Talk:J. M. W. Turner

Untitled
J.M.W.Turner bequeathed his finished paintings to the National Gallery, London, which never carried out the terms of his bequest. As a result his heirs are seeking restitution of his works. See www.jmwturner.org

Controversial Dark Side
I recently watched an episode of Simon Schama's Power of Art specifically based on J.M.W Turner. However, Schama's series focuses on the more controversial, critical, dark and shocking sides of different art movements. Howcome none of Turner's more controversial compositions such as Hannibal and His Army Crossing the Alps or the Slave Ship are mentioned in this light rather than simply mentioned in his list of works? I believe that Turner's darker, more realistic compositions should be at least alluded to or even mentioned in this article, no? After having made a few high ranked companions, Turner had taken new views on life and especially began to see Death everywhere, the truth in poverty, the slave trade, war against Napoleon and a dark England.Sweetlife31 (talk) 07:51, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

English/British
At the time of Turner's death in 1851 there was no "English government" as such, and hadn't been for some time. England was and is ruled by a UK government, for which the term British is often used as a short-hand (although by all means use "UK" if you feel that reads OK). JackyR | Talk 00:19, 12 October 2006 (UTC) cats — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.37.211.86 (talk) 14:25, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Reference style
This article has a mix of reference styles. If no one minds, I shall make them all style (superscript nos lked to"References" section). Cheers, JackyR | Talk 00:14, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

'Painter of light'
A minor point, perhaps, but for better or worse (is there any doubt which?), the term 'painter of light' has been appropriated by Thomas Kinkade. Despite the reference to the museum web site, it is, in fact, such a generic term that today it has little meaning. JNW 03:25, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Erm, well which? Is it a generic term, or a soubriquet used mainly of Turner and now Kinkade? If the former, then it's probably not worth keeping (unless with an explanation about why/if it really matters for Turner). If the latter, then I don't have any problem including it re Turner just because he shares it with another person. Otherwise we'd be in the position where we couldn't mention such details under either painter, because of the other. Btw, the Nat Gall ref was simply the most authoratitive I found quickly, as a quick google of "turner painter of light" will show. JackyR | Talk 11:48, 15 October 2006 (UTC)


 * The answer to your question is: both. One can google Monet and Vermeer, their names connected to the same description, and find a number of references. The term is somewhat diluted, for light is the primary vehicle for all painters. I am sure that you are right, that Turner was once, justly, especially identified by this sobriquet. But it is not terribly meaningful--were Caravaggio described as the painter of light and shadow, it would be true, but far more telling to call him the creator of a chiaroscuro that gave dramatic form to his figures and influenced western painting for the next few centuries. I think that maybe Turner's mastery of light can be most successfully connected to his Venetian paintings. Finally, I realize that I am not pressing this to win a point, or seeking a revert. Just having some fun talking about painting. JNW 13:03, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

That Self Portrait
God, Turner was a serious hottie. (Momus (talk) 05:29, 12 February 2009 (UTC))

== New file : ==

thumb Recently the file : (right) was uploaded and it appears to be relevant to this article and not currently used by it. If you're interested and think it would be a useful addition, please feel free to include it. Dcoetzee 08:16, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Liber Studiorum
It seems regrettable that there is no mention or discussion of Turner's Liber Studiorum, "an ambitious set of seventy prints intended for wide dissemination...a personal manifesto of his ambitions for landscape art, categorised into six types." Even more surprising, it seems that these are all (even the most famous, e.g. "Aesacus and Hesperie," "Ben Arthur") missing images in Wikipedia/Wikimedia Commons. Can anyone help? Wareh (talk) 13:47, 26 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I've added a passage on the prints, but it's rather awkwardly placed, since the section on his work is rather haphazard and not at all comprehensive. JNW (talk) 14:19, 26 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Wow, that's quick service! The images remain a desideratum.  The best available online images I could find (including the "Ben Arthur" I linked) are actually the work of Francis Job Short (whose works, moreover, if I understand the principles of Template:PD-art, do not enter into the public domain until 2015, 70 years after his death).  There are library copies of the original Liber Studiorum, which could perhaps be photographed and uploaded by an enterprising soul (though Short seems to have been involved in some of the pretty early editions, e.g. the Ruskin-inspired Selections).  Wareh (talk) 18:40, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Somerhill House
Turner sketched Somerhill House in 1809 and painted it in 1811. Currently, the reference for the sketch is a Flickr page. Is there a reference to Turner sketching Somerhill in a book that could be used to replace the ref (which could then be turned into an EL)? Secondly, is there a copy of the painting of Somerhill that can be uploaded to Wikipedia? The Weald website has an image, but it appears to be uncopyable. The Somerhill House article is currently under review for GA status. Mjroots (talk) 06:45, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

