Jump to content

Talk:Gustave Courbet

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Rewrite

[edit]

The previous version of this article was lifted from http://www.artrenewal.org/asp/database/art.asp?aid=746

I've rewritten it and added to it from other sources.

--sparkit (talk) 22:35, May 2, 2005 (UTC)

i need help..i have a report due on him.. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.12.116.66 (talk • contribs) .

Courbet and the Cubist Painters

[edit]

I've reverted Coldcreation for the following reasons:

If the section belongs in the article at all - and I think it does - it belongs at the top, in association with the Realism section. It links Courbet to the Cubists - this is essential material, not an afterthought. Coldcreation's preferred location puts it entirely out of context.

Secondly, adding the information from 1912 is perhaps accurate, but entirely superfluous. Let's keep the article as concise as possible, without being pedantic - and pedantry is what it amounts to. Do you understand? 36hourblock (talk) 22:39, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A Cubist influence section should be chronologically towards the end of the article, after the Courbet Biography section. This article is after all about Courbet's and his work. Those who were influenced by him were active later (and they were far from Realism incidentally).
Secondly, adding the information from 1912 is certainly more accurate (not superfluous as you claim). The Cubist manifesto was not Apollinaire's 1913 Les Peintres Cubistes, but Du "Cubisme" of 1912 (within which Courbet is mentioned in the first paragraph). It was indeed Metzinger and Gleizes, prior to Apollinaire, that declared Courbet the father of all modern art. In fact, the Cubist's were departing from the superficial reality of Courbet. Understanding Cézanne had been far more important than Courbet in the years leading toward Cubism. And once underway, it was the work of Seurat, with its flatter, more linear structures, that would capture the attention of the Cubists.
Thirdly, on pedantry: "The term, then, is obviously a relative one: my pedantry is your scholarship, his reasonable accuracy, her irreducible minimum of education and someone else’s ignorance."—H. W. Fowler Coldcreation (talk) 23:17, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Frankly the section belongs toward the end of the article. I agree with Coldcreation's placement...Modernist (talk) 00:58, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Same here. It's out of context near the top, and dovetails with 'Admiration', which could be retitled as legacy or influence. JNW (talk) 01:03, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
First and foremost the article presents Courbet and his accomplishments as an artist; and his biographical and political impact on his contemporaneous universe. His influence on the younger artists of the next generation - Manet, Monet, takes place long before anything to do with the impact of 19th and 20th century modernism. Cubism comes long after the end of Courbet...Modernist (talk) 01:10, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Agree—better to discuss 20th-century developments after Monet and Leibl. Ewulp (talk) 11:48, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly, I've mobilized Fortress Courbet.

No matter. What is significant is that we've included the information, from an excellent source. The missing section on Courbet/Cubism alerted me, and my assumption was that the editors were ignorant of the historical connection. Glad to provide it. 36hourblock (talk) 22:39, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It really isn't essential; maybe we should delete it...Modernist (talk) 23:56, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If the section is not "essential", why has it persisted for over five years? Why not just "delete" it, as Modernaire suggests? Any comment, Coldcut? --38.126.242.222 (talk) 19:01, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As a non-art major, the current discussion of GC's influence on Cubism leaves me baffled. The pictures in this article are almost photographic, whereas Cubist pictures are anything but. What is the connection?76.126.195.34 (talk) 02:01, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Posting as per User:Femkemilene's request:

My attempt to move the "Courbet and Cubism" section has been reverted. There is a history of opposition to this section, of which the editor who recently reverted the section participated. The appropriateness of moving the section into the main body of the article seems to me to be self-evident. I'd like to obtain an third person evaluation of the section and its source, and its proper placement within the article before resorting to a Dispute Resolution. Gustave Courbet

The editor who reverted declined to visit the talk page after I invited them to do so.

Allow me to add that my interest here is not simply asserting an opinion regarding Gustave Courbet and his influence on Cubism, but a more general principle concerning Wikipedia and its fidelity to sources.

I advise the third person participant to carefully view the article as I edited it, not the existing reverted format.--CerroFerro (talk) 19:29, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I declined to visit the talk page after you invited me to do so because the arguments against your edit have already been made by several editors on this page during nine years in which the Cubist section's placement has been stable. A section about 20th-century Cubism and its debt to Cézanne and Courbet belongs with the legacy section if it belongs at all; it does not belong in Courbet's biography between events of 1855 and events of 1857. Ewulp (talk) 00:06, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

