Talk:Bathsheba at Her Bath (Rembrandt)

coding
why is this so coding dependent ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.93.197.166 (talk) 13:18, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

one word for it
"King David sees Bathsheba bathing and, entranced, seduces and impregnates her."

'entranced' ...that's one word for it.

'seduces' ...that's one word for it.

122.58.73.122 (talk) 20:27, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Abuse of power and position; it’s called rape. Now need to dig out some sources ... Springnuts (talk) 23:42, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Thoughts
The other great biblical voyeurism subject, Susannah and the Elders is worth a mention - Commons has two Rembrandt versions, & also a Suzannah & a Bathsheba by Lastmann, Rembrandt's master. The text here rather implies the scene is now set indoors, which I think is unclear. All these other paintings happen at outdoor pools with rather decayed and overgrown but grand classical architecture behind the pool, which could equally be the case here (This light file shows the background a bit more clearly) In both subjects the voyeurism of the artist and viewer, as well as the male characters in the story, is an unavoidable topic, even though Rembrandt's composition minimizes it. Rembrandt's several etchings of seated nude women (Bartsch 197-202) are worth a mention too, though most are later than this. The title needs a disam - Bathsheba at Her Bath (Rembrandt, Louvre) perhaps. There is another quotable para by Clark in his "Introduction to Rembrandt"; otherwise I'm not sure I have much. Johnbod (talk) 16:28, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Excellent thoughts they are. The Susannah is relevant, and I know there are sources for that. What I've read so far implies that the scene, if not outdoors, is certainly not the conventional open-air environment that would invite David's gaze, and the references stating that it's a drawn curtain behind her furthers that interpretation. Yes on the voyeurism--one source states that the viewer essentially takes David's place here. And other drawings and etchings by R. can surely be brought into play. Thanks, JNW (talk) 16:42, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

The recent edits to this article seem to have misconstrued certain text and/or the "Bourne" reference, also de-clarifying, IMO, a passage and then adding a "clarify" tag. (Hmm...) There seems to be an assertion that the reference contradicts itself or we misrepresent it by presenting two opposing notions from it [wording updated Riggr Mortis (talk) 03:43, 5 May 2010 (UTC)] at once: well, the reference is discussing possibilities, not stating them as fact.

I will email the journal article in question to anyone interested in sorting it out, but will not be going in for another round. Riggr Mortis (talk) 22:49, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * With a minor change, I've restored previous version, omitting the reference to the 1984 source in order to streamline. If I'm mistaken in doing so, please restore that, too. JNW (talk) 01:14, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Works for me! Riggr Mortis (talk) 03:39, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

blaming the model?
The section on "The Model" speculates that "Bathsheba" has a body sore because the model did, and that she looked sad because the model was upset. Wouldn't a professional artists like Rembrandt have been able to tune these things out at this stage of his career, and painted Bathsheba exactly as he wanted to? Bathsheba's sad expression, for example, is certainly justified by the dramatic situation. 73.137.170.88 (talk) 13:31, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on Bathsheba at Her Bath (Rembrandt). 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/20080509074453/http://www.louvre.fr:80/llv/oeuvres/detail_notice.jsp?CONTENT%3C%3Ecnt_id=10134198673225939&CURRENT_LLV_NOTICE%3C%3Ecnt_id=10134198673225939&FOLDER%3C%3Efolder_id=9852723696500813&fromDept=true&baseIndex=157&bmUID=1189640367439&bmLocale=en to http://www.louvre.fr/llv/oeuvres/detail_notice.jsp?CONTENT%3C%3Ecnt_id=10134198673225939&CURRENT_LLV_NOTICE%3C%3Ecnt_id=10134198673225939&FOLDER%3C%3Efolder_id=9852723696500813&fromDept=true&baseIndex=157&bmUID=1189640367439&bmLocale=en
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080509074453/http://www.louvre.fr:80/llv/oeuvres/detail_notice.jsp?CONTENT%3C%3Ecnt_id=10134198673225939&CURRENT_LLV_NOTICE%3C%3Ecnt_id=10134198673225939&FOLDER%3C%3Efolder_id=9852723696500813&fromDept=true&baseIndex=157&bmUID=1189640367439&bmLocale=en to http://www.louvre.fr/llv/oeuvres/detail_notice.jsp?CONTENT%3C%3Ecnt_id=10134198673225939&CURRENT_LLV_NOTICE%3C%3Ecnt_id=10134198673225939&FOLDER%3C%3Efolder_id=9852723696500813&fromDept=true&baseIndex=157&bmUID=1189640367439&bmLocale=en

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 08:48, 28 October 2016 (UTC)