A note on sources
I've just started to do some research in an attempt to update this article and expand/correct it. In the course of this, I've borrowed and purchased several books on Turner and I thought I would leave a note here for any editors interested in the subject with a recommendation. By far imho, the best source work I have found for a general overview is the Wilton book "Turner in his time" - not because its writing is any better than the modern biographies by Hamilton and Bailey (Infact it is slightly less detailed and has a few careless errors) - but because both those books are small paperbacks with almost no illustrations. The Wilton book, by contrast, is a large format book with lavish illustrations throughout and this dramatically enhances the utility and effect of the text. So if you are interested in Turner beyond this article - that is the book I would buy first Ajbpearce (talk) 13:17, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Brilliant colours
The idea that Chichester Canal was influenced by the eruption of a volcano in Indonesia has no scientific or historical basis. It is conjecture and as such it should be removed, unless adequate documentation has been provided first. Also, I'm replacing the image used because it is not true to the colours of the painting.Amadeus webern (talk) 14:11, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Please stop trolling. The influence is of course conjecture, but widely published conjecture found in the most reliable of sources.  And, this was no ordinary "eruption", but the largest volcanic eruption in recorded history.  It is of enormous encyclopedic and scientific interest to speculate about the recording of such events by artists in popular works of art. Viriditas (talk) 09:24, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Short form of his name?
Joseph Turner? William Turner? -- megA (talk) 17:11, 10 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Not sure what you're getting at. Do you mean how should he be referred to throughout the article? Or do you mean how was he referred to by friends/relatives/other contemporaries?—A bit iffy (talk) 20:06, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Both, actually. For some strange reason, I coundn't recall his first name, and seeing him referred as "J. M. W. Turner" in another article, I didn't make the connection at once. I'm quite sure that he is usually called "William Turner", or isn't he? The article avoids answering the question, too. -- megA (talk) 21:12, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
 * In my experience he's usually referred to as either "J. M. W. Turner" in formal contexts, or simply "Turner" in any less formal contexts. So just "Turner" throughout the article seems to me to be just about right. I didn't know he was also referred to as "Willam Turner" — perhaps that's not used now to avoid confusion with another landscape artist of the same name and period (of whom I have to admit I'd not heard).—A bit iffy (talk) 21:40, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah, sorry, culture clash. Over here in Germany, he is actually almost exclusively known as William Turner, and I had never noticed a different approach in English texts until I went to Wikipedia... Thanks for clarifying. -- megA (talk) 12:16, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * This is not a silly or meaningless question. Many people had (have) multiple given names, with one of the given names being the one they were universally known by.  Max Karl Ernst Ludwig Planck never used the second, third, or fourth of his given names, Charles Robert Darwin never used "Robert," and Richard August Carl Emil Erlenmeyer is (and was during his lifetime) known universally and exclusively as Emil Erlenmeyer.  To say that Turner is usually referred to by all of his given names, or none of them, is simply to avoid the question, not to answer it.  So what is the answer?  I don't know, but I would like to know.  An art historian should be able to help us, here! -- and I agree, I think that this information should appear in the article.  If the Germans exclusively refer to the man as William Turner, that suggests that the cognoscenti know that William was his preferred given name.Ajrocke (talk) 18:29, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
 * If the issue is 'how should we refer to him in this article?' the standard practice is to use the surname on its own. That's exactly what the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography does. If the question is 'was he more commonly referred to as Joseph Turner, William Turner etc?' that's a trickier question but the ODNB gives plenty of sources which use the form 'J. M. W. Turner' in the title. Whether that's what he was called in his day or which form he preferred I don't know. Nev1 (talk) 22:06, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The issue is not how one should refer to him in the article -- that is clearly by surname, as you say. The issue is, should the article include a sentence something like "Of his various given names, he preferred the use of 'William', and this is how friends and contemporaries generally referred to him."  I think it should.  I have just seen the new biopic, "Mr. Turner," and in this movie he is known for short as "William," or "Billy" by closest friends (although he did use "Mallord" as a cover name in one sequence in the movie, when he did not want to reveal his true identity).  This suggests, if the writers did their homework, that the answer to this question is indeed "William."  This fits also with the German usage, above.  But we need an expert to verify this before one should add the sentence to the article.Ajrocke (talk) 14:12, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

