Talk:Flaming June

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Visual arts This article is within the scope of WikiProject Visual arts, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of visual arts on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Visual artsWikipedia:WikiProject Visual artsTemplate:WikiProject Visual artsvisual arts articles Puerto Rico Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Puerto Rico, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics related to Puerto Rico on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Puerto RicoWikipedia:WikiProject Puerto RicoTemplate:WikiProject Puerto RicoPuerto Rico articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

The painting was honored in song by Paul Weller on his "Stanley Road" album - Anyone have any more information about this, i.e. which song or lyric is in reference to the painting? I can't find any info about it online. Esk (talk) 05:43, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't Paul Weller a really obscure person? Gingermint (talk) 04:35, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am a little bit afraid that you aren't kidding... but I suppose it is possible that you are using the word 'obscure' in some nonstandard manner. But, just in case:

Paul Weller is considered to the "the principal figure of the 1970s and 80s mod revival and is often referred to as the Modfather" (quoted from the previous link) and his band The Jam is one of the most influential bands from England over the course of many musical genres (rock, punk, Mod revival, post-punk, and new wave) from the early 70s through the present... bands from The Clash to The Pixies to Nirvana to Oasis name-drop The Jam as an important influence. Aside from the really big names like The Beatles and Bowie and the Rolling Stones, The Jam's influence on other bands has been said to be second only to The Kinks/Ray Davies. The Jam had 18 consecutive Top 40 singles in the UK, 4 of which reached #1, and they are the only band other than The Beatles to be invited to perform two songs in one episode of Top of the Pops

.

THEN Weller started over with The Style Council for the rest of the 80s. They were less influential but by no means 'obscure'... 19 of their 21 singles hit the Top 40s in the UK.

THEN Weller's solo career - from 1990 to the present - took off. The album referenced in this article - Stanley Road - hit the top of the UK charts and is the best-selling album (currently Quadruple Platinum) of his by no means 'obscure' career. It was voted the 46th greatest album of all time by Q Magazine, a UK music mag that can't seem to make up its mind if it is more like Rolling Stone or Pitchfork but is in no way obscure itself.

In 2006 Weller won the Lifetime Achievement Award at the

CBE

) but he turned down the offer. In 2009 he got the BRIT award for Best Male Solo Artist. Of Weller's 10 solo albums, 3 reached #1, 5 reached #2, 1 reached #4, and 1 reached #8 in the UK... before what his WP entry calls his 2008-present "Critical Success" period... after all of the other stuff, after almost 40 years of influencing British music very directly and, by diffusion, US music as well.

SO: you be the judge: is he "obscure"?

24.21.189.34 (talk) 12:03, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In all the years the painting has been exhibited and enthused about, has no reviewer taken note of the fact that the poor woman's left thighbone is not only half again as long as the right, but crooked as well? If anyone can trace a respectable source commenting on that fact (it's overwhelmingly likely that there must have been some), please refer to it in the article. Freederick (talk) 12:01, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your so-called "fact" appears to be a product of your imagination and limited knowledge of perspective and anatomy. Perhaps there are reliable sources commenting on that?

And, incidentally, you probably meant "failure" (noun), rather than "fail" (verb). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.118.41.69 (talk) 22:18, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Please allow me to relate a topical anecdote. In 1960 the British Cartoonist “Giles” published a cartoon entitled “Flaming June” It was a satirical piece, aimed at a philistine society that failed to appreciate ‘Fine Art’ A recent Auction Sale had an item of singular note, that failed to reach it’s reserve of $140, regrettably my internet search has been unable so far, to locate the Lot number of the sale, but I was in luck with the Giles Cartoon:- http://www.cartoons.ac.uk/record/GAA141747

We believe it was a London Auction, but need confirmation of this, In any case the story goes that Sir Fredrick Lord Leighton P.R.A. ‘s magnificent painting “Flaming June” exquisitely framed by Arnold Wiggins & Sons, was the inspiration for Giles’s satire! It was picked up by an interior decorator/dealer just for the frame. He had a standing order with the Auction House to let him have good frames from Lots that failed to reach reserve. His clients, mostly American, used to convert them to barroom mirrors. The painting itself was thrown in the trash. where art students often rummaged for old canvases. They would sand them down with a Black & Decker, reprime them and paint some abstract monstrocity. Fortunately this canvas was spotted, and found it’s way to Ampsterdam…Wikipedia pick up the story:- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flaming_June Art Historians will confirm that about 75% of all the Old Master paintings are lost forever, most of them put on bonfires, in a clear-out. When Leighton’s “Flaming June” became ‘fashionable’ once again, the Gallery that owned it, tried to negotiate the re-purchase of the frame…No dice!…so they asked Arnold Wiggins and Sons if they could find a suitable frame. “No problem! we have the original drawings to work from, Sir Frederick was after all The President of The Roayal Academy!” ….PHILISTINES! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alastair Carnegie (talk • contribs) 16:44, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"The transparent material worn by the sleeping woman – through which her right nipple can be seen clearly – is typical of Leighton's artistic predilections"

Right nipple? Really?! Is this another example of USofA prurience? Yes, parts of human bodies can, indeed, be seen in pictures of humans. And you're surprised? Consider it worthy of comment? Perhaps you would care to point out that a nose, leg, eye, etc., etc., can "be seen clearly". This adolescent POV is a joke to most of the civilised, educated world.

And as for "artistic predilections", (i) in what possible sense is this a predilection? (ii) in what sense would it be (were it to be a predilection) an "artistic" one?

It is comments such this that so clearly distinguish between the anyone-can-have-a-go "editorship" of Wikipedia and the educated, literate editorship of a real encyclopaedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.118.19.182 (talk) 22:31, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Though you might be correct, I see you made no attempt to fix the offending phrase in over a year. It is comments like this which are the reason Wikipedia is not, and will never be, perfect. Plenty of people with time to spare thumbing their nose at imperfect articles, but lack the minute-and-a-half it would take to fix the problem. Alt lys er svunnet hen (talk) 20:55, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"The transparent material worn by the sleeping woman – through which her right nipple can be seen clearly – is typical of Leighton's artistic predilections"

Leaving aside "artistic predilections", whatever that is supposed to convey, being such a general term in the absence of clarification, what can be seen in this sentence, "clearly", is the US-ian predilection to focus on a normal part of the human anatomy in a schoolboy-like, guilty-but-naughty, tittering way. You didn't choose to mention fingers, toes, knees, ears, hair or any other standard part of a standard human being as a focus for "artistic predilections", though you might equally have done so. What you are commenting upon is not "artistic predilections" but your own predilections moulded by your upbringing and society.

For goodness sake grow up and learn to keep your own suppressed childishness to yourself rather than presuming to have an insight into the thoughts of an adult artist, neither of which you seem to be. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.130.99.194 (talk) 07:29, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 14:20, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Flaming June, by Frederic Lord Leighton (1830-1896).jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on September 15, 2016. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2016-09-15. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 04:28, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Picture of the day

Flaming June is a painting by Sir Frederic Leighton created in 1895. Painted with oil paints on a 47-by-47-inch (1,200 mm × 1,200 mm) square canvas, it is considered to be Leighton's magnum opus, showing his classicist nature. It has been interpreted as alluding to the figures of sleeping nymphs and naiads, with the toxic oleander branch in the top right symbolizing the fragile link between sleep and death. The painting is held by the Museo de Arte de Ponce in Ponce, Puerto Rico.Painting: Frederic Leighton

Archive – More featured pictures...