![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | On July 14, 2012, Gustav Klimt was linked from Google, a high-traffic website. ( Traffic) All prior and subsequent edits to the article are noted in its revision history. |
Do we have free photographs of The Kiss? David.Monniaux 09:24, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
"There is speculation that Klimt painted female figures decaptiated and in gross sexual detail prior to painting his signature necklaces and robes. It has been suggested that the high angle of the head almost universally present in Klimt's paintings is an indication of the dismembered forms painted beneath."
needs to be sourced (I am not even sure what it means -- decapitated? Like in a horror movie?) Sdedeo 08:20, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
"Gross sexual detail" is phrase meaning that is was very detailed anatomy and pornographic. I can see how that would be speculated as the girls heads are often tilted as though they were orgasming. This phrase was saying that he painted the girls full bodies and then went over it with his robes. There should be a source from something more reliably than our own speculation-- 99.153.39.85 ( talk) 02:18, 22 June 2008 (UTC)s.
I know a painting unfinished due to Klimt's death (for example: The Bride (Unfinished 1918), which is presently on display in the Belvedere) is example of covering previously painted nudity with clothes, but for a unique reason. The painting was viewed by the Censors of Vienna and deemed inappropriate, hence the subsequent covering with clothes which is only known to have occurred because he died before he finished. Other than this case of outside pressure, I see not why he would ever paint nudity and cover it afterward. (KJG) June 16 2010 —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
75.246.154.47 (
talk)
14:23, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
The staff of the Special Collections Research Center at the University of Chicago cannot find evidence linking Klimt to the seal of the university. The design of the U of C Seal was a reworking in different form of the slightly earlier design of the U of C Coat of Arms. The Coat of Arms was designed by Pierre de Chaignon la Rose, a heraldic specialist in Boston working under contract to the Board of Trustees. The information in the University Archives is that the Seal was designed in 1912 by the Boston firm of John Evans & Co., architectural sculptors for Shepley, Rutan & Coolidge of Boston, the firm then serving as the architects for the University of Chicago.
See "The Phoenix and the Book" in The University of Chicago Magazine 6:7 (June 1912): 243-248.
...because it is extremely biased and does not have much to do with Gustav Klimt:
"On June 7, 2004, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that 88-year-old Maria Altmann, the niece of Klimt model Adele Bloch-Bauer, could sue Austria in a U.S. court for the return of six Klimt paintings stolen from her uncle by the occupying Nazis in 1938. Kept by Austria after the war, the paintings are currently displayed in Vienna's Belvedere Palace. The paintings include the celebrated Adele Bloch-Bauer I and have a market value estimated at more than $150,000,000." and he is a wanka of an aritst Just one example: Adele Bloch-Bauer wanted Austria to inherit these paintings. This is clearly stated in her will [1]. The Nazis stealing the paintings however prevented this wish to be carried out. All in all this is a very complicated juristical case, which can definitely not be summed up in several lines. Wikipedia should be a place for facts, not to express views of one side of warring factions.
The main image on the top right should be the one of klimt, should it not?
otherwise its out of sync with almost allother wiki pages...
Removed the "gay" remark at the references...-- RexNecros 01:04, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
-- RexNecros 01:10, 16 June 2006 (UTC)Hey, if anyone knows that Mr. Klimt was gay please don’t put it in the notes section without an explanation in the notes. I removed the “gay” word from the notes, I personally don’t know if was either intended to be informative or just pure vandalizing.