3 now Genuine not forgeries
JMW Turner: National Museum Cardiff's paintings 'genuine'

need expansion obviously EdwardLane (talk) 17:20, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

found by coincidence a bunch more stuff on turner - that also happens to mention Cardiff (which doesn't seem to be mentioned in the article) - link here EdwardLane (talk) 17:35, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Date of birth
The lede says, without qualification, that he was born on 23 April 1775. The infobox also says, without qualification, that he was born on 23 April 1775. It's only when you start reading the text that you discover a very different story, viz. "Turner was born some time in late April or early May 1775; the exact date of Turner's birth is unknown." We're told that Turner himself claimed 23 April to be the date, but that this has never been verified. We're also told he was not baptised until 14 May, and this three-week gap in a period of high infant mortality casts doubt on a 23 April birth.

We're also told that the baptism date of 14 May 1775 is "the first verifiable date". Given that, how do we even know that his birth may have been as far back as late April? If all we have to go on is Turner's own claim, which has never been verified, then we're on very shaky ground indeed. Children are by definition present at their own birth, but in no way can they be regarded as reliable witnesses about the date or any other circumstances of the event. Do we know why Turner claimed 23 April? Did his mother tell him?

What we have presently is a bit of a joke. I've changed it so that we're not making ourselves out to be total liars. --  Jack of Oz   [Talk]  22:44, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

I believe that if Turner did say he was born on the 23rd of April, then saying there is "no proof" sort of makes a mockery of our entire civilisation and judiciary. What's the point of witnesses being present in court if they are not proof. LOL. I'm not suggesting that 1st hand witnesses are absolutely reliable, given individual perceptions and all that jazz, but saying Turner's claim about his own birthday is not proof is playing with words and belief systems. What's the point of having a birthday field on forms you fill in - if what you write isn't valid or considered reasonable proof at first glance? I'm not saying there isn't a need to investigate what people claim sometimes (lol), but the inclusion of the words "no proof" made me laugh. Why not just say something like, "there is an air of uncertainty as to when Turner was born exactly, but Turner is said to have claimed that his birthday was on the 23rd of April/April 23 by xxx" or something like that (though rather more efficiently worded)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.250.191.163 (talk) 03:32, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Indeed, it would be amusing to watch the author of that part of the article being invited to birthday parties:- "Hey! It's my birthday on Tuesday, come to my party!" -"You're birthday..? Tuesday..? Are you absolutely sure about that? I'm afraid I don't believe you. You must provide proof to verify your claim that Tuesday is your birthday otherwise I remain perpetually in doubt of your own claims, I'm afraid." lol — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.250.191.163 (talk) 03:43, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Cunningham's Obituary of Turner
The quotation, in the section Early Life, has two apparent spelling mistakes "nobel" apparently for "noble" and "fist" for "first". Is this a verbatim quotation? The prefix (sic) would be meet and right to add after each word if it is.Cloptonson (talk) 19:57, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Turner was considered a controversial figure in his day
″Turner was considered a controversial figure in his day″

So why was he controversial? i couldn't find in the article--74.57.167.219 (talk) 21:50, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Change cites/refs/notes style?

