Talk:Beauty Revealed

"Corrections"

 * I have twice so far reverted the "corrections" offered by 83d40m. As the individual apparently isn't following WP:BRD, I'll post my rationale here:
 * Splitting the lead into three paragraphs: a violation of WP:LEADLENGTH, which recommends 1-2 paragraphs for an article of this length.
 * Removal of the term "gifted": as already noted in my edit summary, the use of the term "gifted" to mean "to give as a gift" is found in both the Oxford and Merriam-Webster dictionaries. It is acceptable English, whether or not certain individuals approve.
 * Sworl is an acceptable alternate spelling of swirl; check a dictionary
 * Although Goodridge was aged forty when she painted this miniature, her breasts are depicted as young ones, with "balance, paleness, and buoyancy", imbued in part by the harmony of light, color, and balance. - Arguable whether or not this is an "emotional" attribution towards the painting or intended by the artist, but considering there have been no descriptions saying these are "old" breasts than it is certainly not controversial enough to be split out.
 * Beauty Revealed was completed during a period of popularity of portrait miniatures, a medium which had been introduced in the late eighteenth century. - The source doesn't support the miniature being introduced globally in the 18th century, but in the US. British portrait miniatures may date back as early as the 16th century ref
 * The Heilbrunn Timeline of Art History describes Beauty Revealed as a play on the eye miniature. These were popular at that time, as tokens of affection in England and France. - splitting the original sentence serves nothing more than to disturb the flow of the text
 * Such miniatures allowed portraits of loved ones to be carried by their suitors without revealing the identity of the sitter, however, they were not popular in the United States. - By combining the lack of popularity in the US with the concealment of identities, we're implying there's a link between the two. This is misleading, hence my reversion
 * Possible influences and her mental state speak more towards the work's creation than how it has been analyzed as a work of art, and as such should be in the "creation" section/paragraph. The analysis section is dedicated to analysis of the work as a work, rather than an analysis of its context. Context goes with creation, not buried at the bottom
 * After Webster's death, Beauty Revealed was handed down through generations by his family, together with another self-portrait Goodridge had sent him. The politician's descendants held that Goodridge and Webster had been engaged. - By making this its own paragraph, we not only have a single paragraph consisting of two sentences (dreadful in terms of readability) but also one which appears to be unreferenced (it's supported by the Johnson source, but nobody would know that with the reference in both a new section and new paragraph).
 * As of 2014, the Met's website... - Again, single sentence paragraph = poor reading experience, bad flow.
 * No reviews of the work exist until the end of the twentieth century. After more than a hundred and fifty years of its intended private ownership, the miniature became available for review by art critics and interpretations began to appear. - Completely unreferenced, possibly OR.
 * Modern speculation even exists - "even" is editorializing, a violation of WP:NPOV. The use of the term "speculation" is likewise leading
 * Waxing psychoanalytically, - Again, POV terminology. "Waxing" is not encyclopedic.
 * A single sentence for a sentence (your "Influences" section) is even worse reading than a one-sentence paragraph.
 * Several works have been suggested by contemporary critics as possible inspirations for Beauty Revealed, - Contemporary to whom? The sentence here isn't clear. Contemporary to us, or the readers? There's a reason I've avoided using "contemporary" as a synonym for "modern". — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:41, 6 October 2014 (UTC)


 * There may be some improvements in your edit, but overall it is not an improvement (or a "light edit" as you termed it). Quite frankly, I think it's a disaster. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:32, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Initial reply answering points

Thank you for your suggestions. I shall reply by taking these points (in italics) one-by-one first:


 * ''"Corrections"
 * I have twice so far reverted the "corrections" offered by 83d40m.

My initial edit introduced no new material, but made changes to the word selection, organization of the article, and elimination of some repetition. My second was edit was meant to clarify and expand aspects of the initial edit that seemed to be misunderstood by Crisco1492.


