![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
[Copied from User talk:Brigade Piron. Oreo Priest talk 13:46, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Howdy. Something's not right about attribution for the painting of Philip Verheyen here, and I was hoping you could help me puzzle it out. Sreshta Premnath has claimed that it's his own work including at Commons. On his webpage, he claims "The painting “Philip Verheyn Dissecting His Own Amputated Leg” does not actually exist. It is a composite image I have created in order to explore this fragility of truth and authenticity.". Additionally, the original uploader, Pieter Dehijde gave this after a Google search. I sure get the feeling he's also in the business of creating hoaxes for fun, though his other contributions don't look specious. At any rate, my admittedly clumsy search was not able to find any other evidence of this painting existing, but I'm not sure if it does or doesn't.
So is it really an old image that he's trying to appropriate? Or is it a new image that is a) a hoax, b) not freely licensed, but still c) a good illustration of the subject! I'm not too sure on what to make of this or how to proceed, so I thought I'd ask for a second opinion. Cheers, Oreo Priest talk 08:44, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
[Copied text ends here. Oreo Priest talk 13:47, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Philip Verheyen/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 The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.
Comment(s) | Press [show] to view → |
---|---|
I've tried to identify these sources--I could not find them in print or online. Much is made of the ambiguities in the history of this minor figure, something that wikipedia has noted as a community is common in fraudulent historical figures.
At any rate, the picture featured has some inconsistencies that suggest that it is photo-shopped: the healthy foot below the table lacks the shadow that the table truss would have cast across it--something that seems curious given the use of shadow in the upper right hand corner (how could the portraitist make such a basic compositional error?). Brush strokes are inconsistent among different elements of the painting. Also, the purple shaded regions on the two limbs (at the wrist of the left arm, and at the shin of the right tib-fib) are suspicious. Furthermore, the hand featured in the portrait seems strikingly similar--if not identical--to the hand of the from Rembrandt van Rijn's "Anatomy Lesson". I am convinced that this image was fabricated. Hojasmuertas ( talk) 04:36, 29 October 2008 (UTC) |
Last edited at 04:36, 29 October 2008 (UTC). Substituted at 02:52, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
[Copied from User talk:Brigade Piron. Oreo Priest talk 13:46, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Howdy. Something's not right about attribution for the painting of Philip Verheyen here, and I was hoping you could help me puzzle it out. Sreshta Premnath has claimed that it's his own work including at Commons. On his webpage, he claims "The painting “Philip Verheyn Dissecting His Own Amputated Leg” does not actually exist. It is a composite image I have created in order to explore this fragility of truth and authenticity.". Additionally, the original uploader, Pieter Dehijde gave this after a Google search. I sure get the feeling he's also in the business of creating hoaxes for fun, though his other contributions don't look specious. At any rate, my admittedly clumsy search was not able to find any other evidence of this painting existing, but I'm not sure if it does or doesn't.
So is it really an old image that he's trying to appropriate? Or is it a new image that is a) a hoax, b) not freely licensed, but still c) a good illustration of the subject! I'm not too sure on what to make of this or how to proceed, so I thought I'd ask for a second opinion. Cheers, Oreo Priest talk 08:44, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
[Copied text ends here. Oreo Priest talk 13:47, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Philip Verheyen/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.
Comment(s) | Press [show] to view → |
---|---|
I've tried to identify these sources--I could not find them in print or online. Much is made of the ambiguities in the history of this minor figure, something that wikipedia has noted as a community is common in fraudulent historical figures.
At any rate, the picture featured has some inconsistencies that suggest that it is photo-shopped: the healthy foot below the table lacks the shadow that the table truss would have cast across it--something that seems curious given the use of shadow in the upper right hand corner (how could the portraitist make such a basic compositional error?). Brush strokes are inconsistent among different elements of the painting. Also, the purple shaded regions on the two limbs (at the wrist of the left arm, and at the shin of the right tib-fib) are suspicious. Furthermore, the hand featured in the portrait seems strikingly similar--if not identical--to the hand of the from Rembrandt van Rijn's "Anatomy Lesson". I am convinced that this image was fabricated. Hojasmuertas ( talk) 04:36, 29 October 2008 (UTC) |
Last edited at 04:36, 29 October 2008 (UTC). Substituted at 02:52, 30 April 2016 (UTC)