 * I see Harv error red ink all over the sources section, and the references could be a great deal more elegant... OK for me to change cites/refs/notes style? Iridescent has several Etty FAs recently. In line with "go with what works", I thought I'd duplicate that style. [I see some unreferenced statements as well.] &bull; Lingzhi&diams;(talk) 07:16, 20 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm not seeing any harv error messages anywhere in the sources section—are you sure you don't have some plugin or gadget which is acting up? (I see two redlinks, but that's to linked authors who don't have stand-alone articles.) While I personally think all Wikipedia articles should have a uniform reference style imposed, as things stand there are often good reasons not to change the reference style of an article, particularly where they might form part of a series. –  iridescent  08:39, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
 * But OTOH there might not be any series. That's why I asked on talk first. Moreover, in the current incarnation of the references section, the full title of each work is given repeatedly. That makes the page look very, very busy.
 * Bailey, Anthony (1998). Standing in the sun: A Life of J. M. W. Turner. London: Pimlico. ISBN 0-7126-6604-4. Harv error: There is no link pointing to this citation. The anchor is named CITEREFBailey1998.
 * Bockemühl, Michael (2006). J. M. W. Turner, 1775–1851: the world of light and colour (2nd ed.). Köln: Taschen. ISBN 3-8228-6325-4. Harv error: There is no link pointing to this citation. The anchor is named CITEREFBockem.C3.BChl2006.
 * Hamilton, James (2007). Turner. New York: Random House. ISBN 978-0-8129-6791-3. Harv error: There is no link pointing to this citation. The anchor is named CITEREFHamilton2007. &bull; Lingzhi&diams;(talk) 09:20, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm seeing none of what you're seeing. Do you have some kind of plug-in installed which is adding an extra layer to the refs? – iridescent  09:48, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes – importScript('User:Ucucha/HarvErrors.js'); &bull; Lingzhi&diams;(talk) 11:18, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

"Mr. Turner"
The usage and primary topic of is under discussion, see talk:Mr. Turner (film) -- 70.51.202.113 (talk) 05:59, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Splitting Turner's career into manageable sections
The sections of this article I wrote on Turner's early life and career several years ago are still pretty much intact. I would like to go and develop the biography further - a problem I am having though is breaking his career down into manageable chunks. Turner does not to me seem to have clear phases of development in his career, everything was a continual evolution. I am thinking of going for roughly 10 year sections but if anyone has any other ideas do say. AlasdairEdits (talk) 17:15, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
 * You might switch to sections on themes/subjects/whatever, although perhaps that's not much help in Turner's case. That's what I'm planning for Titian, where I hope it will work better. Johnbod (talk) 17:47, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
 * You can expand the lead too - that's way too short. Johnbod (talk) 18:59, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Ok, Ceoil's just done that! Johnbod (talk) 01:32, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Themes/subjects would be a good approach for the "art" sect. While your at it Alasdair, the legacy section strays towards one line paragraphs towards the end, and needs scissors. Ceoil (talk) 23:28, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes. All improvements are very welcome. Johnbod (talk) 01:31, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on J. M. W. Turner. 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/20131203015135/http://transact.westminster.gov.uk/greenplaques/displaybyname.cfm to http://transact.westminster.gov.uk/greenplaques/displaybyname.cfm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 17:38, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Poundnotes
http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/banknotes/Pages/characters/nexttwenty.aspx  JMW Turner will appear on the next series of british 20Pound notes to be issued "by 2020". The List of Poundnotes has already a mention, but this article could also use a reference under Legacy or so? --176.199.184.48 (talk) 14:45, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on J. M. W. Turner. 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/20100614021514/http://www.nationalgallery.org.uk/server.php?show=conObject.1172 to http://www.nationalgallery.org.uk/server.php?show=conObject.1172

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 14:57, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

