Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Joseph and Potiphar's Wife (etching)

Joseph and Potiphar's Wife (etching)
Voting period ends on 18 Sep 2014  at 16:04:33 (UTC)
 * Reason:Well, y'all wanted more pixels, y'all got more pixels. I blame Belle for teaching me the black magic needed to summon this Rembrandt. Yeah, Belle. All Belle. (Seriously though, high quality scan of a notable engraving, by a very notable artist... made all the more interesting that it's one of only a few of his works that can be classified as "erotica")
 * Articles in which this image appears:Joseph and Potiphar's Wife (etching), List of etchings by Rembrandt
 * FP category for this image:Featured pictures/Artwork/Others, maybe?
 * Creator:Rembrandt


 * Support as nominator – — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:04, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment, I would like to support this but I can't... Crisco, I love you, don't take this personally - but that woman ... is just terrible. Hafspajen (talk) 19:33, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
 * She does seem anatomically... awkward. ;-) &#208;iliff    &#171;&#187;  (Talk)  21:08, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree. There's something off-putting about her, but we'll have to wait to tell Rembrandt about it. Or perhaps it was deliberate... a woman comfortable in her sexuality would have probably been considered deviant in the 17th century, and he may have tried to represent this physically, with a tension which disturbs the viewer. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:37, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
 *  Weak Support - While I agree with both Hafs and Diliff regarding the anatomical awkwardness of the female figure (and am not excited by this particular etching), it is the sole illustration in its own article and appears to be of fairly high quality and resolution. If this grows on me I may go full support later --Godot13 (talk) 21:57, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Okay, it's not that it grew on me as much as I don't buy my own reasoning- whether I like the image or not it's well made, has EV, and perfectly illustrates the article written about it.--Godot13 (talk) 00:06, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Support as I'm getting the blame for it. I don't see anything particularly wrong with the woman, Joseph seems more contorted, but it is more about the quality of the image and its value to the encyclopedia which are both fine (that's a bit weak; both good; both excellent). Belle (talk) 22:56, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Sorry - but this is not one of Rembrandt's best works. He was a great master, but he had sometimes the unhappy tendency to draw in an uncertain way. We do all excuse this, because he was a superb colorist, but the truth is that he was an artist who couldn't draw with the same accuracy as the other great artists- Rubens, Michelangelo, Durer, and so on - this is one of his works demonstrating it - not the best of his production. Hafspajen (talk) 09:43, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Rembrandt's less impressive work could still have EV I suppose, because it shows his weaknesses rather than the usual strengths that are showcased with artists. Featured Pictures aren't always about the most beautiful subjects. &#208;iliff    &#171;&#187;  (Talk)  09:52, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I am not against Crisco at all. And it is not because it is uggly. This is in my oppinion a low quality work of Rembrand. There are so many other great etching we can chose from... File:Rembrandt - The windmill - Google Art Project.jpg, - File:Rembrandt van Rijn - An Old Man with a Beard, Fur Cap, and Velvet Cloak - Google Art Project.jpg File:B205 Rembrandt.jpg File:B202 Rembrandt.jpg (therese are not big enough, but just to show) File:Rembrandt van Rijn - Jupiter and Antiope - Google Art Project.jpg File:Rembrandt Harmensz. van Rijn - Christ with the Sick around Him, Receiving Little Children (The 'Hundred Guilder Print') - Google Art Project.jpg Hafspajen (talk) 10:18, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Maybe terrible was not an explanation. The womans leggs are distorted, twist out of a natural, normal,  original shape. Hafspajen (talk) 10:27, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't think anyone's saying you're against me. Although the quality of the work is low (by Rembrandt's standards... I'll be damned if I can draw like this), the fact that the work has its own article means the encyclopedic value is there. I rather like the one of the old man, but without an article on the etching, it doesn't have that much EV. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:33, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, I can draw like this. (Not Rembrand's style, but my style. different, but basics are always same - and the anatomical correctness is one criteria.) And I am still saying that it is not anatomically correct. Hafspajen (talk) 10:48, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Nobody's saying that it is... — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:52, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
 * It is not among the best examples of a given subject that the encyclopedia has to offer. Not among Rembrand's etchings and not among the subjects representations. Again, please don't take it personal. I do like you a lot. Hafspajen (talk) 10:54, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not taking it personal. I'm trying to understand how you're approaching this. I'm not seeing how it is not the best example of "Joseph and Potiphar's Wife (etching)" that Wikipedia has to offer. When the original work is already "not anatomically correct", any reproduction will have the same fault. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:59, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
 * What if we define the subject not as merely 'Rembrandts' (of which this is certainly not one of the best) but 'Rembrandts that are not well drawn, well known or appreciated'. Then surely it's one of the best examples. ;-) It's all about what you want to illustrate. Anyway, I'm not intending to harrass you, just engaging in friendly debate to stimulate the discussion! I'll bow out now. &#208;iliff    &#171;&#187;  (Talk)  10:59, 9 September 2014 (UTC)


 * No, no, this is not harrasment, I can tell the difference... . We discuss. Is not the best example of "Joseph and Potiphar's Wife see Potiphar... And not Rembrands best etching, (article or not).  That's all. Hafspajen (talk) 11:02, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Except the subject is not "Joseph and Potiphar's Wife" (the Bible story). It is "Joseph and Potiphar's Wife (etching)", the etching by Rembrandt. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:05, 9 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Support Like it or not, this is undeniably a fine illustration for its article. Samsara (FA • FP) 03:23, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Support - the article on the subject means that the artistic merit doesn't matter so much. Adam Cuerden (talk) 07:02, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

--Armbrust The Homunculus 16:16, 18 September 2014 (UTC)