 * As the individual apparently isn't following WP:BRD, I'll post my rationale here:
 * Splitting the lead into three paragraphs: a violation of WP:LEADLENGTH, which recommends 1-2 paragraphs for an article of this length.

Not following a "recommendation" does not qualify as a "violation". The option remains open to editors.


 * Removal of the term "gifted": as already noted in my edit summary, the use of the term "gifted" to mean "to give as a gift" is found in both the Oxford and Merriam-Webster dictionaries. It is acceptable English, whether or not certain individuals approve.
 * Sworl is an acceptable alternate spelling of swirl; check a dictionary

Since the thirteenth century "give" has been understood to fulfill the meaning implied (where "gifted" had been used in the article) in the simplest, and most easily understood manner, which should be the objective in clear writing and especially, for that in an encyclopedia that will be read by a very diverse audience with varying levels of proficiency in the language used and, with an eye to what will transpire in translations. Since the seventeenth century "gifted" has been identified with the possession of unusually great natural talent in one or more areas and. Searching for "gifted" in the Merriam-Webster online dictionary provides that definition and fails to provide any verb form. The use preferred by Crisco1492 smacks of affectation and is not the best choice for an encyclopedia and its audience.

Continuing the theme that the choice of words in our articles ought to be the most easily understood by all readers, Sworl is only listed in the Merriam-Webster Unabridged Dictionary, not being accessible to those without access to that online subscription, I suggest that using the spelling in use since the fourteenth century and presented in the online Merriam-Webster Dictionary is, again, a better choice for effective communication with our readers with varying levels of proficiency in the language used and, with an eye to what will transpire in translations.
 * Although Goodridge was aged forty when she painted this miniature, her breasts are depicted as young ones, with "balance, paleness, and buoyancy", imbued in part by the harmony of light, color, and balance. - Arguable whether or not this is an "emotional" attribution towards the painting or intended by the artist, but considering there have been no descriptions saying these are "old" breasts than it is certainly not controversial enough to be split out.

First of all, there is no clarity as to whether the breasts painted by Goodridge were—hers! Furthermore, a woman at the age of forty is not "old" and a woman at the age of forty who has not born a child may be expected to have breasts that could be indistinguishable from a woman ten, fifteen, or even twenty years younger (and that does not take into consideration the individual phenotypical characteristics within her family). The focus on whether the artist would have had "old" breasts that would have differed from those depicted in a painting she created, smacks of male-chauvinism running rampant and being used to justify pomposity disguised as "art criticism". (One could note the lack of "art criticism" about penises depicted in artworks being dependent upon the status of the penis of a male who created a subject work.) An encyclopedia is best advised to stick with facts that may be verified and supported elsewhere, not to emphasize highly personal opinions about something that can no longer be clarified. Otherwise such allegations in its article should be couched in terms that reveal the personal nature of the opinions. That is what I did.
 * Beauty Revealed was completed during a period of popularity of portrait miniatures, a medium which had been introduced in the late eighteenth century. - The source doesn't support the miniature being introduced globally in the 18th century, but in the US. British portrait miniatures may date back as early as the 16th century ref
 * The Heilbrunn Timeline of Art History describes Beauty Revealed as a play on the eye miniature. These were popular at that time, as tokens of affection in England and France. - splitting the original sentence serves nothing more than to disturb the flow of the text

Immediately preceding this discussion is the discussion of "American miniatures" specifically. The discussion continues with her choice of the medium in "eye miniatures" and whether her miniature was a "play on" them. For all we know, her miniature could have been a parody. Separation is justified.


 * Such miniatures allowed portraits of loved ones to be carried by their suitors without revealing the identity of the sitter, however, they were not popular in the United States. - By combining the lack of popularity in the US with the concealment of identities, we're implying there's a link between the two. This is misleading, hence my reversion

My comment above should serve to answer this as well.


