![]() | A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on May 22, 2021. |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The division of the gallery into sections labeled "Early works", "Religious paintings", and "Everyday life" was not serving well. The third category included Road to Bethlehem and a Winter Landscape featuring a figure with halo, which in is not something one sees every day. As Uhde habitually depicted religious themes using scenes of everyday life, the categorization seemed arbitrary. It also resulted in an arrangement—several consecutive contre-jour interiors, followed by several consecutive scenes depicting isolated figures in a bare landscape with a receding road—that emphasized the sameness of the compositions. A simple chronological placement overcomes this problem. I also added one of his 20th-century works, because the final 40% of his career was entirely unrepresented, which is quite an omission. Ewulp ( talk) 09:33, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
All this is an important part of Fritz von Uhde's work - the themes- "Christ among the common people here and now" and it is a most significant part of his art. Do NOT remove it again. And just how many women depicted from the back do we have to have on a row - just because it happens to be cronology ? It is a most awkward way to arrange galleries, most of the times. No painter ever painted any paintings so they should look well in a gallery in cronological order. Hafspajen ( talk) 05:52, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
Hi there wikibrothers, dear users Hafspajen and Ewulp (I think we three have modified this article more oftenly in the previous months).
As I look at the gallery, I feel as if there are parts which look rather dim and kind of ashen. I want to suggest some things:
1. Not to use discolored files like these:
Don't you think these are preferable?... or is just me?
(Ewulp: you have reverted my edits where I attempted to substitute them... why do you like more the first files?)
2. Which criteria are we using to choose or to decide which pictures are to appear in the gallery and which aren't? User Hafspajen rightly asked: "how many women from the back do we have to have on a row - just because it happens to be cronology ?". I just see kind of the same topic here (females in a room):
3.
Do not misunderstand me. I like those pictures, I know Uhde painted plenty of them, but that's not the only things he painted. So, I ask:
What's the point of having a gallery like that if there's no much variety? I think Uhde's work has
more variety; there are other interesting paintings in his work, which I'd like to suggest because, to my view, they either address another topics or show other types of artistic techniques:
Don't you think the article should offer the reader a chance to look into the different topics and paintings Uhde addressed? What do you say? Do you agree or disagree... and why? -- Goose friend ( talk) 05:33, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
I totally agree with Hadspajen. Galleries are important, to "amplify the meaning of the article and to demonstrate meaning and nuance, which cannot be made by words". (Come on, we're talking about a painter). This is why I disagree with Ewulp's approach. I'm sorry but I don't understand why the text is "45 sentences long". I just ask, long what?
Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, I think we do have to take into consideration the principles of policies, but we must "not follow an overly strict interpretation of the letter of policy".
Just look at the galleries at
Western painting,
Pierre-Auguste Renoir and
Claude Monet. They don't seem to be in accordance to the conservative approach. VAMOS is not an absolute law, is it?. I read in the Manual of Style that sometimes "more than one style is acceptable."; that guidelines are principles that many editors agree, but Wikipedia tells you also that
You Can't Follow All The Rules, All The Time and that "they must be evaluated for each particular situation to assess if they apply," to see if they indeed make it better or not. There is an
WP:Ignore all rules policy too.
don't obsess over them
In this case, I believe the changes Hafspajen and I are proposing are seeking changes for the better. The idea of "not putting too many pictures" makes a sad article for me. This article is not in danger of being "too long", I actually think it's kind of short. Neither there is any danger of making a Wikicommons gallery. 4 rows of 4 paintings each, are not a substitute for a wikicommons gallery that has 20 rows of 7 each. Show consideration for our point of view. I just had idea of a "not-so-small" gallery because it would permit the reader to take a wider look at different works by Uhde. There are things that cannot be told by words, you know, and Uhde's work is very valuable and not always the same.
In my view, I recommend letting there the five different paintings in the Religious paintings gallery, since they all seem to me interesting enough and particular on their own (besides, as far as I have seen, each of the 4 is famous in art galleries about Uhde), so I decline their removal. I would rather to remove 6 of the 7 females in the room. The angel is ok. But, we could get into an agreement of which pictures can be substitute them. I like
von Uhde - Am Morgen (1889).jpg In the morning, because it's a different theme, i.e. farmers working in the field. Old People's Home seems to me very different because of the intense red color and the combination with the yellow sunlight, and I value the quality of the file; though it's a woman, this makes it very different.
