Talk:Zhenya Gershman

Rembrandt self-portrait
John Deen asked me for comments on his changes at my talk page. Admittedly my French isn't the best, but I don't see how Le Monde supports the claim that there was some controversy. It explicitly says that after the two initial responses there was no reaction whatsoever, and goes on to discuss why there was no wider reaction. Further, Jon Deen's text makes it sound as if Gershman's interpretation were fact when that doesn't seem to be supported by Le Monde. I also don't see how, even assuming the veracity of Gershman's claims, "discovery of a hidden self-portrait" is correct; the figure supposed to be Rembrandt was obvious enough, not hidden at all, and only the interpretation of the figure being Rembrandt was new. Huon (talk) 11:03, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Huon. That is one of the intriguing parts of Gershman's discovery. Though the figure was obvious no one was able to identify it correctly. Instead the Rembrandt scholars have confused it to be an "old maid" not only being wrong in the identification of a subject but even the attribution of gender! Le Monde points out the "Rembrandt Mafia" that holds on to how they want to define Rembrandt. And as the article points out, Gershman is not afraid to challenge this, and did receive encouragement from David Bomford, then acting director ofThe J. Paul Getty Museum "femme”, “la vieille gardienne”… » N’y tenant plus, Zhenya Gershman demande rendez-vous au directeur du Musée Getty, David Bomford: «David est un conservateur et un restaurateur mondialement connu. Il a travaillé sur des tableauxdeRembrandtàlaNationalGallery de Londres. J’ai pris mon courage à deux mains et je lui ai demandé rendez-vous pour parler de ma recherche. Qui mieux que lui (qui a littéralement peint sur des tableaux de Rembrandt) pouvait être intimement lié à ce sujet ? En préparant cette réunion,j’aiesquissé un plan dema théorie dans une analyse visuelle préliminaire. J’étais effrayée. Je craignais que David ne tire un livre de son étagère et dise: “Ne savez-vous pas qu’un tel ou un tel a découvert ça depuis longtemps ?” Ou qu’au contraire, puisque aucune autorité majeure ne le mentionne, il pense que j’étais hors piste en proposant cela. A ma surprise, David a été fasciné par mon observation et ma recherche. Sans refuser ni soutenir pleinement ma théorie, il m’a encouragée à écrire un article et à le soumettre à une revue d’histoire de l’art. Cette rencontre m’a fait pousser des ailes. »Jon Deen (talk) 12:07, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Huon what changes would you suggest to make this acceptable to you as an editor without dismissing Gershman? Thank you for staying open.Jon Deen (talk) 12:28, 24 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Here are some current books on Rembrandt's Danaë:
 * A Corpus of Rembrandt Paintings: 1635–1642 by J. Bruyn, B. Haak, S.H. Levie, P.J.J. van Thiel, E. van de Wetering (eds.), published by Springer in 2013. It describes the figure in the background as an "old woman (identifiable as Danae's nurse)" and discusses that figure's history.
 * Vermeer's Family Secrets: Genius, Discovery, and the Unknown Apprentice by Benjamin Binstock, published by Routledge in 2014. It describes the figure in the background as an "old nurse with masculine features that holds the curtain" and discusses which real person may have served as inspiration.
 * These works postdate Gershman's article by years. The author of the second is an adjunct professor specializing in Renaissance painting. The books are published with highly reputable publishers. I see no reason to doubt they represent the mainstream of current Rembrandt scholarship after Gershman's paper. Her theory isn't even discussed, much less accepted. Thus Wikipedia should not present it as fact. Le Monde itself says nothing about the "Mafia" but only quotes Gershman to that effect, unless I'm mistaken. Even the excerpt from Le Monde you give above, another lengthy Gershman quote, says that Bomford "encouraged [Gershman] to write an article and submit it to a magazine on art history", but that he didn't fully endorse her theory. Now it's entirely possible that Gershman made a major discovery that the scholarly mainstream so far has ignored, but it's equally possible that Gershman is wrong. Wikipedia should not take sides here; it should not endorse her theory as fact when no reliable third-party sources do so; it should not present a paper that was largely ignored as "causing a controversy". Huon (talk) 14:30, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Is mentioning her discovery "endorsing"? She has observed it and published it in Arion Boston University. Not mentioning it would be ignoring the fact. It's an established respected journal for art history and classics. And it has been highlighted as a feature article in Le Monde. The article simply states her contribution. I will remove the part about controversy to follow your guidance. In any case this should not color your judgment on her contribution as an artist. Thank you for reviewing the article as it has been up-dated based on your insights. Jon Deen (talk) 16:37, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Carefully reworded for neutrality, and without arriving at a "conclusion". FeatherPluma (talk) 23:52, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Zhenya Gershman. 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/20150525224408/http://www.arteallimite.com/revista/72/russia--painting--zhenya-gershman to http://www.arteallimite.com/revista/72/russia--painting--zhenya-gershman

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 15:14, 21 July 2016 (UTC)