Talk:William Etty

York Bar Walls
Why is there no mention of Etty's role in spearheading the movement to save the City Walls of York in the 19th century? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.29.45.93 (talk) 12:46, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, worth a mention. Sources though?Battleofalma (talk) 10:56, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

NPOV Issue
In the Life and Work section, it says

Etty painted very unequally. His work at its best possesses great charm of colour, especially in the glowing, but thoroughly realistic, flesh tints. The composition is good, but his drawing is sometimes faulty, and his work usually lacks life and originality.

This reads like something written by an art critic or scholar. That's fine, but in that case,. If it's not cite-able, then it needs to go, because it definitely comes across as a value judgement. Can someone with more art skills than I find some kind of citation?

* Septegram * Talk * Contributions * 16:50, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

At sixes and sevens
Quick question: the Fancy Dress Ball article refers to a seven year apprenticeship, and this article to one that seems to have lasted six (ages 12 to 18). I reworded the section here to avoid some repetition, but I don't want to create inaccuracies. Sorry if I'm overthinking this. Kafka Liz (talk) 10:37, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Maybe it was six years and 11 months? Iri will know. &bull; Lingzhi&diams;(talk) 11:01, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Down to the second, I'd imagine, but I'll wait for his input. Kafka Liz (talk) 11:25, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
 * A period covering one's 12th to 18th years is 7 years (use your fingers). Johnbod (talk) 15:00, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Caution:Fencepost! &bull; Lingzhi&diams;(talk) 16:01, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I knew there'd be a name for it! Johnbod (talk) 16:14, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Good call. This is why I don't do maths articles. :) Kafka Liz (talk) 18:19, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The exact dates are 12 October 1798 — 23 October 1805. Technically, seven years and 11 days, but I can't imagine anyone quibbling. – iridescent  23:16, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Liz feels very stupid, but she'll heal. Kafka Liz (talk) 09:30, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Seems to be featured a LOT on the homepage
Is there a big William Etty fan pushing his work on the featured article / did you know sections? I never seem to see the end of the man and his work these days. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BollyDave (talk • contribs) 10:58, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I guess it makes a change from people complaining there are too many hurricanes and video games. BollyDave, Talk:Main Page is where you want to go to complain that the main page features too many birds/paintings/Bach cantatas/rivers of Pennsylvania etc. – iridescent 12:22, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Quibbles
Outstanding work! Two quibbles:
 * "Other forms of painting such as portraiture and landscapes were considered lesser styles, as they did not give the artist as much opportunity to illustrate a story but instead were simply depictions of reality" - one might add/change that the important thing was considered to be that they were not thought to require the artist to use his imagination, which was considered essential for the highest level in the hierarchy of genres.
 * I prefer the original wording from Fancy Dress Ball of History painting was much more highly regarded as an art form; portrait painting was seen as reflecting nature whereas history painting involved more creativity and also gave the artist the opportunity to tell moral lessons. but was trying not to cut-and-paste. Feel free to reword it. – iridescent 17:04, 7 August 2015 (UTC)


 * That puddingy Reynolds of a teenager is rather unfair (to both artist and subject) as representative of his work. Commons has plenty of better alternatives, many at better quality. Johnbod (talk) 15:13, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, but that one is chosen intentionally; the subjects are the parents of Etty's patron Charles Watkin Williams-Wynn (father of Charlotte and Mary). – iridescent 17:04, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, father and grandmother. Johnbod (talk) 17:07, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Good point, but the principle is the same. – iridescent 17:12, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Presumably Charles himself is in this one, which is rather more typical.
 * Feel free to change it if you have an objection to the one currently used, although that one looks a bit blurry to me. – iridescent 17:15, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Fantastic article!!
Wow! Well done!♦ Dr. Blofeld  20:41, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks! At some point I'll take it to FAC, but I want to get at least the most important of his individual painting articles completed first, as at the moment Category:Paintings by William Etty overrepresents history paintings and doesn't give a good reflection of his career. &#8209; iridescent 20:51, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Well it definitely looks FA quality. Yes, the important thing is that it's a great article, sometimes FAC can be a burden as an editor.♦ Dr. Blofeld  10:12, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Just finished looking it over. Really well done! Thanks to all who have worked on it!

