freemason--Georgius 11:46, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Carnavalet shop
The Carnavalet museum in Paris has the re-located decoration of an Art Nouveau jewelry shop, the design of which Mucha participated in. --Error 18:32, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Ad?
There's a cola ad on TV in North America where people run into a square. There's a banner that says "Aflons Mucha" in one scene. Does anyone know if this ad is filmed in Prague perhaps? Krupo 01:29, August 17, 2005 (UTC)


 * Prague has several companies that are very busy producing ads. No matter where it was filmed the article is about dead painter, not today ad. Pavel Vozenilek 19:07, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

second world war?
At the outbreak of the Second World War he was arrested and questioned by German occupiers.

No kidding. World War II started on September 1st. This chap died on July 14th. (But by that time Germany already did occupy the rest of Czechoslovakia).

Do change the sentence, someone.

Legal controversy section
I've removed the legal controversy section as it seemed only vaguely related to the subject matter and had absolutely no explanation as why it was there. If anyone can come up with a better reason for it being there then they can put it back in. --WaterWolf 19:31, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

And I've removed an allegation that someone else plagiarized Mucha's works, for similar reasons. (Also, it smelled like original research.) grendel|khan 17:38, 1 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Instead of smelling it, why not check the reference provided? =)
 * Children of God has the appropriate references. Even the artist herself admitted that the work was copied.  I don't see why a brief mention should not be included.  Joie de Vivre 18:40, 1 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I have reincorporated the "legal controversy" mention but only as part of the Legacy section. Jiri Mucha is mentioned in the section and the judgment is interesting as it related A. Mucha's travel to Czechoslovakia and his correspondence with his family.  I will wait to hear what you have to say about the plagiarism issue.  Joie de Vivre 19:13, 1 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Okay, give us a chance to respond ! Mucha has been copied and plagiarised by hundreds of artists over the years. Mucha is a major artist of the 20th century, this Tamar person is insignificant and does not even have their own entry in wikipedia. Clearly they copied a lot of artists to come up with their drawings, the fact that one of them was a Mucha is not significant enough to require an entry in an encyclopedia. This item might be put in the Children of God article if it's relevant enough to it, but I don't believe it belongs in this article. I'd vote to remove it.
 * --WaterWolf 12:41, 5 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I am sorry for getting ahead of you! Please excuse me. I will take more time in waiting next time.
 * Is it true that he has been plagiarized a lot? What I have done is condense the entry about "Tamar" and perhaps what you could do is expand the section to include other instances of plagiarism.  I think that the fact he was plagiarized is interesting in and of itself, that his work was considered so good as to be worthy of "the sincerest form of flattery".  I saw something about posters at the Fillmore.  That might be a good place to start.
 * Do you have more information about the extent of the plagiarism of Mucha? Please let me know what you think of including this section.  Joie de Vivre 15:06, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Copyright
It seems that the issue of plagiarism of Mucha is mostly moot for works created after December 31, 2009, whether you go by Czech or French law. It has been over 70 years since his death, and all his works are out of copyright. (Photos, scans and databases of his work may still be in limited copyright, though. Works after 1923 may still have US copyright, if they were registered in the US and the term was renewed.) Companies using his work as a trademark are still protected against competitors using confusingly similar designs.

Czech law (I-11-5) does grant his family the right to insist that he be identified as the author of his works, even after the expiration of the copyright, but works which are merely similar rather than outright copies would probably not fall under this provision.

The French copyright situation is somewhat muddied by extensions to the copyright term for works during or before WWII or even greater for those during or before WWI, but these have been voided by the highest court in France for paintings, and the applicable term is life plus 70 years for Mucha's works which have French copyright. This machine translation of the French Wikipedia page lays out the law: Prorogations_de_guerre / (Copyright extensions of war) and this translation gives the text of the court judgement: 04-12138 Judgement No. 280 of February 27, 2007  Court of Cassation - First Civil Chamber

If anyone has some information indicating that Mucha's works are still under copyright, please respond.Enon (talk) 04:45, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I have placed a statement that his works went out of copyright on 1/1/2010 in the "legacy" section. I contend that this is not OR because it simply involves adding 70 years + 1 day to the last day of the year in which he died. This calculation is clearly spelled out in the Czech laws referenced above and the other citations given. I did research to verify the correctness of this, but it was not original research, just verifying references. I looked for contrary data and found none, except as noted above, and those quibbles are close to OR, so I have left them for the talk page. If someone has a good source which contradicts this method of calculating the expiration of copyright, then please cut or change the assertion in the article, but please also lay out your reasoning here.Enon (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:10, 25 July 2010 (UTC).