With Wikipedia biographical articles, everyone is assumed to be inverted unless proven otherwise. Lestrade ( talk) 02:16, 31 March 2010 (UTC)Lestrade The language and aggressively-hostile tone of this comment is unsettling and rude; using a long-dated term, 'invert', as well as suggesting an unfair and intentionally dishonest and deceptive, pro-lgbt prejudice is crude and coming from a place of hate. No one 'assumes' such things, and no one hopes to engage in the clear and biased editorializing you yourself are supposedly criticizing in others. I doubt even Pat Robertson's great grandmother would have used the term, 'invert', and it fails here as well. Gay men, and i'll just speak for them here, are not willing nor allowing part of their lives be silenced, denied nor hidden, by their choice or anyone's. It DOES matter if Mr. Klimt was gay- I came here to check up to see if he was Jewish, as THAT part of who he was, his faith background matters as well. What IS clear, is that there still remains a wish, demonstrated by you, Lestrade, to not want to nor allow the sexuality of a person's identity be factored into who that person is or was. It DOES matter, and your attempt to deceptively misdirect readers from such, reads as just that. I am not sure if the term, "vandalism" is a commonly-used sort of nomenclature on wikipedia, but the idea of someone saying or suggesting that Klimt or anyone might be gay, lgbt, seems like yet another offensive- weighted and loaded term. If I WERE to suggest or wonder if Klimt or Van Gogh was gay, is, in no way me 'vandalizing' the page nor being slanderous and detracting from their value. To assume and frame any suggestion of someone being gay, lgbt, as some sort of slander, 'vandalism' or bias, is to engage in a hetero-normative, homophobic thinking. It is NOT a negative nor a positive, to wonder about a person's sexuality, any more than it is to wonder about their faith, their racial background, class or politics. It IS homophobic to fear being perceived as gay, or taking offense by having someone you admire be approached in that way. Dinodogstar ( talk) 02:15, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
just after his influence on egon schiele this article notes that on of his paintings inspired a danielle steel novel. come on. i take that off, if trashy romance novel need to have a place in this article too, maybe there can be a section trivia or something trueblood 12:50, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
Does anybody know what book (or website) would be the most comprehensive guide to his work? This article doesn't indicate how prolific he was. A good friend likes his work very much and such a book would be a nice gift. Thanks. 193.1.172.163 22:36, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
Upon a moment of exhausted rambling about my favorite artist- Klimt, today at work in the University art department, I made a remark about a piano I have seen photos of which was decorated by the artist. I mentioned that it was created for Liberace, and after thinking, realized that is impossible. Klimt died in 1919, the year Liberace was born. I am sure though, that I have read that Liberace owned a piano of the sort however. Is anyone familiar with this? If so, are there any photos available?
I'm going to try and restructure his biography so it has different sections fo each of the eras in his life. It's a little hard to read with everything jumbled together. -- 76.179.69.188 20:05, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Only the opening sequence features his work, not the end, I believe,
edit: yup it's verified, i'll take the initiative to change it
Ending theme "Be your girl" by Chieko Kawabe
66.75.229.195 18:45, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
The ending does reference of "Danaë". —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
77.27.16.94 (
talk)
17:08, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
From which year is this picture of Klimt? The file name (and the article) says 1902. The description however says 1912. - Face 13:46, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
JNW, please stop removing legitimate links. Using the rollback feature is for obvious vandalism ONLY. The way you are using it is considered edit warring, and is not tolerated on Wikipedia. If you have a legitimate concern, please bring it up here on the Talk page instead of trying to force your particular views on everyone else without any sort of discussion. According to the sourced interview linked from the Kevin Wasden article, Wasden considers Klimt and Degas to be influences. That is what the "influenced" field in the infobox is for, and there is nothing anywhere that says those listed there have to be considered "masters" in order to be listed there. ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihon joe 21:14, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Much said here already. I do want to add a thought or two, if only because I left last night promising to return. And I do so hoping to strike a conciliatory note which will honor what we each try to do here.
I understand that Nihonjoe's edits were made in good faith, and were not vandalism, and my reversions were not intended to signify otherwise. The reasons for the objection are appreciated. As I wrote here yesterday, if I have acted inappropriately, please accept my apologies.
The points made by Twirling, Johnbod, and Ewulp speak eloquently for my rationale (all three have been invaluable contributors, as has been Nihonjoe). I don't think that the distinctions regarding artists are esoteric, though they could be interpreted that way by scholars in other disciplines. To writers on art, and artists themselves, the distinctions are important. Rather than maintain that only 'masters' can be cited, it is better to say that we are relying on the judgments of established art historians (here I smile, because, of course, the whole business will always be subjective, but hopefully time, good sourcing, and a system of editorial checks and balances attains something approaching solid scholarship). For Klimt a strong example would be Egon Schiele, for Degas it would be Walter Sickert.