Poihths (talk) 13:46, 2 May 2017 (UTC) Poihths (talk) 13:46, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

So WAS Etty sucsessfull or not?
I'm confused about this section:

"Etty earned respect at the Royal Academy of Arts for his ability to paint realistic flesh tones, but had little commercial or critical success. Etty's Cleopatra's Arrival in Cilicia, painted in 1821, featured numerous nudes and was exhibited to great acclaim. Its success prompted several further depictions of historical scenes with nudes. All but one of the works he exhibited at the Royal Academy in the 1820s contained at least one nude figure, and he acquired a reputation for indecency. Despite this, he was commercially successful and critically acclaimed, and in 1828 was elected a Royal Academician, at the time the highest honour available to an artist. "

The first paragraph states he was not sucessful. The second states he was. And where are the references? To fix this I would omit "but had little commercial or critical success" in the first paragraph. He obviously did have critical success because he won the highest honour availiable to and artist.

Mpau0516 (talk) 11:57, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Talking about different periods, which might be made clearer. First not, then yes. Johnbod (talk) 12:22, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 one external links on William Etty. 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 http://web.archive.org/web/20150211030955/http://www.manchestergalleries.org/salvaged/the-painting/ettys-masterpiece/index.html to http://www.manchestergalleries.org/salvaged/the-painting/ettys-masterpiece/index.html
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20150211030418/http://www.manchestergalleries.org/salvaged/the-painting/the-tale-of-ulysses/index.html to http://www.manchestergalleries.org/salvaged/the-painting/the-tale-of-ulysses/index.html
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20150211024803/http://www.manchestergalleries.org/salvaged/the-project/index.html to http://www.manchestergalleries.org/salvaged/the-project/index.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 22:24, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Joan of Arc triptych
Rummaging around in some Cadw records, I came across this for Llantarnam Abbey,. The penultimate sentence says; "On stair wall between first and second floors is William Etty's very large painting of St Joan of Arc dedicating herself to France, exhibited at the Royal Academy 1847 and purchased for £2,500". This doesn't sound like a preliminary study. Sounds like the left panel to me. Possibly worth some further investigation? KJP1 (talk) 17:23, 20 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Yes, it seems that Llantarnam Abbey has the original of the left panel. Is there an image somewhere? And then it appears that the central panel has been held (appropriately, given the subject matter) by the Musée des Beaux-Arts d'Orléans since 1982 (see two images, and Cultural depictions of Joan of Arc; and see the red room in this video at 0:52 and 1:02, and this catalogue entry).  If that is correct, only the right panel is still lost.  A triptych on canvas seems a little peculiar - more of a Bacon thing, although there are precedents such as the Dresden Altarpiece, or the Salvation Triptych - and the curved or pointed tops are odd too, but it is Etty, so... The British Museum has a set of three engravings after the paintings by Charles Wentworth Wass (redlinked engraver), but scans are not online. The Library of Congress only has the third (see image and ).Theramin (talk) 01:01, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Very interesting. I wish I'd known earlier. I was down that way two weeks ago and I could have tried to see it. I'm not seeing any image online but the attribution in the Etty is very clear, despite their misspelling "Abbewy". KJP1 (talk) 09:58, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I see this lists the left panel as being at Llantarnam, Cultural depictions of Joan of Arc. No image unfortunately. I wonder if any of the nuns are Wiki editors. I might just email and ask.KJP1 (talk) 10:08, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Interesting. From memory and I may be wrong but I the one at Orleans is a preparatory sketch rather than the finished panel (with Etty they tend to blur together as he sometimes painted the same thing twice and arbitrarily decided that one was the final work). You can trace the provenance of most of his works by taking Dennis Farr's 1958 inventory and working forwards, but Farr believed that all three panels were lost so is no help here. (A triptych on canvas wouldn't be so odd for Etty; he's a conservationist's nightmare precisely because he didn't stick to standard materials.) Sarah Burnage at the University of York might know if these are the original panels, preliminary studies, or copies either by Etty or students. &#8209; Iridescent 18:04, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
