Talk:Portrait of Madame X

Untitled
As the current article is about the Sargent painting rather than about Virginie Amélie Avegno Gautreau herself (who, by the way, was also painted by other artists of the era), I propose moving this article to something like "Portrait of Madame X". Other thoughts? -- Infrogmation 19:15, 23 August 2005 (UTC)


 * It was previously under the title "Portrait of Madame X" but it's now a redirect from that. Does anyone know why? And since it is an article about the painting rather than the woman, I think it ought to be under the "Portrait" title. --Kerowyn 23:42, 23 August 2005 (UTC)


 * As no objections have surfaced, I will move the current "Virginie Amélie Avegno Gautreau" to "Portrait of Madame X", a title reflecting the actual subject of the article. I will then make a minimal stub start on "Virginie Amélie Avegno Gautreau" which I hope will be filled out into an article as it should be. -- Infrogmation 14:50, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

??? was she really " notorious "  or did the writer   mean   ' notable '    82.38.97.206 10:27, 12 May 2006 (UTC)mikeL

Scandal
i didn't understand -after reading this article- what was the reason of the scandal. i can't see anything in the painting scandalous. and nothing in the article expresses the "bad thing" to cause a scandal...

85.99.182.150 (talk) 09:00, 18 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree. She has a sharp nose, unmentioned in the article, but that's not scandalous. It would help if the article could explain what it is about the picture that makes it scandalous and offended the subject's mother (and was, presumably, unnoticed by artist and subject before the picture's public appearrance). Maproom (talk) 08:05, 15 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I also agree that more details as to why "in 1884, people were shocked and scandalized". Such discussion should probably come in the "Reception" section, where the scandal is discussed. There is some mention in the "Description" section that "At the time, her pose was considered sexually suggestive." I assume that was the reason for the shock and scandal, but if so, that should be made explicit. Any additional factors contributing to the reason for the scandal should also be mentioned. - It would also be valuable to put the painting in context with similar such paintings of the 1880's; to my modern eye, there are classic works of art - even contemporary works like Bouguereau's - which might be considered more sexualized than this bland-by-modern-standards painting. Why the scandal for this one? -- 162.238.240.55 (talk) 17:15, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
 * It was the time in history when women of high morals didn't show much skin. It explains more on this website;
 * Www.khanacademy.org
 * ￼The gown’s plunging neckline was considered too provocative for the times, and its right strap – which originally was shown to have slipped off the shoulder – ultimately led to Sargent repainting it in its proper position to appease outraged viewers and Gautreau’s own family.
 * ps://www.k "td%20Gautreau 's%20own%20family. Ilahmache (talk) 22:51, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

I have also come here for this reason. This is a serious problem. Someone had better bloody explain what the scandal was about!


 * Me three. What was traumatic, bare ankles or something else that folks in the 21st Century can't recognize? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.8.171.23 (talk) 01:09, 11 May 2015 (UTC)


 * What's missing here, and the cause of the confusion (and making this a presently crap article) is that the originally shown version of the painting had one of her dress straps down; that was the cause of the scandal (though the plunging neckline didn't help), because in the subtle and propriety-driven symbology of the era, it strongly implied to various viewers that she'd just been having sex or was just about to have some. While something like that would be fine for anonymous modeling (various art of the Nouveau period leaned a little erotic or at least eros-implicating), it was not fine for a recognizable – and married – high-society woman. Sargent repainted it later in response to the controversy, to put the strap back in the "proper" position. 2001:5A8:4260:3100:24B9:561B:1277:F954 (talk) 07:32, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

File:John Singer Sargent (American, Florence 1856–1925 London) - Madame X (Madame Pierre Gautreau) - Google Art Project.jpg to appear as POTD
Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:John Singer Sargent (American, Florence 1856–1925 London) - Madame X (Madame Pierre Gautreau) - Google Art Project.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on November 15, 2014. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2014-11-15. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. Thanks! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:13, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Query - skin color and muscle definition.
The Virginie Amélie Avegno Gautreau article mentions that she controlled her coloring by dying her hair and brows and using lavender-tinted powder on her skin (it would disguise sallow skin like lavender-colored shampoo controls yellowness in white-grey hair, because lavender and yellow are complementary colors). There's no mention of arsenic, so maybe she didn't use it? Many Victorian women ate arsenic trioxide or used it in powdered form for that aristocratic pallor of their skin. There were deaths, I believe.

But what about her muscle definition? Her shoulders and arms look more developed than I would expect for woman of the aristocratic idle rich. The Antonio de la Gandara portrait lacks that definition, but he painted about 14 years later. Was there no mention among the critics of that muscle definition? Thank you for your time, Wordreader (talk) 06:32, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Reception and Analysis
I modified the "reception" section to add some more detail, and added an "analysis" section, since there's a lot of historical context involved in why the painting was so scandalous. I'm quite new to editing Wikipedia, would love feedback on this! Remainsuncertain (talk) 01:41, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
 * This was added to an old comment. I moved it here so it would be seen as a recent thread of comments. David notMD (talk) 17:32, 11 August 2023 (UTC)