Finally, under the heading of It's a Small World: Upon further reading, it turns out that Mr. Wasden studied with a friend of mine from student days in New York City. So, my very best regards to Mr. Wasden, and to his teacher, my old pal Andy Reiss. Respectfully, JNW 18:49, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
How did Gustav Klimt die?-- xgmx ( T | C | D | R | DR)
Does "Schloss" refers to "castel"? I supose it is german, so it can be a lock or a castle... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.27.16.94 ( talk) 17:25, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
I am concerned that a general emphasis in the article might appear suggesting that a high level of sexual explicitness in Klimt's work automatically means that a) it is less valuable as artwork, b) it is exploiting women or in some way derogatory to women, and c) it uses a veil of artistic value to disguise ordinary pornography.
It seems to me a very opinionated, narrow assumption that something sexually explicit is, per se, less artistic or in some other way tarnished.
For example, in the section titled "Golden phase and critical success," phrases like "his drawings often reveal purely sexual interest in women as objects" seem to be quite subjective... that is to say, is it really plain to everyone, from his paintings alone, that he was "purely" interested in "women as objects"? I don't think so – indeed I'd say quite the contrary. If these statements can't be sourced from some well-recognised, expert analysis they should be removed from the article. I've put "citation needed" after those I'm most concerned with, and I'll remove the statements sooner or later if no citation is available because as I've explained they are out of place. I'm not an expert on Klimt so I'd be interested to know if this is in fact what the authorities say.
There may be other similarly inclined emphases in the article, so I'll look for those too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Et Amiti Gel ( talk • contribs) 05:52, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
If you put a redirect to this article here, you should at least mention the keyword in the article, otherwise remove the redirect ASAP! - Joe King —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.159.108.188 ( talk) 12:42, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
The first paragraph contains the following incorrect (or at least misleading) statement, "His major works include paintings, murals, sketches, and other art objects, many of which are on display in the Vienna Secession gallery." I have just returned from Vienna, where I spent a morning in the Secessionist Gallery in addition to visiting as many museums as I could find containing Klimt pieces. The only work by Klimt now in the Secessionist building is his famous Beethoven Frieze, which is on permanent display there. The rest of that museum is now devoted to exhibits by contemporary artists. The museum in Vienna that has the largest collection of Klimt works appears to be the Leopold Museum. The Belvedere also has many works by Klimt, including "The Kiss."
Fhjern ( talk) 01:35, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Was Klimt part Cherokee or Choctaw? Lestrade ( talk) 02:19, 31 March 2010 (UTC)Lestrade
Nearly all of the article has been directly copied from this website: http://www.klimtgallery.org/ This material is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial No-Derivatives License. Because it is not licensed for use in derivative works, it may not suitable for it to be used on wikipedia other than as a reference source. Thedeepestblue ( talk) 19:37, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
How is Klimt famous? Was Klimt famous when he was alive? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.70.164.86 ( talk • contribs) at 14:15, 26 April 2005
...*more sausage*... Johnfloyd6675 ( talk) 05:20, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
I know that he is usually associated with symbolism, but his later works look expressionistic to me (Girlfriends, The Maiden, his late portraits and so on) but in a beautiful way, thus it would be incorrect to call him only a symbolist painter. I'm proposing that we remove this symbolist and put only painter for this alone is what he was. 5.43.163.116 ( talk) 10:56, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Gustav Klimt. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers. — cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 06:10, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
That article begins thus:
So how can one justify changing a source which says "... art stolen by the Nazis" to "... art confiscated by the Nazis", on the basis that "states do only confiscate, not "steal""? Martinevans123 ( talk) 17:22, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
Why is "Lady with a Fan" missing? Is there some discrepancy on its origin? I think the model used for the painting is the same woman shown in "Girl Friends" Its dtd aft that work, I believe 1917 1918 and may have been the last painting he completed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.154.1.227 ( talk) 04:57, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Gustav Klimt - Beech Grove I - Google Art Project.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on December 31, 2019. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2019-12-31. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :) Thanks! Cwmhiraeth ( talk) 10:26, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
Klimt, one of the most prominent members of the Vienna Secession movement, is best known for his opulent, symbol-laden portraits of the Viennese bourgeoisie, but his landscapes represent an important aspect of his career. For many years he travelled each summer through the Austrian and Italian countryside, painting and sketching as he went. In this work, he captures shafts of light illuminating the bare trunks of young beech trees above a litter of leaves on the forest floor.Painting credit: Gustav Klimt
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | On July 14, 2012, Gustav Klimt was linked from Google, a high-traffic website. ( Traffic) All prior and subsequent edits to the article are noted in its revision history. |
Do we have free photographs of The Kiss? David.Monniaux 09:24, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
"There is speculation that Klimt painted female figures decaptiated and in gross sexual detail prior to painting his signature necklaces and robes. It has been suggested that the high angle of the head almost universally present in Klimt's paintings is an indication of the dismembered forms painted beneath."