 * The nuns have been in touch. An image may be forthcoming - although in present circumstances, it may be some time. KJP1 (talk) 21:17, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Let me know how you get on with the nuns. I have a nasty feeling we're headed for a Verifiability Not Truth situation here, where the academic source material is saying one thing and even though it's demonstrably untrue we don't have a reliable source (by the WP definition) to say otherwise. If it transpires that this is genuinely the finished panel and not a preliminary cartoon or sketch I may need to dust off the "this is what the sources say but the sources are clearly wrong and WP:NOR be damned" footnote I last used here. &#8209; Iridescent 10:15, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Let me know how you get on with the nuns. I have a nasty feeling we're headed for a Verifiability Not Truth situation here, where the academic source material is saying one thing and even though it's demonstrably untrue we don't have a reliable source (by the WP definition) to say otherwise. If it transpires that this is genuinely the finished panel and not a preliminary cartoon or sketch I may need to dust off the "this is what the sources say but the sources are clearly wrong and WP:NOR be damned" footnote I last used here. &#8209; Iridescent 10:15, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Will do. The nuns prefer to transact business by post, rather than email, so I have written today, and sent a separate email with embedded links. They were interested to learn where I'd seen the picture mentioned. Anyway, the abbey is now shut up tight and the archivist, who lives off-site, cannot visit, so I suspect it will be a while. Appreciate the concerns re. both OR and Verifiability, but it will be very interesting to learn if it is the finished article. A long time ago, I did the article on this, where this was found, after going missing for about 100 years! KJP1 (talk) 12:07, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm sure I saw that very painting in the National Gallery of Scotland a few years back, although I can't think what it was doing there or why I should have googled that first... . &#8209; Iridescent 13:09, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
 * At the risk of having something thrown at me, I prefer The Icebergs to Etty’s work! Just a little too overblown for my taste, and I say that as a Burges devotee. You may not have seen the chat on Tim Riley’s Talkpage some time back, but I think there’s definitely an FA on Buckingham Street. An absolutely galaxy of stars lived there including, at different times, Etty and WB. KJP1 (talk) 13:51, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Etty is an odd case; about one work in twenty is a work of genius, but most of it is technically wonderful but painful to look it. (He suffers in a way because so many of his lesser works survive; if we still had 1000+ ropey oil sketches by the Renaissance artists such that every provincial gallery had a low-quality doodle by Titian or Leonardo, their reputations would suffer as well.) It's not helped by the Tate taking Youth & Pleasure, Musidora and Candaules out of their rotation, meaning his two highest-profile works nowadays are the vile The Sirens and Ulysses, and the awful version of Pandora Crowned By The Seasons (which I swear I'll someday get around to writing) at the entrance to the Birmingham Art Gallery. His significance (which I tried to convey in this biography) isn't so much his works, but the way in which (along with his contemporaries Turner and Constable) he made experimentation, symbolism, foreign influence, and Catholic/High Church iconography acceptable in England—it's the great irony of his life that he died just before the PRB (who explicitly credited him as an influence even though they loathed his later work) took off. Think of him as John the Baptist to the Victorian tradition(s), or as Moses leading the Royal Academy out of the English School and into the Industrial Revolution. &#8209; Iridescent 14:37, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps I was too elliptical above. My first link above was to Leonard Robinson's William Etty: The Life and Art, published in 2007, which on page 319 says "The paintings soon disappeared and their whereabouts were still unknown when Farr published his biography in 1958. Since then the central canvas came unexpectedly on the market in 1982 and was bought by the Musée des Beaux Arts, Orléans, and the first has been discovered in a convent in Wales. The third painting is known only through prints." I have no reason to think that is wrong, and from the images of the one in Orléans above it looks like a finished work to me. Robinson was published by McFarland so presumably reasonably reliable, and I haven't yet found anyone disagreeing or contradicting that claim later, although Etty scholarship seems a bit thin on the ground. But I defer to our resident expert... Theramin (talk) 23:26, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Ah, now I'm with you; most Google Books links (including that one) don't work here so when people link them one has to infer their content from context. I have a print copy of Robinson and will update the relevant text about JoA—I generally treated him as a last resort when writing this as he doesn't always make it clear what's sourced and what's his own conjecture, but in this case there's no reason to doubt him. &#8209; Iridescent 08:42, 26 March 2020 (UTC)