Original - Lofty Mount Lu, by Chinese artist Shen Zhou, 15th century
Reason
Lofty Mount Lu, by
Ming Dynasty, who decided to depict Mount Lu in this most famous painting of his. If you look close enough, you'll see a tiny figure of a man strolling about in the painting; like Waldo
, you should try to find him! (Hint: he blends in well). Lol. This picture violates no FP criteria that I'm aware of, and is 908 × 1,806 pixels in size.
Question. Is the Chinese text legible? Is a translation available? Spikebrennan (talk) 13:59, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. I am only a 2nd-year speaker and writer of Chinese (中文 and 漢字, respectively), so I can only make out a few characters. It is especially hard to read it because I believe it is written in traditional or Literary Chinese (文言). Let me go see if I can get a translation of this. Thanks for showing interest!--Pericles of AthensTalk 14:37, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Found it! Well, not a direct translation, but the gist of it at least. From this online source, quote: "This painting was produced when [Shen Zhou] was forty one to celebrate the longevity of his master Ch'en K'uan. According to the epigraph composed by himself, the main peak of Mount Lu represents his master whom he reveres. The work is a masterpiece in which Shen Chou's art is condensed." Just a note: the spelling "Shen Chou" here is
Comment Judging this against similar featured content it's really quite small. Is there any chance of a bigger version? --mikaultalk 13:31, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's an excellent question. Doing a quick Google image search shows that there are other versions online, but most are either much smaller, or only a tad bit larger but of lesser quality (i.e. paler, less refined). I do believe this is the best available image of this painting on the net. It is sharp, clear, and the lighting is perfect.--Pericles of AthensTalk 14:44, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I see your rationale but the big issue here is actual reproduction quality, not a representation of what happens to be available online. The original is almost certainly a magnificent piece, all of 2m tall and (apparently, though it's far from clear) very well painted. Here it would barely print out at the size of this thumbnail. If a work of art is to not only represent itself well, but also the encyclopedia, we need a much better reproduction than this. It's for this reason that we don't have FPs of most of the major classic western paintings, for example. Not your fault, just the way it is. --mikaultalk 22:13, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support The size is okay and is beyond the requirement for FP, but I'd like to see a sharper image than the current one (or, the nominator could adjust it with Photoshop) Caspian blue 16:25, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi User:Caspian blue (don't forget to sign your name when voting! ~~~~). I have this "Photo Impression" thing on my computer, but I never use it and am not very good with touching up photos. I'll leave that to the pros! As I am certainly below an amateur in that department. Regards.--Pericles of AthensTalk 16:38, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I added my forgotten sig and time stamp, and removed the unnecessary bold marks from your calling since I'm not a subject of the page. :) Well, until somebody fixs the problem, I stick to "Weak support".--Caspian blue 16:56, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