needs to be sourced (I am not even sure what it means -- decapitated? Like in a horror movie?) Sdedeo 08:20, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
"Gross sexual detail" is phrase meaning that is was very detailed anatomy and pornographic. I can see how that would be speculated as the girls heads are often tilted as though they were orgasming. This phrase was saying that he painted the girls full bodies and then went over it with his robes. There should be a source from something more reliably than our own speculation-- 99.153.39.85 ( talk) 02:18, 22 June 2008 (UTC)s.
I know a painting unfinished due to Klimt's death (for example: The Bride (Unfinished 1918), which is presently on display in the Belvedere) is example of covering previously painted nudity with clothes, but for a unique reason. The painting was viewed by the Censors of Vienna and deemed inappropriate, hence the subsequent covering with clothes which is only known to have occurred because he died before he finished. Other than this case of outside pressure, I see not why he would ever paint nudity and cover it afterward. (KJG) June 16 2010 —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
75.246.154.47 (
talk)
14:23, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
The staff of the Special Collections Research Center at the University of Chicago cannot find evidence linking Klimt to the seal of the university. The design of the U of C Seal was a reworking in different form of the slightly earlier design of the U of C Coat of Arms. The Coat of Arms was designed by Pierre de Chaignon la Rose, a heraldic specialist in Boston working under contract to the Board of Trustees. The information in the University Archives is that the Seal was designed in 1912 by the Boston firm of John Evans & Co., architectural sculptors for Shepley, Rutan & Coolidge of Boston, the firm then serving as the architects for the University of Chicago.
See "The Phoenix and the Book" in The University of Chicago Magazine 6:7 (June 1912): 243-248.
...because it is extremely biased and does not have much to do with Gustav Klimt:
"On June 7, 2004, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that 88-year-old Maria Altmann, the niece of Klimt model Adele Bloch-Bauer, could sue Austria in a U.S. court for the return of six Klimt paintings stolen from her uncle by the occupying Nazis in 1938. Kept by Austria after the war, the paintings are currently displayed in Vienna's Belvedere Palace. The paintings include the celebrated Adele Bloch-Bauer I and have a market value estimated at more than $150,000,000." and he is a wanka of an aritst Just one example: Adele Bloch-Bauer wanted Austria to inherit these paintings. This is clearly stated in her will [1]. The Nazis stealing the paintings however prevented this wish to be carried out. All in all this is a very complicated juristical case, which can definitely not be summed up in several lines. Wikipedia should be a place for facts, not to express views of one side of warring factions.
The main image on the top right should be the one of klimt, should it not?
otherwise its out of sync with almost allother wiki pages...
Removed the "gay" remark at the references...-- RexNecros 01:04, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
-- RexNecros 01:10, 16 June 2006 (UTC)Hey, if anyone knows that Mr. Klimt was gay please don’t put it in the notes section without an explanation in the notes. I removed the “gay” word from the notes, I personally don’t know if was either intended to be informative or just pure vandalizing.