I have replaced the deleted line saying that A.M.'s works went out of copyright. It is obviously very important information about any artist's legacy whether or not the right to copy his works is in the public domain. While it may not be mentioned in other art articles, it should be, particularly when the passage into the public domain is recent or otherwise not obvious.Enon (talk) 14:21, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism
I probably should have reverted the page, but I copied and pasted an older version over the vandalized part by oh-so-mature 164.58.145.60. Feel free to revert if I've messed something up. --144.91.50.183 02:44, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Dispute re: whether theory Mucha plagiarised Paul Gauguin is a fringe theory
The full text of the paper by Asmus is available at http://www.datafilehost.com/download-a1b65bad.html Asmus is a highly respected scientist and technical expert. Fitzcantab (talk) 03:18, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I have been in a dispute with ThuranX about the validity of a claim that Mucha plagiarised Paul Gauguin in creating Gismonda. I would appreciate a third party adjudicating on this matter. Below my arguments as per ThuranX's talk page:

Thanks for your care and attention in editing the Alphonse Mucha page. With reference to our discussion over edits, the theory that Alphonse Mucha plagiarised Paul Gauguin in creating Gismonda, the key Art Nouveau work, is a fringe theory. This is evidenced by the facts:

(a) that the theory was published in a journal unrelated to Art History studies (b) that despite the article being published 12 years ago, it has not been cited since in any Art History journal (c) that no literature on Paul Gauguin claims or suggests that Gauguin created the source work for Gismonda

Wikipedia's policy on fringe theories says that fringe theories 'describe ideas that depart significantly from the prevailing or mainstream view in its particular field of study'. The evidence I have cited - particularly point (b) - proves this is the case with regard to the theory that Alphonse Mucha plagiarised Paul Gauguin in creating Gismonda. Moreover, the policy says 'If a fringe theory meets notability requirements, secondary reliable sources would have commented on it, disparaged it, or discussed it. Otherwise it is not notable enough for Wikipedia'. The facts I have set out in points (b) and (c) prove that the theory has not met notability requirements. As such, it is not notable enough for Wikipedia.

Given these facts, I respectfully suggest that the claim that Alphonse Mucha plagiarised Paul Gauguin in creating Gismonda is removed from the Wikipedia article about Alphonse Mucha. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.24.62.88 (talk) 07:15, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

With respect, I believe that the reasons have remained consistent throughout. Mucha did not plagiarise Gismonda from a work by Gauguin, and the theory that he did is a fringe theory that has no place in an article on Mucha. I do not believe this is a whitewash.

Can you offer evidence that suggests that this plagiarism is not a fringe theory? i.e. secondary reliable sources commenting on, discussing or disparaging the theory? I would be happy to stand corrected if you are able to find such evidence. Until then, I respectfully suggest that the claim about plagiarism is removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.149.198.189 (talk) 17:10, 5 May 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.149.198.189 (talk)


 * The cited article reports on the use of imaging software and techniques to aid art historians in examining a pre-existing question of plagarism. Results of examination indicate the possibility, our article reflects that. NO art historian is likely to cite the technical side article when they can cite the conclusions. ThuranX (talk) 12:05, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for responding. I have not read your article in full as I cannot access it online. However, I have read the abstract, and I find the argument tenuous at various points. Perhaps you can clear up various matters to make a more convincing case:

1. Do you have any evidence that the collage of postage stamps predates Gismonda the Poster? The abstracts suggests that your evidence is that the collage is more detailed than the poster. But that in no way proves it is an earlier work. It is a major and illogical leap to go from 'the collage is more detailed than the poster' to 'the poster is a hasty photographic plagiarism of the intricate collage'.

2. Is there any evidence other than analysis of scratches to suggest that these were items that once belonged to Gauguin? For example, is there any evidence in Gauguin's letters that he had items stolen by Anna la Javanese, and that these items were amongst them? In the absence of such supporting evidence, it is a large leap to go from 'there are similar scratches on these two items in an estate sale' to 'these items definitely belonged to Paul Gauguin'. Therefore, to go from similarities in scratches to a reattribution of a major work in the History of Art is tenuous.

3. While Anna la Javanese modelled for Mucha, there is no evidence that suggests she was his lover (Mucha was not averse to taking lovers of his models, as with Berthe de Lalande, but when he did there is considerable evidence). Given that she was not his lover, the claim that she stole items from one lover to give to another to copy is invalid.

4. Mucha was an extensive photographer, and an inveterate hoarder of his photographs. To my knowledge, there are no extant photographs that Mucha took that are photographs of the collage that you describe. Could you provide evidence of such a photograph existing that Mucha took of the collage that would amount to a 'hasty photographic plagiarism'?

