Talk:Georges Seurat

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Duchamp123456.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 22:17, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Untitled
I can see why this was marked for cleanup way back when - there is a massive treatise on the scientific technology of the day, much bigger than the story of Seurat's own life. That section was originally only two paragraphs, but I've added another. It seems as though the article was written more with displaying the scientific influences on Seurat rather than the more well-known artistic influences, which are barely (if at all) mentioned. I'm not really sure what to do about that, so more insight into this would be very helpful. -Aeinome 06:16, 13 January 2006 (UTC)


 * The explanation of the scientific influences might fit better into the Pointillism article. I started to extract it, but it is written with a Seurat focus and I didn't get very far. &gt;&gt;sparkit|TALK&lt;&lt; 03:34, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Scientism in Seurat's Work
You pointed a general problem about the interpretation of Seurat's work: in the literature before the 1990's, Seurat's art is often mentioned as being exclusively science oriented. It is only recently (and especially in Herbert, 2004: Seurat and the making of La Grande Jatte) that the work of Seurat as been formally situated amongst artists of his time.

Evidence that Seurat had two sons?
This article mentions that shortly after Seurat's death in 1891 that a second son was born (name unknown) - this is a major surpirse to me! I have not read anywhere that Seurat had a second son. I doubt if this statement is correct. What is the evidence? 203.12.30.146 01:38, 15 December 2006 (UTC) Nick


 * Wistou's recent edit seems judicious. The CDC page which is our source says that Madeleine Knobloch was pregnant in early 1891, and that sometime after Seurat's death she gave birth to a child who died at or shortly after birth. But the source does not specify the sex of the child, or address the question of paternity. Ewulp (talk) 12:18, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Social Commentary
There's more than color theory. Someone versed in contemporary scholarship should summarize the social commentary in his works. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.197.30.11 (talk) 03:12, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was page moved.  Ron h jones (Talk) 18:19, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Georges-Pierre Seurat → Georges Seurat — Twofold: he is better known as simply Georges Seurat than as Georges-Pierre Seurat, and the sources that do use Georges-Pierre are contradicted by the equally large number of sources that use Georges Pierre (without the dash). So we aren't even certain that the current title is a correct version of his name, while the proposed new name is universally recognised and certainly also correct. Fram (talk) 09:11, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Survey

 * Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with  or  , then sign your comment with  . Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.


 * Support. More familiar as Georges Seurat, as the search results below show. Most likely the only reason the Google Books result is less lopsided than others is because many books (e.g. the 2007 MOMA catalog) document his full birth name once, while referring to him as Georges Seurat throughout the remainder of the book. Ewulp (talk) 07:36, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Discussion
Some evidence (anecdoctical, but still) of the used names: Musée d'Orsay:, Getty Museum, MoMA, Metropolitan Museum of Art, Morgan Library and Museum, Cleveland Museum of Art, Christie's

Counter-eaxample: Fitzwilliam Museum.

Google News has 4820 articles with "Georges Seurat", and only 176 for "Georges Pierre Seurat" (with or without dash). The results are less extreme with Google Books, with 1093 "Georges Seurat" vs. 623 "Georges Pierre Seurat". Then again, Google Scholar has over 2,000 "Georges Seurat" against only 127 "Georges Pierre Seurat". Fram (talk) 09:22, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Le Chahut
A user has twice changed the caption for Le Chahut, saying that it was in the collection of the Albright-Knox Art Gallery. In fact the Albright-Knox piece is a study. The work pictured in the article is the version in the Kröller-Müller Museum, as may be confirmed by comparing it to the Albright-Knox and the Kröller-Müller versions (although the colors are somewhat off). M AN d ARAX •  XAЯA b ИA M  23:41, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Georges Seurat and Van Gogh
It was in 1886 and 1887, the years Van Gogh lived in Paris, that Seurat became a principal figure in the avant-garde. Vincent recognized his importance and, later, referred to Seurat as undoubtedly the leader of the Petit Boulevard artists, his own name for a new generation of young artists.

