Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Red Fuji

Red Fuji

 * Reason:A great facsimile of one of the most famous Japanese ukiyo-e prints depicting Mt. Fuji.
 * Articles this image appears in:36 Views of Mount Fuji (Hokusai)
 * Creator:Katsushika Hokusai


 * Support as nominator TorsodogTalk 04:41, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose the original might have some EV, but a facsimilie made by an unknown person at an unknown time just doesn't qualify. --Uncle Bungle (talk) 23:46, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Ukiyo-e prints are not like paintings. An "original" may or may not exist. The entire purpose of these prints were that they were able to be mass-produced. Furthermore, this would not be the first reproduction of a Ukiyo-e print that is a FP, so I don't really see the problem here. --TorsodogTalk 02:10, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Unknown creator + unknown date == unknown EV. --Uncle Bungle (talk) 10:58, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Since I don't know if this was made in 1930 or 2003, from the original blocks, recut blocks or a laserjet 3600, I challenge every aspect of the encyclopaedic value of this image. --Uncle Bungle (talk) 20:51, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I suggest you take a look at the image's page. If you had, you would notice that it states that the facsimile dates back to 1930. --TorsodogTalk 00:24, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The image page also indicates the the author is unknown, as stated in my original remarks. --Uncle Bungle (talk) 02:05, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, because recording the author of a completely faithful reproduction is pointless. Obviously you aren't going to change your opinion, so I suggest we just leave it at that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Torsodog (talk • contribs) 21:27, 1 October 2008
 * As pointless as the phrase "completely faithful" when the author is unknown. I am not confident my opinion is the one requiring change.`I feel obligated to continue defending it until I am adequately dissuaded or it is no longer challenged. --Uncle Bungle (talk) 02:58, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * OK. Take a look at this print. It is another ukiyo-e print by the same artist, Hokusai, from the same print series. Like this FAC, it is also a modern reproduction as stated by the LoC (though clearly older and of a lesser quality). The artist or company that reproduced the work is not mentioned by the LoC, nor is the year that the work was reproduced. Would you also deem this picture unencyclopedic because of this? --TorsodogTalk 03:53, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Then there is this print. It is, again, from the same series, same artist, except this time this is apparently an original print. Despite the horrible quality of the print, do you deem this one more encyclopedia than a more modern reproduction because it is an original? --TorsodogTalk 04:00, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Of course the second print can not be featured, but yes, it carries much more EV than the first, because it is an original. If I made a "faithful" reproduction in paint and put it up here, would you so eagerly support it? I think not. I see no difference. --Uncle Bungle (talk) 04:34, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Did you really just compare this reproduction to you reproduction the print yourself? If you don't see difference between you painting a picture and a profession recreating a woodblock, then you are either grossly exaggerating in an attempt to make some sort of point or you obviously don't know what you are talking about. --TorsodogTalk 06:30, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I was referring to Microsoft Paint. I've grown very tired of your hostility. --Uncle Bungle (talk) 14:44, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but that link is a temporary URL. You need to get the one from the bottom of LOC bibliography page (example: http://hdl.loc.gov/loc.pnp/cph.3g04938).  howcheng  {chat} 06:17, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah, thanks. Let's try this again. --TorsodogTalk 12:13, 2 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Weak Support. This is truer to the original than a faded and degraded first edition print would be.  It's a moderately big print, so a higher resolution would be an improvement, but visually this is how the print is generally presented in art books (rather than a photo of a surviving original), and from an EV perspective I think it's necessary, since new prints, either from original or recut blocks, were how Hokusai's work became widely known and studied. Unlike with paintings, ukiyo-e are probably more significant as designs than artifacts.  (edit-conflicted with Torsodog's reply)--ragesoss (talk) 02:15, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Support. May I suggest to Uncle Bungle to read Ukiyo-e. The value is in how the resulting print looks, regardless of the woodblock carver or the printer. So unlike in Western painting, where a forgery of a work of art is worthless and/or unwanted, Japanese woodblock printing encouraged the mass production of these works.  howcheng  {chat} 21:32, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Support -- clean copy of a classic Hokusai masterwork. --Pete Tillman (talk) 03:42, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Question: the picture has many white dots and lines when viewed at a higher resolution. Is that because of the paper used or the printing method? Intothewoods29 (talk) 20:40, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * From what I know about these prints, I would have to say it is because of both the paper and the method. Since these prints are basically the result of giant ink stamps, if the paper has deep enough crevices in some spots, the ink simply does not reach into those small pits when the image is stamped. --TorsodogTalk 20:47, 3 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Support. I think that this image from 1930 and a possibly old erone will look the sam, hence th same EV in both cases. To me it does not matter who made the image or when it was made but what it shows. -- Chris 73 | Talk 07:01, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Support Intothewoods29 (talk) 17:29, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Support I won't say that I'm supporting this just because of Uncle Bungles baseless and stubborn opposition because that would not be doing this picture justice and it is a very well done example and a very encyclopedic example of ukiyo-e and especially as the first of it's kind to be even nominated to my knowledge fits the criteria of a good FP. Cat-five - talk 23:54, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks Cat-five, you're a swell guy/gal. I didn't detect the slightest hint of sarcasm in your remarks. It just amazes me how a high resolution detailed image of a truly unique REAL event like Cyclone Catarina get thrown under the bus, and yet a grainy bit of art is fawned over on the basis of A great facsimile. --Uncle Bungle (talk) 13:45, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 * "a grainy bit of art" - This seems to be where you are a bit biased. If you think the woodblock printing process produces grainy images, you may be correct, but as one of the most important Japanese ukiyo-e prints in existence, the print is still very important and therefore has encyclopedic value. Also, I'm sorry that something you supported failed the nomination process, but it doesn't really have anything to do with this image's nomination. --TorsodogTalk 14:06, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

MER-C 10:11, 7 October 2008 (UTC)