4. There is no evidence in the letters either of Mucha or of Gauguin that either of them believed that Mucha plagiarised Gismonda. Mucha and Gauguin were good friends. At the time when Mucha became famous, Gauguin was still an artist who had struggled hard and on the whole unsuccessfully for recognition. It is hard to believe that they would have continued to be friends had Mucha got rich (as he did following Gismonda) by plagiarising Gauguin's work.

In your response to my initial notes, you say that your techniques have been developed 'to aid art historians in examining a pre-existing question of plagarism'. Could you cite any instance that proves this Mucha-Gauguin is a pre-existing question of plagiarism? The only evidence I have ever seen for it is the abstract for your article. You also say 'NO art historian is likely to cite the technical side article when they can cite the conclusions'. Whether that is true or not, no Art Historian has cited the conclusion of the article since its publication twelve years ago.

In the light of all this, I respectfully maintain that this is a fringe argument, and without further evidence to justify the major logical leaps it takes, a tenuous argument. The Mucha wikipedia page is the first port of call for young students of Art Nouveau, and to have a fringe theory given prominence on that page (especially when it makes such a major claim) is dangerous. I continue to hold my position that the claim should be removed until such a time that any established Art Historian writing on Gauguin or Mucha takes it up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.149.198.189 (talk) 07:58, 7 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Your post shows a few problems in your thinking about how a Wikipedia article is written and maintained. First of all, none of this is about MY opinions, or MY responsibility to go out and do original research, which is specifically prohibited. Second, it is not my job to doubt, and then bolster ,the case made by experts in the fields relevant to the article, for he same reason. Likewise, per this rule, we do not conjecture here based on supposition or on some imagined set of evidentiary faults. Your entire problem with the reliable source used for this is based in your own ideas. That sort of thing may lead responsible researchers to a new set of investigations, but that is not the job if a wikipedia editor. ThuranX (talk) 21:27, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

With respect, in the answer to my initial posting on this talk page you write 'Results of examination indicate the possibility, our article reflects that'. I took this to mean that you were an author, or involved in the authorship of, the cited article about which we are in dispute. Is this the case or not?

Further to your latest comments: I am only to happy to the case made by experts in the fields relevant to the Wikipedia article on Mucha to be taken as the basis. The article is in the Art History field, and no expert in the Art History field has ever suggested or accepted any claim that Mucha plagiarised Gauguin in creating Gismonda. I respectfully maintain that any theory claiming he did is a fringe theory that has no place on Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.146.168.181 (talk) 13:34, 8 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I am not an author of that paper, nor did I at any time make such a claim, overtly or by implication. Further, what does "I am only to happy to the case made by experts in the fields relevant to the Wikipedia article on Mucha to be taken as the basis." mean? That's not a sentence. The claim that only one type of expert is allowed to think about a topic is absurd. You may believe it's a fringe theory, but that doesn't make it such. You need to drop this and move on. We have a reliable scientific journal reporting it's involvement with the examination, that's enough to pass WP:RS, which you would know had you bothered to read any of the links in my reply, which I do not believe you did. ThuranX (talk) 20:16, 8 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I have come here in response to a request for a Third Opinion. I am generally familiar with the artists Mucha and Gauguin, but I am not an expert.  Given that the sole source provided for the claim of plagiarism is a restricted-access website to which I lack access, it is difficult to directly address the claims made by Asmus.  I would note that the SPIE is a reliable source, so it’s not clear that the article, while not reviewed by art experts, is a priori a “fringe theory.” Since his SPIE article “Paul Gauguin and the origin of art nouveau” was published in 1997, though, one would expect there to be a body of response to it from both art and photo-optical engineering experts by now; however, I can find nothing online.  Could the editors here who have access to SPIE journals check subsequent issues for any critical or supporting comments (in letters to the editor or rebuttals) from Asmus’ peers?  Likewise, could those familiar with and having access to contemporaneous specialist publications in the art world see if they can find discussions relevant to Asmus’ claims?