 * Possible influences and her mental state speak more towards the work's creation than how it has been analyzed as a work of art, and as such should be in the "creation" section/paragraph. The analysis section is dedicated to analysis of the work as a work, rather than an analysis of its context. Context goes with creation, not buried at the bottom

No one knows either. All discussion in these directions is pure conjecture and projection asserted as art criticism that was written more than one hundred and fifty years after its creation as a private gift to one person. These items deserve to remain as "Analysis", following what may be asserted as fact.''


 * After Webster's death, Beauty Revealed was handed down through generations by his family, together with another self-portrait Goodridge had sent him. The politician's descendants held that Goodridge and Webster had been engaged. - By making this its own paragraph, we not only have a single paragraph consisting of two sentences (dreadful in terms of readability) but also one which appears to be unreferenced (it's supported by the Johnson source, but nobody would know that with the reference in both a new section and new paragraph).

What happened to this painting after the death of the original possessor of an artifact intended for his person use, deserves emphasis in the history of the painting. Setting off such data may be seen as a highly effective editorial technique.

It is a rather short article, references are unlikely to have been missed.


 * As of 2014, the Met's website... - Again, single sentence paragraph = poor reading experience, bad flow.

Besides correction of the spelling mistake, emphasis of the current display status of the work is an important benchmark in the chronology of its history at the museum and, is not related to either of the preceding paragraphs. Standing alone is justified as encyclopedic information.


 * No reviews of the work exist until the end of the twentieth century. After more than a hundred and fifty years of its intended private ownership, the miniature became available for review by art critics and interpretations began to appear. - Completely unreferenced, possibly OR.

The first reviews after the painting was put on public display are noted, one cannot provide reviews of an artwork that remained private and, the absence is a fact that may be important data for an article in an encyclopedia on the subject.


 * Modern speculation even exists - "even" is editorializing, a violation of WP:NPOV. The use of the term "speculation" is likewise leading


 * Waxing psychoanalytically, - Again, POV terminology. "Waxing" is not encyclopedic.

When discussing speculation, describing the extent to which it was taken is defined by the use of "even"—to assess the fact that those statements were completely without any possible historical documentation—is thoroughly justified. Not one of these authors could possibly know what the artist was thinking when creating the painting—it must be taken as pure projection, rooted in their own psyche. The outlandish speculation about this painting cries out for explication of the unjustifiable personal vein of the "criticism" if we intend to provide balance in an encyclopedia article discussing it. I sense your inclination is to support such undocumented opinions rather than to provide a balanced perspective.


 * A single sentence for a sentence (your "Influences" section) is even worse reading than a one-sentence paragraph.

The potential exists that this painting, now becoming public, may have more data that will be included in this section and it does not fit appropriately in any other part of the article. The same justification is relevant as presented above.


 * Several works have been suggested by contemporary critics as possible inspirations for Beauty Revealed, - Contemporary to whom? The sentence here isn't clear. Contemporary to us, or the readers? There's a reason I've avoided using "contemporary" as a synonym for "modern". — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:41, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

That no reviews of the painting existed prior to the contemporary (Merriam-Webster, "happening or beginning now or in recent times") period, has been discussed thoroughly throughout the article—and the dates in the footnotes clearly visible to the reader with a movement of a cursor—are 2012 and 2013. The use of the word is justified. I would, however, be agreeable to a citation of the earliest date you can find for the first review instead of, "No reviews of the work exist until the end of the twentieth century", substituting instead, No reviews of the work exist until XXXX. Please advise your findings.
 * There may be some improvements in your edit, but overall it is not an improvement (or a "light edit" as you termed it). Quite frankly, I think it's a disaster. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:32, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

I have received compliments from other editors for my edits of the article, so your personal opinion should be relegated to just that, a personal opinion.

