Talk:Self-Portrait with Palette (Manet)

Nice work
Well done. I've reversed the directions in the descriptions, re: this being a mirror image. This might be a good image to work in, given Corot's standing from the previous generation, if there's room:. JNW (talk) 23:51, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed well done, the article nicely covers nearly all the points in the text that I have: Manet 1832-1883 (catalogue of the exhibition) September 10-November 27, 1983 The Metropolitan Museum of Art, Harry N. Abrams, Inc. It was an unforgettable show at the Met, and per JNW above - I didn't realize that Velázquez was a lefty...Modernist (talk) 00:08, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * It gets tricky, because some painters correct for the mirror image; apparently sculptors believed V. was right handed, and maybe he was. Got to look it up. I've got a book at my studio that covers the technical, philosophical, and visual aspects of the rapidly painted passages in the Manet, though that's already well covered here. JNW (talk) 00:14, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Interesting question, the sculpture looks to be almost a verbatim rendering of the image from the painting...Modernist (talk) 00:26, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * On another subject, the image in this New York Times article is much lighter in color. Not having any printed reproductions I have no way of knowing if it is more or less accurate than the image we have. Perhaps Modernist's catalogue would be of help here. @ JNW, great image, the composition is extraordinarily similar- I just don't know where we would put it with the article already being so crammed full of galleries, we'd have to do some considerable reorganizing. Litho  derm  01:07, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The Times image looks to be the better one, certainly sharper. The Corot self-portrait came to mind spontaneously--I suppose just about everyone did a self-portrait holding a palette. Unless there's a source that connects them, it's not a mandatory inclusion. Re: Manet's right-handedness, we don't even need to research the direction of his brushwork. The Fantin group portrait confirms which hand he painted with, no need to wonder if it's corrected from a mirror image....JNW (talk) 02:09, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, the image we have is fairly inaccurate colorwise. In the Met catalog the jacket is yellowish as in the NY Times article, Manet's face is more pink than the image we have and the background is more burnt umber than black. This isn't bad although in the Met catalog the face is still more pink and colorful...Modernist (talk) 02:45, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, both. The NYT version is now in the article. Re. JNW, I know, see de:Selbstporträt mit Palette. "Don't leave home without it", I guess. I considered translating the German article but wondered what good it could possibly do, especially since the Manet is the only one with an article to itself.  Litho  derm  03:42, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually I went to v3 which I think is the most accurate to the Met version - great job Litho - congrats...Modernist (talk) 03:45, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Now if only we can do something about Fantin's portrait of him standing, holding the cane. There are three versions in the commons, and they all, how do you say....suck. JNW (talk) 03:51, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I thought it looked awfully washed out. Better? Litho  derm  04:00, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes. There, only took 10 days to respond. Washed out? Once one of my paintings was installed next to this, perhaps the most (intentionally) washed-out portrait in American art, here .JNW (talk) 23:44, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
 * See, its from coming across bits like that that makes wiki worth it. Ceoil (talk) 01:03, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Gallery at bottom of page
Why is there a gallery of paintings at the bottom of this article? Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this article about one painting and not the artist himself? Some seem to be by Manet, and some aren't, some are of Manet, and some arent. I'm having a hard time in seeing what the criteria was for these particular images, and why they are needed, as the rest of the article seems to be amply illustrated with images that place the article subject in its historical place in Manets work. I think they need to be removed, as this doesn't seem to be the place for this gallery of images. Heironymous Rowe (talk) 02:18, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The gallery is there because it illustrates important and relevant historical information about Self-Portrait with Palette (Manet) and Manet the painter's working methods as well as his (Manet's) relationship with self-portraiture. The presence of the images in the gallery serves as a vital visual index to the text that discusses the relevancy of those images presented and cannot be adequately described with words only. IMO the gallery is an important visual element to this article...Modernist (talk) 21:23, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * If you look at the German original of the article, the galleries were individual galleries located in the sections in which the relevant works are discussed. That was the way I translated it, and if there are to be galleries they ought to be section- specific so that their relevance is apparent. I think someone must have consolidated them into a single gallery in the meantime, probably for formatting purposes, but they lose their usefulness that way. That said I think that these images are a valuable visual guide to Manet's other self-portraits. The gallery in "Position in the Oeuvre" (Einordnung in das Gesamtwerk) illustrates all of the other Manet paintings that contain self portraits, with details of the self portraits. The gallery in "Origin and Meaning" (Entstehung und Deutung) illustrates Manet's portrait of Velazquez and portraits of Manet by his contemporaries. These are useful and deserve to stay, although in their relevant sections. Perhaps any formatting problems could be overcome by putting the galleries in collapsible bars...

 Litho  derm  22:18, 26 May 2010 (UTC)