Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Whistler Selbstporträt.jpg

James Abbott McNeill Whistler

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 31 Jan 2011 at 04:04:12 (UTC)

Reason

High resolution self-portrait of an important artist. You can see the brush strokes clearly, no noticeable noise. Photo of the artwork comes from the

Detroit Institute of Art

(where the painting is located) so the colors should be reasonably correct.

Articles in which this image appears

James Abbott McNeill Whistler

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Artwork/Paintings

Creator

James Abbott McNeill Whistler

• Support as nominator --
  chat} 04:04, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Support. Could also fit in the people category; serves the double whammy of illustrating the person and the painting style. J Milburn (talk) 09:53, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Whereas painting is something I certainly can’t do and Whistler is better than many artists, there are many oil paintings out there that have truly stunning, eye-catching qualities such as keen attention to light & shadow. This painting looks like a self-portrait of him while he was hiding in an attic, where the only light was filtering in from a gable vent. I’m not seeing how it is eye-catching. That it is a self-portrait of Whistler is certainly interesting, but one has to read the caption to ascertain that bit. Greg L (talk) 17:00, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looking at the images in the article, most of Whistler's paintings are in relatively flat light with muted colours. I don't think it's right to oppose because of the way an artist paints. Cowtowner (talk) 18:23, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • ¿ It’s not right to oppose a painting for being an FP because an individual voter doesn’t like the look of how an artist paints??? (*Gee…*) If we had WP:Featured Poems, would it be *wrong* of me to oppose a nom because I think the poem isn’t at all appealing to me (sucks), only to find that all his work is in the same style? I’m tempted to nominate a painting here that I consider to exhibit breathtaking use of detailed light & shadow but will pass for the moment now that I’ve diss’d Whistler and there’s hard feelings over how I was very bad here. Greg L (talk) 19:25, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

      P.S. Oh, what the hell… Balthasar Denner’s “Old woman” is my idea of a painting that catches the eye for its stunning quality and the way he used light and shadow and captured the irradiance of the skin. But then, here at FPC, everyone’s an expert. ;-) Greg L (talk) 19:33, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

      • Please read the
        chat} 21:02, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply
        ]
        • Come-on, Howcheng; stop treating me like I’m “new” here; m‘kay?. Featured Pictures on the Main Page should not assume that the reader will instantly recognize this as one of Whistler’s works and how that somehow makes it special. That much is pretty much a fundamental principle of Wikipedia, as revealed at
          WP:NOT, which states A Wikipedia article should not be presented on the assumption that the reader is well versed in the topic's field. The same principle would clearly apply to a picture on the Main Page, where we are hoping for two seconds of neuron attention from the atttention-defict-afflicted Internet crowd. Featured pictures should be sufficiently eye-catching that readers will *stop* what they’re doing and take the time to read the caption. I apparently don’t think showing a work that is an example of tonalism is a good way of accomplishing that objective. The picture looks like the U.S. Army’s camouflage R&D team has been busy working on it. Greg L (talk) 21:34, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply
          ]
          • Bla, Bla, Bla... I however Support this.--
            T 22:54, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply
            ]
            • Greg, my comment was not intended to be condescending; sorry if I implied such a thing. However, I think the sentence you quoted isn't quite applicable here -- my interpretation of that statement is that we need to provide context and not just throw things out there, assuming the reader (or viewer in this case) will just be able to absorb it. The POTD blurb will of course be written to provide such context.
              chat} 05:56, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply
              ]
• Support Per nom. Cowtowner (talk) 18:21, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support
  WP:IDONTLIKEIT is a bad argument to make. One should also note the use of "or" in the criteria. JJ Harrison (talk) 22:00, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • It’s not a simple matter, JJ, of
    WP:IDONTLIKEIT; I (twice) stated that I don’t find it sufficiently eye-catching that it meets the FPC criteria. Please don’t personalize the voting here; that is not too much to ask. Judging FP candidates is a highly subjective affair without the extra tedium of editors criticizing the reasoning of others who have the hubris to disagree with you; particularly when they resort to BS back-handed misrepresentations of the other editor’s reasoning. As for the “or” in the voting criteria, everything is shades of gray in real life. Placing too much emphasis on one thing to the extent that “eye-catching” suffers too much is unwise. I’m quite done here now debating this since you, JJ Harrison, elected to employ cheap stunts to be combative. Goodbye to you. Greg L (talk) 22:45, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • As I see four people commenting upon your opinion, I think it is unfair to single out one here. I also re-read the Criteria and found "eye-catching" does not appear among them. However, good caption does. Rmhermen (talk) 00:21, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Read the first sentence in the blue-div at the top of the FPC page. “Featured pictures are images that add significantly to articles, either by illustrating article content particularly well, or being eye-catching to the point where users will want to read its accompanying article.” Yeah, as JJ pointed out, that’s an “or” in that mission statement. But in this nom, I see too much sacrifice being made to the eye-catching part. You guys go vote how you want. We’re obviously not going to see eye-to-eye on this one. Greg L (talk) 00:27, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • You wrote, Please don’t personalize the voting here. Might I remind you to please follow your own advice and not assume facts not evidence (you ... elected to employ cheap stunts to be combative).
          chat} 05:56, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply
          ]
          • Greg, if we take for granted that tonalism by definition entails the traits which you criticise in this picture, then how could any tonalist picture meet the criteria? If you're willing to bite the bullet and accept that no tonalist picture could, then you're saying that an entire school of fine art is not worthy of recognition as examples of "Wikipedia's best work". I understand your argument, but this does look to be straying dangerously close to "I personally don't like this type of art, so I don't think we should feature it". J Milburn (talk) 15:53, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]