...if it belongs at all...? User:Femkemilene: This presents an opportunity to expose the nature of the Wiki Establishment (WE). Let's proceed with a third party, then a dispute resolution so more Senior Editors can get their fingerprints on it before the Wiki Star Chamber shuts it down. CerroFerro (talk) 17:47, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:Femkemilene is AWOL. The "several editors" doubt that the section on Courbet and Cubism "belongs at all" in the article and "it really isn't essential; maybe we should delete it." The source for the section is impeccable, but nothing in the way of citations from sources that contradict the material have been has ever been provided. The hostility to this section remains. A Third Opinion is in order. Otherwise you are simply sitting on this site like an incubus. --CerroFerro (talk) 17:43, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fyi: pings don't work if you don't sign in the same edit. I do not have this article watchlisted and have no opinion on the matter. Some discussion has now taken place on talk, so you can try 3O again, but you should focus on content, rather than on editors. (insults will do the opposite of convincing people). It may be better to WP:drop the stick instead, given the historical discussion of this point. Femke (talk) 21:09, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Femke: Your remarks at Talk: Gustave Courbet are counterproductive. There has been no "discussion" because the editors who preside over this page have offered nothing in the way of evidence that the section on "Courbet and Cubism" is inappropriate, though they have insisted for years that it should be removed. No reason has been given, and you know it. Your insinuation that I "insulted" any editor on this matter is, in fact, a covert ad hominem against me. Now deny it.--CerroFerro (talk) 17:27, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

You said that unless an editor does as you'd like (engage further), the 'sit on the website like an incubus'. Maybe I misunderstood, but could you explain how that's not an insult? Femke (talk) 17:39, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

"Engage further" would be to provide source material, as requested, that can discredit the "Courbet and Cubism." None, thus far, has surfaced. This, then, by dear Femke, is your understanding of an "insult." Nonetheless, you have demonstrated, for posterity, the tactics of the Wiki Establishment (WE). --CerroFerro (talk) 17:52, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

The current discussion seems to be more about placement, rather than inclusion. So I think it's rather logical that people don't provide source material. I don't remember interacting with any of the editors involved in this dispute before, and I don't have a stake in the dispute either, so I'm not sure why I would even want to deploy "tactics of the Wiki Establishment". Femke (talk) 18:42, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Femke has continued to engage CerroFerro on Femke's talk page. Let's continue the exchange here. Your "logic" defense is a support for "bad faith" editing. So far none of the editors who contribute to this article have deigned to respond. What about the "placement" matter that you raise. Care to comment on "placement"? If not, stop interfering in this dispute. --CerroFerro (talk) 20:18, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Since 2013, at least five editors (+2 IPs) have commented on the placement you have demanded, and it seems to have escaped your attention that nobody agrees with you. You argue that "the appropriateness of moving the section into the main body of the article seems to me to be self-evident", but it plainly isn't evident to others. The section "Courbet and Cubism" is built entirely upon a remark by Guillaume Apollinaire and the opinions of John Berger. A case can easily be made for including these, but to make so much of what two people said is undue emphasis; there are whole books about Courbet that don't mention Cubism at all (e.g., Gerstle Mack's 488-page bio; the catalogue of the major 2007-08 Courbet exhibition; Courbet in Perspective; & all others I've checked). Looking at the Landscapes: Courbet and Modernism (Getty Publications, 2008) notes that "Courbet's complex oeuvre served as a 'gold mine' for the Modernist generation that followed, for painters like Cézanne, Seurat, Gauguin, and Van Gogh" (p. 4), and links Courbet to other artists as diverse as Pollock and Richter (p 19), but makes no mention of any Cubists. Encyclopedia Britannica does not mention Cubism in its Courbet article, nor do they mention Courbet in their Cubism article. Courbet's article in Grove Art Online notes that "Apollinaire’s description of Courbet as the father of modernism has prevailed", but does not mention Cubism specifically. Grove's article on Cubism says "The beginnings of Cubism have variously been dated 1907, 1908, 1909 and 1911" – not 1856 as you would have it, and Courbet's name is not mentioned anywhere in the article. Your edit quotes Gleizes and Metzinger; what they said was, "For the partial liberties conquered by Courbet, Manet, Cézanne, and the Impressionists, Cubism substitutes an indefinite liberty" (The Cubist Painters 139). In other words, several predecessors are mentioned, not Courbet alone. It would be better to reduce this material and fold it into the Legacy section. Ewulp (talk) 23:02, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think I agree with Ewulp, but without wading through the history back to 2013 ("I've reverted Coldcreation for the following reasons...") I can't quite see what text the disputev is about.... Johnbod (talk) 12:28, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, seen it, and I do agree with Ewulp. Johnbod (talk) 12:32, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"Fold it into the Legacy section": Done, as requested.--CerroFerro (talk) 18:04, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Anarchist?

[edit]

I see some sources that address Courbet as adjacent to anarchism but not necessarily as an anarchist:

My take, based on the above sourcing and his background in the Paris Commune, is that Courbet was a revolutionary socialist with an anarchist lean, but I have yet to find a declarative source on the connection. He died in the 1870s during the rise of anarchism, the period when other Communards like Louise Michel adopted the term, so it's possible that this is just a naming thing in a weird window of time. But from what I can see, most invocations of "anarchist" in articles about Courbet are in reference to Proudhon, so it's not necessarily a "defining" trait for Courbet. czar 18:04, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gustave_Courbet&oldid=1228389883"