With Wikipedia biographical articles, everyone is assumed to be inverted unless proven otherwise. Lestrade ( talk) 02:16, 31 March 2010 (UTC)Lestrade The language and aggressively-hostile tone of this comment is unsettling and rude; using a long-dated term, 'invert', as well as suggesting an unfair and intentionally dishonest and deceptive, pro-lgbt prejudice is crude and coming from a place of hate. No one 'assumes' such things, and no one hopes to engage in the clear and biased editorializing you yourself are supposedly criticizing in others. I doubt even Pat Robertson's great grandmother would have used the term, 'invert', and it fails here as well. Gay men, and i'll just speak for them here, are not willing nor allowing part of their lives be silenced, denied nor hidden, by their choice or anyone's. It DOES matter if Mr. Klimt was gay- I came here to check up to see if he was Jewish, as THAT part of who he was, his faith background matters as well. What IS clear, is that there still remains a wish, demonstrated by you, Lestrade, to not want to nor allow the sexuality of a person's identity be factored into who that person is or was. It DOES matter, and your attempt to deceptively misdirect readers from such, reads as just that. I am not sure if the term, "vandalism" is a commonly-used sort of nomenclature on wikipedia, but the idea of someone saying or suggesting that Klimt or anyone might be gay, lgbt, seems like yet another offensive- weighted and loaded term. If I WERE to suggest or wonder if Klimt or Van Gogh was gay, is, in no way me 'vandalizing' the page nor being slanderous and detracting from their value. To assume and frame any suggestion of someone being gay, lgbt, as some sort of slander, 'vandalism' or bias, is to engage in a hetero-normative, homophobic thinking. It is NOT a negative nor a positive, to wonder about a person's sexuality, any more than it is to wonder about their faith, their racial background, class or politics. It IS homophobic to fear being perceived as gay, or taking offense by having someone you admire be approached in that way. Dinodogstar ( talk) 02:15, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
just after his influence on egon schiele this article notes that on of his paintings inspired a danielle steel novel. come on. i take that off, if trashy romance novel need to have a place in this article too, maybe there can be a section trivia or something trueblood 12:50, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
Does anybody know what book (or website) would be the most comprehensive guide to his work? This article doesn't indicate how prolific he was. A good friend likes his work very much and such a book would be a nice gift. Thanks. 193.1.172.163 22:36, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
Upon a moment of exhausted rambling about my favorite artist- Klimt, today at work in the University art department, I made a remark about a piano I have seen photos of which was decorated by the artist. I mentioned that it was created for Liberace, and after thinking, realized that is impossible. Klimt died in 1919, the year Liberace was born. I am sure though, that I have read that Liberace owned a piano of the sort however. Is anyone familiar with this? If so, are there any photos available?
I'm going to try and restructure his biography so it has different sections fo each of the eras in his life. It's a little hard to read with everything jumbled together. -- 76.179.69.188 20:05, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Only the opening sequence features his work, not the end, I believe,
edit: yup it's verified, i'll take the initiative to change it
Ending theme "Be your girl" by Chieko Kawabe
66.75.229.195 18:45, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
The ending does reference of "Danaë". —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
77.27.16.94 (
talk)
17:08, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
From which year is this picture of Klimt? The file name (and the article) says 1902. The description however says 1912. - Face 13:46, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
JNW, please stop removing legitimate links. Using the rollback feature is for obvious vandalism ONLY. The way you are using it is considered edit warring, and is not tolerated on Wikipedia. If you have a legitimate concern, please bring it up here on the Talk page instead of trying to force your particular views on everyone else without any sort of discussion. According to the sourced interview linked from the Kevin Wasden article, Wasden considers Klimt and Degas to be influences. That is what the "influenced" field in the infobox is for, and there is nothing anywhere that says those listed there have to be considered "masters" in order to be listed there. ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihon joe 21:14, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Much said here already. I do want to add a thought or two, if only because I left last night promising to return. And I do so hoping to strike a conciliatory note which will honor what we each try to do here.
I understand that Nihonjoe's edits were made in good faith, and were not vandalism, and my reversions were not intended to signify otherwise. The reasons for the objection are appreciated. As I wrote here yesterday, if I have acted inappropriately, please accept my apologies.
The points made by Twirling, Johnbod, and Ewulp speak eloquently for my rationale (all three have been invaluable contributors, as has been Nihonjoe). I don't think that the distinctions regarding artists are esoteric, though they could be interpreted that way by scholars in other disciplines. To writers on art, and artists themselves, the distinctions are important. Rather than maintain that only 'masters' can be cited, it is better to say that we are relying on the judgments of established art historians (here I smile, because, of course, the whole business will always be subjective, but hopefully time, good sourcing, and a system of editorial checks and balances attains something approaching solid scholarship). For Klimt a strong example would be Egon Schiele, for Degas it would be Walter Sickert.