A children's procession in the rain and
von Uhde - Der Leierkastenmann kommt (1883).jpg this one are also very different in topic, and all these I feel attain to the ideal of showing more variety.
P.S.: Ewulp, I have written above my responde about your preference of the decolorized ashen files as "better" than the vivid ones.-- Goose friend ( talk) 06:25, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
I just want to stick in one remark - (I was so totally busy with the Signpost's so had no time for this we delayed with four editions - ) - that the interesting thing with this artist is the way he depicted Jesus among everyday people like as he would still walk among us even today. As an artist, it is this that makes him to stand out. It is a very important feature of his art - indeed if not the most important one. This is actually the very feature what makes him special. A variety is good but keep in mind this. This is why I wanted to have two categories - religious - and everyday topics like portraits and landscapes and stuff. About - bad scans - we should try to find better scans, somehow. Hafspajen ( talk) 23:45, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Bettina Brand (Oxford Art Online) says: "From the late 1890s he produced fresh, glowing paintings of his daughters in the garden, which became his refuge when he withdrew from the art world after 1900: In the Garden (1901; Frankfurt am Main, Städel. Kstinst. & Städt. Gal.) and In the Garden (1906; Mannheim, Städt. Ksthalle)." Ewulp ( talk) 08:16, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
Found a good file Google art file.
This can let me nominate this picture, as this guy really deserves it, soon. This file comes directly fro the museum, a google file and is big enough and good enough to be nominated as Featured picture. I moved it out from the gallery because often people frown upon gallery placements. Hafspajen ( talk) 21:19, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Fritz von Uhde/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.
This has text from two sources. It needs a portrait, though it has an example of his work. It needs an infobox. Bob Burkhardt ( talk) 14:55, 20 March 2009 (UTC) |
Last edited at 14:55, 20 March 2009 (UTC). Substituted at 15:39, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
The following gallery locations are verbatim in the 1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica, or else sourced from the 1905 NIE, and there's no guarantee thy are still at the same place. I maybe should have boldly deleted the locations, or made a notation in the text, but decided that would be too pedantic, and I don't have access to Brand. It would be good to have contemporary confirmation of their location. I may have missed some here:
Also, is The Sermon on the Mount still in a private collection? David Brooks ( talk) 15:56, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
![]() | A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on May 22, 2021. |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The division of the gallery into sections labeled "Early works", "Religious paintings", and "Everyday life" was not serving well. The third category included Road to Bethlehem and a Winter Landscape featuring a figure with halo, which in is not something one sees every day. As Uhde habitually depicted religious themes using scenes of everyday life, the categorization seemed arbitrary. It also resulted in an arrangement—several consecutive contre-jour interiors, followed by several consecutive scenes depicting isolated figures in a bare landscape with a receding road—that emphasized the sameness of the compositions. A simple chronological placement overcomes this problem. I also added one of his 20th-century works, because the final 40% of his career was entirely unrepresented, which is quite an omission. Ewulp ( talk) 09:33, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
All this is an important part of Fritz von Uhde's work - the themes- "Christ among the common people here and now" and it is a most significant part of his art. Do NOT remove it again. And just how many women depicted from the back do we have to have on a row - just because it happens to be cronology ? It is a most awkward way to arrange galleries, most of the times. No painter ever painted any paintings so they should look well in a gallery in cronological order. Hafspajen ( talk) 05:52, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
Hi there wikibrothers, dear users Hafspajen and Ewulp (I think we three have modified this article more oftenly in the previous months).
As I look at the gallery, I feel as if there are parts which look rather dim and kind of ashen. I want to suggest some things:
1. Not to use discolored files like these:
Don't you think these are preferable?... or is just me?
(Ewulp: you have reverted my edits where I attempted to substitute them... why do you like more the first files?)
2. Which criteria are we using to choose or to decide which pictures are to appear in the gallery and which aren't? User Hafspajen rightly asked: "how many women from the back do we have to have on a row - just because it happens to be cronology ?". I just see kind of the same topic here (females in a room):
3.
Do not misunderstand me. I like those pictures, I know Uhde painted plenty of them, but that's not the only things he painted. So, I ask:
What's the point of having a gallery like that if there's no much variety? I think Uhde's work has
more variety; there are other interesting paintings in his work, which I'd like to suggest because, to my view, they either address another topics or show other types of artistic techniques:
Don't you think the article should offer the reader a chance to look into the different topics and paintings Uhde addressed? What do you say? Do you agree or disagree... and why? -- Goose friend ( talk) 05:33, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
I totally agree with Hadspajen. Galleries are important, to "amplify the meaning of the article and to demonstrate meaning and nuance, which cannot be made by words". (Come on, we're talking about a painter). This is why I disagree with Ewulp's approach. I'm sorry but I don't understand why the text is "45 sentences long". I just ask, long what?
Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, I think we do have to take into consideration the principles of policies, but we must "not follow an overly strict interpretation of the letter of policy".
Just look at the galleries at
Western painting,
Pierre-Auguste Renoir and
Claude Monet. They don't seem to be in accordance to the conservative approach. VAMOS is not an absolute law, is it?. I read in the Manual of Style that sometimes "more than one style is acceptable."; that guidelines are principles that many editors agree, but Wikipedia tells you also that
You Can't Follow All The Rules, All The Time and that "they must be evaluated for each particular situation to assess if they apply," to see if they indeed make it better or not. There is an
WP:Ignore all rules policy too.
don't obsess over them
In this case, I believe the changes Hafspajen and I are proposing are seeking changes for the better. The idea of "not putting too many pictures" makes a sad article for me. This article is not in danger of being "too long", I actually think it's kind of short. Neither there is any danger of making a Wikicommons gallery. 4 rows of 4 paintings each, are not a substitute for a wikicommons gallery that has 20 rows of 7 each. Show consideration for our point of view. I just had idea of a "not-so-small" gallery because it would permit the reader to take a wider look at different works by Uhde. There are things that cannot be told by words, you know, and Uhde's work is very valuable and not always the same.
In my view, I recommend letting there the five different paintings in the Religious paintings gallery, since they all seem to me interesting enough and particular on their own (besides, as far as I have seen, each of the 4 is famous in art galleries about Uhde), so I decline their removal. I would rather to remove 6 of the 7 females in the room. The angel is ok. But, we could get into an agreement of which pictures can be substitute them. I like
von Uhde - Am Morgen (1889).jpg In the morning, because it's a different theme, i.e. farmers working in the field. Old People's Home seems to me very different because of the intense red color and the combination with the yellow sunlight, and I value the quality of the file; though it's a woman, this makes it very different.
A children's procession in the rain and
von Uhde - Der Leierkastenmann kommt (1883).jpg this one are also very different in topic, and all these I feel attain to the ideal of showing more variety.
P.S.: Ewulp, I have written above my responde about your preference of the decolorized ashen files as "better" than the vivid ones.-- Goose friend ( talk) 06:25, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
I just want to stick in one remark - (I was so totally busy with the Signpost's so had no time for this we delayed with four editions - ) - that the interesting thing with this artist is the way he depicted Jesus among everyday people like as he would still walk among us even today. As an artist, it is this that makes him to stand out. It is a very important feature of his art - indeed if not the most important one. This is actually the very feature what makes him special. A variety is good but keep in mind this. This is why I wanted to have two categories - religious - and everyday topics like portraits and landscapes and stuff. About - bad scans - we should try to find better scans, somehow. Hafspajen ( talk) 23:45, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Bettina Brand (Oxford Art Online) says: "From the late 1890s he produced fresh, glowing paintings of his daughters in the garden, which became his refuge when he withdrew from the art world after 1900: In the Garden (1901; Frankfurt am Main, Städel. Kstinst. & Städt. Gal.) and In the Garden (1906; Mannheim, Städt. Ksthalle)." Ewulp ( talk) 08:16, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
Found a good file Google art file.
This can let me nominate this picture, as this guy really deserves it, soon. This file comes directly fro the museum, a google file and is big enough and good enough to be nominated as Featured picture. I moved it out from the gallery because often people frown upon gallery placements. Hafspajen ( talk) 21:19, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Fritz von Uhde/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.
This has text from two sources. It needs a portrait, though it has an example of his work. It needs an infobox. Bob Burkhardt ( talk) 14:55, 20 March 2009 (UTC) |
Last edited at 14:55, 20 March 2009 (UTC). Substituted at 15:39, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
The following gallery locations are verbatim in the 1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica, or else sourced from the 1905 NIE, and there's no guarantee thy are still at the same place. I maybe should have boldly deleted the locations, or made a notation in the text, but decided that would be too pedantic, and I don't have access to Brand. It would be good to have contemporary confirmation of their location. I may have missed some here:
Also, is The Sermon on the Mount still in a private collection? David Brooks ( talk) 15:56, 28 June 2022 (UTC)