New additions
Hi - I started adding new material to the article and was disappointed to see User:Ceoil reverting it with no explanation. Please provide more detail as to your objections, just stating "rvt" isn't really a good way of dealing with other established editors AlasdairEdits (talk) 22:32, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Cross posting from my talk - there may be value here, but needs work to be kept;
 * Turner is widely regarded as highly influence.[46] - Not a full sentence construct. Also by whom, when, why
 * Turner's influence can be seen in John Ruskin's effort to link him with the Pre-Raphaelite Brotherhood, in Impressionism, and on 19th-century American Art. [46] - all these are highly contentious, badly stated, lacking context, and liked to a single source
 * "A number of major impressionist painters including Claude Monet and Camille Pissarro viewed the word of Turner during the 1870's.[46]" - "viewed the word"? Such a bold claim should at least have meaning
 * "This has led some to describe" - This (viewed the word no less) sentence is now based on a false premise. Clarify who are these "some"
 * An important difference between Turner and later Impressionist painters - no premise has been established, and now there is an importance difference.
 * " Turner painted his oil-paintings in the studio after making preparatory sketches, while Impressionist painters painted in the open air" - this generalisation is just false. " his oil-paintings" - I wouldn't forget the watercolors from this argument. Ceoil (talk) 22:51, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Slavers?
Any reason why slave ship isn't shown as a featured work? Its well known and liked, its social commentary which demonstrates his range (rather than just being concerned with the natural environment), captures his ability to convey elemental fury better than Valley of Aosta, and made a notable contribution to the field (imvho). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.98.151.183 (talk) 05:49, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

"Financial independence"
The beginning of the "Arts" section states that Turner enjoyed "financial independence," but it fails to explain how so -- We are told he was lower middle-class, and though he was a recognized painter soon, it's not clear that he was such a spectacular success from the start. Where did his money come from?

Can anyone shed light? --Syzygy (talk) 14:09, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Some insight into Turner's artistic process.
In Dr. Lucy Worsley's documentary, Elegance and Decadence: The Age of the Regency, Episode 1 of 3, by the BBC, she had a nice section on J.M.W. Turner. In it, at 19:18, she specifically discussed "Ivy Bridge, Devonshire", c.1814–15, watercolour on paper, with Professor Sam Smiles of the Tate Collection. The Tate holds the original painting, a subsequent etching, and Turner's field sketchbook containing the bridge.

Dr. Lucy Worsley: [Looking at the field sketch.] "Now, I can hardly believe that these squiggles here resulted in that beautiful completed, finished work of art."

Prof. Sam Smiles: "And that's because neither you nor I have his acute visual memory. What Turner had managed to produce, after years of training, was a graphic system, a way of drawing which allowed him to capture the essence of a scene with marks that meant a lot to him but to you and me looking at them have meant considerably less."

LW: "I'm particularly struck by this Christmas tree here. It's almost like a pictogram in the sketchbook and yet here it is a beautiful looking thing in the watercolour."

SS: "Absolutely. The things he observed that nobody else bothered to record. ...  "

I never considered before that instead of just making copious margin notes, an artist would make field sketches that contained information within the strokes themselves. An artistic equivalent of short-hand?

I know that Wikipedia doesn't allow sources from YouTube where this documentary is found. Perhaps you can find somebody who owns the CD or a library that has it. Thank you for your attention, Wordreader (talk) 02:41, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

What colorants or pigments did Turner use for yellowother than cadmium oxide
Joseph Mallord William Turner RA (23 April 1775 – 19 December 1851) may or may not have used cadmium yellow in his painting. I saw a pictional portrayal in which he used berries and preserved fruit. What pigments were used for yellow besides cadmium oxide?

Cadmium oxide is poisonous for people to ingest. I am curious whether or not Joseph Mallord William Turner used any pigments which were not poisonous to any person who might wash paint off of their hands. Paint can go into the sewer, enter the river, and then enter irigation systems for corn, wheat, amaranto, or other edible crops.

2600:100E:B064:3C27:FCBD:42EA:EB99:FA38 (talk) 22:10, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

JWM Turne
Please check the birth and death date of his sister Thanks 2601:647:8500:B5C0:1149:F053:EC4B:4D72 (talk) 05:47, 4 January 2024 (UTC)