I believe that, having addressed your points with factual data that supports my initial "light" edit and my second edit entitled, "corrections", I am justified in reverting to my second edit http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Beauty_Revealed&oldid=628455523 and will do so after seeing whether further discussion by other editors arises. ____83d40m (talk) 19:33, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Compliments where, exactly? Your talk page has nothing, this talk page has nothing, and your recent history shows no replies elsewhere which would indicate you replying to a compliment. So is it email?
 * And how are you ever justified with introducing POV and unreferenced material, or edit warring and threatening further edit warring? That you disagree with academics discussing this work because it's "too personal" does not mean that we (Wikipedia) are allowed to convey said POV. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:42, 6 October 2014 (UTC)


 * After my careful reply to your points in defense of your reversal of my edit, your only response is an Ad hominem attack? ____83d40m (talk) 16:36, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
 * What, exactly, is an ad hominem attack there? Pray tell. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:56, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Contemporary critics
Mixing emotional projections by contemporary critics into the description and history of the work is a valid way of writing about art.

It does NOT distort an encyclopedic article at all. Hafspajen (talk) 00:15, 7 October 2014 (UTC)


 * "Mixing" would imply balance, which is missing from the current encyclopedic article. Given that—without a speck of verifiable research or historical evidence—the projections are presented as if they were facts and, are more properly relegated to clear identification as analysis, which my edit achieved.


 * Now, if I had deleted these curious emotional projections about the painting, I could understand intense concern from sympathetic quarters... ____83d40m (talk) 16:36, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I have attributed the "younger breasts" view (though it appears to be generally held, you're right that it is interpretation) in the body and removed it from the lead. I've also changed sworl to swirl, as after further Google searches I've realized that sworl is so uncommon that some people may not understand it. However, I still take issue with one- and two-sentence paragraphs (and sections), as those both appear choppy and imply that there is information being left out. "Gift" as a verb is both in several dictionaries (Oxford, for instance) and used in both journalistic and academic writing, so it is valid for encyclopedic use. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:55, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, Crisco, for becoming willing to reconsider some aspects that I find unsubstantiated or in need of an edit in the article, perhaps we can continue to seek agreement on others. I do not have time to tackle this for at least a week, but will return to the discussion as soon as possible thereafter. I find the most fundamental problem with the article about this painting is the label of "self-portrait"—perhaps you can determine whether there is any evidence from the artist or Webster to support an assertion that this watercolor painting on ivory is of the breasts of Sarah Goodridge. If the Heilbrunn Timeline of Art History describes the painting as a play on eye miniatures, it might be mislabeled completely—and merely, be a parody. The friendship between Goodridge and Webster endured for decades. Such a humorous gift exchanged between highly intelligent, lifelong friends that makes fun of a silly social custom of their time is easily as plausible as the seemingly baseless, emotional projections of Updike and Packard. The appellation could be worthy of a challenge unless verified. Otherwise, if we intend to present a balance, careful rewording may be needed with all of the emotional projections identified as conjecture in our article. If the subject cannot be substantiated, except for direct quotes, "painting" may be more appropriate than "self-portrait" throughout descriptions in the article that are written by our editors. ____83d40m (talk) 02:23, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
 * We are limited by what the sources say, as required by WP:V and WP:OR. And, in this case, the sources all disagree with you. They all consider it a self portrait. See, for instance, Daniel Webster: The Man and His Time, American Portrait Miniatures in the Metropolitan Museum of Art, and American Portrait Miniatures in the Manney Collection. Of course, if you care to publish something in a journal or elsewhere challenging this academic consensus, please feel free to do so, and we can cite that. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:08, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I've now had a chance to go through this interesting article; there is no doubt it is classified as a "self portrait" by a number of reputable sources. Thanks, Crisco, for another carefully researched and well written piece!  SagaciousPhil   -  Chat  09:17, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

File:Sarah Goodridge Beauty Revealed The Metropolitan Museum of Art.jpg to appear as POTD soon
Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Sarah Goodridge Beauty Revealed The Metropolitan Museum of Art.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on February 5, 2017. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2017-02-05. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :) Thanks! — howcheng  {chat} 20:00, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

To add to article
To add to this article: how we know that the title of this artwork is "Beauty Revealed." Does that text appear on the back, or in some other contemporaneous document, or was the title assigned later, not by the artist herself? 173.88.246.138 (talk) 20:15, 13 February 2022 (UTC)