Talk:Spirit of the Dead Watching

Image
Nice article, but I saw the picture a couple of months ago & don't remember the green. A google image search shows there is more than the usual range of colour schemes on the web for this one. There are much better images available. The colour woodcut, drawing study, and related picture in the Courtauld Gallery are worth mentioning. Johnbod (talk) 02:11, 24 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I substituted a high resolution 15 MP image with authentic colors on Commons and make a comment on its Discussion page. That stuff about phosphorescent colors looks like yet another DYK hoax to me (the citation is simply to the "NYU School of Medicine" rather than any specific source). c1cada (talk) 08:36, 21 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Some stuff in Frazier about New Guinea superstition regarding phosphorescent lights. I should think its a pretty universal folk-lore myth. The test is whether Gauguin himself referenced it, in his letters or in Noa Noa (where the woodcut you mention comes from). I'm dubious. c1cada (talk) 09:05, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Please don't malign one of our finest writers, as well as everyone involved in DYK, with a ridiculous suggestion that there was "yet another DYK hoax", when the problem is that you didn't check the references correctly. According to the specific source linked to in the NYU School of Medicine reference, "Native Polynesians believe(d) that the phosphorescences of the light are the spirits of the dead." M AN d ARAX  •  XAЯA b ИA M  22:09, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I was questioning the phosphorescent colors ("That stuff about phosphorescent colors ...") of the painting. Reasonable since there aren't any. That's not maligning anyone. c1cada (talk) 00:28, 24 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Thank you, Mandarax, for your description of my skills, which I will neither confirm or deny. As for the NYU reference, the link is furnished in the 'References' section (http://litmed.med.nyu.edu/Annotation?action=view&annid=10316). If there's consensus that it's not a strong enough reference to support the claim, I've no problem with its removal. The suggestion that this was a DYK hoax is a bit reckless. JNW (talk) 23:20, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Just a throw away comment, no offence meant. I didn't notice the reference, but it's true there's nothing there to support the claim that bold colours were chosen to suggest phosphorescence, so that really ought to go out even if the blog is permitted. This is not an article I want to contribute to. There's been a million something often quite hard words written on this painting and I have no wish at all to add to the corpus. I'm content to see it is illustrated with a good image. c1cada (talk) 00:04, 24 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Didn't see this when I made a WP:BOLD edit citing Jolly's paper. By all means revert it. But of course the colours are not bold. That was an artefact of the original image. But feel free revert to that too by all means . AS for DYK my own feeling, in light of the verifiability model Wikipedia uses, they should be called DYKTSOS ("Did You Know That Someone Once Said") ... c1cada (talk) 23:42, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually, on reflection, they should be DYKTARSOS ("Did You Know That A Reliable Source Once Said"). Has a certain JNSQ I think. c1cada (talk) 12:38, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, yes, referring to this as a 'DYK hoax' does presume that somebody added spurious content; hoaxsters get blocked. Taking issue with the substance and credibility of a legitimate reference is very different from assuming that there was an intent to mislead. JNW (talk) 00:53, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
 * A transcript of Gauguin's description, in which he explains his intent to strew 'phosphorescent' flowers in the background. JNW (talk) 01:04, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, not only did he intend them but you can plainly see them. What he didn't intend to do was to paint the bed linen a phosphorescent yellow the color of fermented piss as the original image represented (for what? ten years ...) and that is what I take was the origin of the phosphorescent colors remark and made me think it was a hoax by NYU Med students. Could happen to anyone. The problem is you look at this image (the old one I mean) and you think to yourself "you can't be serious!" and so it develops. But apparently the uploader was serious. My bad, but I'm not apologising. I'm on a hiding to nothing here. Last. Kisses. c1cada (talk) 01:44, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
 * But the a tergo bum crack is phosphorescent. I'll concede that. That was another defect of the original image because it suppressed that. You see the issue? c1cada (talk) 01:59, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Kisses declined. And no, this could not happen to anyone. JNW (talk) 01:50, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

All right then aged pillar of Wikipedia. I apologise abjectly, prostrate ass raised to heaven, spray my intergluteal cleft glow-dark. But this is an incredibly difficult image these days. I'm not sure its owning institution even links it on its website any more. I was just trying to make things a little bit better. You can have this, revert everything. Just don't ever come back to me. Off my watchlist. c1cada (talk) 02:47, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually it is linked here http://www.albrightknox.org/collection/search/piece:511/. There must have been something wrong with the search engine when I last tried. c1cada (talk) 16:35, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Can that whole part about Griselda Pollock please be deleted? It's nothing but pretentieus BS, not about Gauguin but about her.