Some of these painters met in November 1887, and began exhibiting together shortly thereafter. Seurat’s influence on Van Gogh is unmistakable: the latter experimented with the same subjects, painting techniques and color combinations. Although Van Gogh later developed his own style, he continued to admire Seurat.

In one of his letters from the south of France he expressed a wish for one of his painted studies. Seurat and Van Gogh made together some paintings. One is The Seine with the Pont de la Grande Jatte — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gallery-of-art (talk • contribs) 05:49, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * This needs referencing before being added...Modernist (talk) 12:28, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Recent edits
Hi Coldcreation, you appear to be a little trigger happy with your undo's at Georges Seurat. From the history, I can see there is a lot of vandalism and assorted nonsense going on, resulting in endless undos. Maybe you are not accustomed to seeing any constructive edits?
 * You removed sourced and perfectly referenced material
 * You removed an image which is actually discussed in the text and which depicts a person discussed in the text
 * You removed an image which illustrates his life/death
 * Your summary says: "Only major works". Since when? why? This is about an individual. Images illustrating subject's life are perfectly okay.
 * You earlier removed his (sourced) date of birth from his bio because it is "a repetition of the intro". An intro is a summary, a bio is supposed to be complete. As a result of your edit, Seurat's date of birth is currently unsourced again.

This article really needs some help (lots of unsourced material, errors, glaring omissions) and is rather poor for a major artist like this. I would be happy to help, but not like this. Cheers, Superp (talk) 06:37, 26 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Perhaps you are correct. Though his birth dates is already mentioned twice in the article (lead and infobox). A third time may not be needed. No source for this date was removed. An image of his sepulture at Cimetière du Père-Lachaise is certainly not needed in the article (it neither illustrates his life or death). Imagine how many gravestone images would be found at Wikipedia if such were included in all article about dead people (or even half of them). In this case it adds nothing to the article. Feel free to add more material but make sure you provide sources. Coldcreation (talk) 07:20, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi again.
 * Summary: you complain about unsourced material, but I added none. You revert edits which add valid sources instead. Confusion ensues.
 * I actually bought this book (new, very well researched I think, great illustrations) partly because I thought it would be a valuable WP source. I came to this article because I think it could be better.  Almost everything I did so far, though I referenced it down to the exact page number, was kicked out by you. Seeing my edits being reverted like this demotivates like hell.
 * As an aside, if you are an art lover and interested in Seurat c.s., get
 * I have taken the time again to inspect every single edit I did, and can not find one bit that I did not ref. You keep talking about unsourced stuff. Can you please point out this alleged unsourced material, so I can improve my work method if needed? Please provide a link to the diff. Thank you.
 * Seurat's birthdate was unsourced. After my edit, it was sourced. Now, after your revert, it is unsourced again. How is this better?
 * The bit about Knoblock/Knobloch and their first child was unsourced. I added facts and a source, you reverted, so now we have unsourced text again and less facts. Why?
 * That's two fact/ref relations I added, you rev'd.
 * The tomb situation: you formulate a personal opinion as a fact. I think, on the other hand, the img brings across the time Seurat lived and his family background. Nothing wrong with feeding the other half of the brain. It's something we could discuss.
 * If you want me to contribute to the article, let me put this nicely, we have to work together in a different way. This is just frustrating and wasting my time.
 * Cheers and happy editing. Superp (talk) 13:05, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

I've just reverted back to your text. The only thing I left out is the photograph of his sepulture at Cimetière du Père-Lachaise, certainly not needed in the article (in particular because there is nothing special about it that makes it stand out from those of others at Père-Lachaise). You are free to improve the article. Cheers, Coldcreation (talk) 14:26, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

English pages should have pronunciations
If the page is in English, there should be an English pronunciation key for the name. Why is it missing and what is the rationale for it? MagnoliaSouth (talk) 15:23, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 16:05, 29 April 2016 (UTC)