 * My recommendation, pending further information from such research, would be not to include the claims at this time. NPOV and UNDUE would require us to present both sides and all we currently have is a single assertion.  If there is sufficient additional information to further develop this theory (which is what it is), then it should probably form a separate subsection, rather than be included in the “Early years” section.  (As an aside, the lead itself could use further development.)  Commentez, s’il vous plaît.  Askari Mark (Talk) 21:48, 9 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not happy about playing this game with an editor who can't be bothered to read my replies, and instead makes strange comments and assumptions that he bases his replies on, but I'll accede to the 3O for now. For the record, here is the related summary of Asmus' presentation of his paper, a keynote speech of the conference, and this is a notice that he'll be making the presentation in a few months, indicating his ideas have NOT been thoroughly refuted by anyone. ThuranX (talk) 00:31, 10 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Hopefully this editor will respond with sources rather than assertions as that will be most helpful. It seems odd that Asmus is still presenting the same discovery in 2009 that he first introduced in 1997 (I assume, since that’s the earliest mention I have found); after multiple presentations, I would expect it would by now be fairly well-known and commented on by experts in related areas.  ThuranX, have you read the full article?  If so, does Asmus address any criticisms of his work – and perhaps identify sources for them? Askari Mark (Talk) 03:00, 10 May 2009 (UTC)


 * it's been a few days; I've seen no reply from the IP about any of this. Further, Mark, I would point out that if he's continuing to present without oppositional criticism, that too says something about the credibility of the situation. ThuranX (talk) 21:56, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the third opinion.

As regards your request for sources: I have in my library the following books on Mucha and Gauguin, all published after the article in question. Not one of these books mentions the theory that Mucha plagiarised Gauguin in creating Gismonda. If the article had merit, I believe that History of Art professionals would have taken its claims up and examined them.

Alphonse Mucha: The Spirit of Art Nouveau (Victor Arwas, Yale, 1998) Alphonse Mucha (Sarah Mucha, Lincoln, 2006) Alphonse Mucha 1860-1939: Seduction, Modernity and Utopia (La Caixa, 2008) Gauguin Tahiti (Claire Fresche-Thory, MFA, 2004) Paul Gauguin: Artist of Myth and Dream (Stephen E. Eisenman, Skira, 2008)

I have also read 'Gauguin's Intimate Journals' and 'Paul Gauguin: Letters to his wife and friends'. In neither of these does Gauguin make any suggestion that Mucha plagiarised him.

I would love to have the chance to read the full article by Asmus, and see whether it addresses any of the concerns I brought up in my earlier comments. As someone who knows a fair amount about the History of Art, and particularly fin-de-siecle Paris, Asmus's claims do seem quite extraordinary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.149.248.90 (talk) 07:55, 13 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you for sharing your sources with us. Considering that a theory of plagiarism is something of an exceptional claim and to date nothing has been found to document it or any discussion of it outside of an abstract, my feeling is that we currently lack sufficient reliable sourcing to include it.  Indeed, the [|abstract] itself suggests that the attribution to Gauguin is based on association with other items that may have belonged to that artist, as well as uses the phrase “It may be …” – a supposition – to describe how Mucha may have obtained the original via Annah.  It also is possible to speculate that the “original” was a gift from Mucha to Gauguin.  Without seeing Asmus’ full exposition of his theory and the evidence for it (and I’m not doubting him as reliable, but rather saying we really don’t know much about his claims since none of us appears to have access to it or to have read it), then including it prior to being able to develop the issue more fully seems unwise to me.  I would recommend holding off until a copy of his theory can be obtained and then balanced with critiques.  Perhaps one of you could contact Mr. Asmus directly for a copy of his work, identification of sources criticizing his theory, and his responses to them.  If he’s a reasonable professional, he might be willing to assist while avoiding the risk COI.  Cheers, Askari Mark (Talk) 20:32, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Query re Portrait of Mrs. Robert Leatherbee and Son
Does anyone know the whereabouts of Mucha's full length portrait of "Mrs. Robert Leatherbee and her son Charles Leatherbee?" Mrs. Leatherbee was the daughter of Charles Richard Crane, Mucha's patron. Her maiden name was Frances Anita Crane. After her divorce from Leatherbee, she married Jan Masaryk, from whom she divorced in 1930. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hrenrut (talk • contribs) 23:03, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Death
"...or from seeing his homeland invaded and overcome" though a nice sentiment, this is personal opinion, not fact. Perhaps someone should truncate this sentence. Asicmod (talk) 09:02, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Nope. The New York Times ref is behind a paywall, but the headline is clear enough: "Death Due to Shock Caused by Germans' Seizure of Prague." If you mean it's the opinion of the NYT, then that's not a problem. It's only a problem if it's an editor's opinion.  Ty  10:11, 24 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I think you have to recognize that their can be bias in papers, and that if you accept any sentimental or propagandist statement without critique, Wikipedia will be full of Point-of-View. Critical thinking: How can the New York Times prove that his illness and death was caused by the invasion, instead of just a coincidence? I think the article should just state the facts of his illness under interrogation, his subsequent release, and his subsequent death. 216.195.28.24 (talk) 15:02, 24 July 2010 (UTC)