Finally, under the heading of It's a Small World: Upon further reading, it turns out that Mr. Wasden studied with a friend of mine from student days in New York City. So, my very best regards to Mr. Wasden, and to his teacher, my old pal Andy Reiss. Respectfully, JNW 18:49, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
How did Gustav Klimt die?-- xgmx ( T | C | D | R | DR)
Does "Schloss" refers to "castel"? I supose it is german, so it can be a lock or a castle... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.27.16.94 ( talk) 17:25, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
I am concerned that a general emphasis in the article might appear suggesting that a high level of sexual explicitness in Klimt's work automatically means that a) it is less valuable as artwork, b) it is exploiting women or in some way derogatory to women, and c) it uses a veil of artistic value to disguise ordinary pornography.
It seems to me a very opinionated, narrow assumption that something sexually explicit is, per se, less artistic or in some other way tarnished.
For example, in the section titled "Golden phase and critical success," phrases like "his drawings often reveal purely sexual interest in women as objects" seem to be quite subjective... that is to say, is it really plain to everyone, from his paintings alone, that he was "purely" interested in "women as objects"? I don't think so – indeed I'd say quite the contrary. If these statements can't be sourced from some well-recognised, expert analysis they should be removed from the article. I've put "citation needed" after those I'm most concerned with, and I'll remove the statements sooner or later if no citation is available because as I've explained they are out of place. I'm not an expert on Klimt so I'd be interested to know if this is in fact what the authorities say.
There may be other similarly inclined emphases in the article, so I'll look for those too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Et Amiti Gel ( talk • contribs) 05:52, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
If you put a redirect to this article here, you should at least mention the keyword in the article, otherwise remove the redirect ASAP! - Joe King —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.159.108.188 ( talk) 12:42, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
The first paragraph contains the following incorrect (or at least misleading) statement, "His major works include paintings, murals, sketches, and other art objects, many of which are on display in the Vienna Secession gallery." I have just returned from Vienna, where I spent a morning in the Secessionist Gallery in addition to visiting as many museums as I could find containing Klimt pieces. The only work by Klimt now in the Secessionist building is his famous Beethoven Frieze, which is on permanent display there. The rest of that museum is now devoted to exhibits by contemporary artists. The museum in Vienna that has the largest collection of Klimt works appears to be the Leopold Museum. The Belvedere also has many works by Klimt, including "The Kiss."
Fhjern ( talk) 01:35, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Was Klimt part Cherokee or Choctaw? Lestrade ( talk) 02:19, 31 March 2010 (UTC)Lestrade
Nearly all of the article has been directly copied from this website: http://www.klimtgallery.org/ This material is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial No-Derivatives License. Because it is not licensed for use in derivative works, it may not suitable for it to be used on wikipedia other than as a reference source. Thedeepestblue ( talk) 19:37, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
How is Klimt famous? Was Klimt famous when he was alive? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.70.164.86 ( talk • contribs) at 14:15, 26 April 2005
...*more sausage*... Johnfloyd6675 ( talk) 05:20, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
I know that he is usually associated with symbolism, but his later works look expressionistic to me (Girlfriends, The Maiden, his late portraits and so on) but in a beautiful way, thus it would be incorrect to call him only a symbolist painter. I'm proposing that we remove this symbolist and put only painter for this alone is what he was. 5.43.163.116 ( talk) 10:56, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Gustav Klimt. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers. — cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 06:10, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
That article begins thus:
So how can one justify changing a source which says "... art stolen by the Nazis" to "... art confiscated by the Nazis", on the basis that "states do only confiscate, not "steal""? Martinevans123 ( talk) 17:22, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
Why is "Lady with a Fan" missing? Is there some discrepancy on its origin? I think the model used for the painting is the same woman shown in "Girl Friends" Its dtd aft that work, I believe 1917 1918 and may have been the last painting he completed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.154.1.227 ( talk) 04:57, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Gustav Klimt - Beech Grove I - Google Art Project.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on December 31, 2019. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2019-12-31. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :) Thanks! Cwmhiraeth ( talk) 10:26, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
Klimt, one of the most prominent members of the Vienna Secession movement, is best known for his opulent, symbol-laden portraits of the Viennese bourgeoisie, but his landscapes represent an important aspect of his career. For many years he travelled each summer through the Austrian and Italian countryside, painting and sketching as he went. In this work, he captures shafts of light illuminating the bare trunks of young beech trees above a litter of leaves on the forest floor.Painting credit: Gustav Klimt