![]() | The Swimming Hole is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | |||||||||
![]() | This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on October 16, 2009. | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
![]() | A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the "
Did you know?" column on
December 19, 2008. The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that artist
Thomas Eakins was fired shortly after the exhibition of
The Swimming Hole (pictured), cited as a prime example of
homoeroticism in
American art? |
![]() | This article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Good to see this started. A couple of quick thoughts: All the men in the painting are shown in profile, giving the work an anal sex undertone is problematic because all the men are clearly not shown in profile, and the mention of anal sex seems out of place for the second paragraph--too much, too soon. One wouldn't think of introducing the same idea into the early paragraphs of The Rokeby Venus, for instance, or other great nudes. Incidentally, the swimmer at far right is a self-portrait, and the dog was probably his Irish Setter, Harry, who is also featured in the portrait of his wife Susan in the Metropolitan Museum. JNW ( talk) 04:43, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
I'm about to go to bed. Just a few thoughts before I sign off -- I think it's a good start. There's a few things I'd like to see expanded (by myself or someone else):
Eventually, it might be worth nominating this article as a featured article candidate. Raul654 ( talk) 06:02, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
This article is going on DYK in a few hours. Raul654 ( talk) 21:59, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
For clarity: I did not say that the terms being used were euphemisms; I was genuinely inquiring whether others thought so. For prose reasons alone, as well as a way of accurately representing the bulk of scholarship on Eakins, I find them preferable, and don't think they skirt the issue. Eakins has a lot of biographers, and Adams' interpretations represent a recent extreme; he also conjectures at length, based on circumstantial evidence, on the likelihood that Eakins was sexually abused as a child, as well as the possibility of his having engaged in incestuous relationships. Adams writes things like "Some therapists I have spoken with find it quite likely that Eakins had sex not only with both men and women but even with animals ." Also, "While we have no direct evidence on the subject, one psychologist I spoke to noted that on the basis of Eakins's symptoms he felt that there was 'an 85% chance that he was the victim of some form of sexual abuse'." One is not saying that these things were not possible, but this is wildly speculative stuff, and propositions that begin with "Some therapists I have spoken with" don't pass muster by Wikipedia standards.
The following are several passages from a review in the Los Angeles Times after the publication of Adams' biography [4]:
The response of other Eakins experts has been skeptical. “You’d be hard-pressed to come up with someone who’s really on the side of Adams or in his camp,” says Cheryl Leibold, an archivist at the Pennsylvania Academy of the Fine Arts, where the Bregler Collection is housed. “He’s really so extremist. What he’s done is really take Freudian psychology and try to apply it to the documents that survive. In actual fact, nobody buys into Freudian psychology anymore.”
Michael J. Lewis, professor of art history at Williams College in Massachusetts and the only critic reached for this article who says he has read the Adams book in its entirety, says he finds it both reductive and confusing. “Instead of weighing the evidence,” says Lewis, author of “Frank Furness: Architecture and the Violent Mind,” “he seems to very quickly have decided that Eakins was one sick puppy, and proceeded to diagnose six or eight maladies that are self-contradictory. We find out that Eakins was perhaps gay but also a compulsive seducer of women, an exhibitionist, a voyeur, a manic-depressive, he had a serotonin imbalance, he drank too much milk. In every instance, he [Adams] looked for the worst-case scenario.”
Elizabeth Johns, professor emerita of art history at the University of Pennsylvania and the author of “Thomas Eakins: The Heroism of Modern Life” (1983), says she is “surprised and sorry that Adams took this tack – focusing exclusively on Eakins’ putative sexual identities and behavior – because much of Adams’ earlier work has been very fine art history.”
This is submitted by way of underscoring that not all published scholarship is alike, nor universally accepted. Wikipedia does not censor, but it also seeks to record scholarship responsibly. While Eakins scholarship has recently accepted the homoerotic interpretations, and even these are based as much on speculation as on factual evidence, the interpretation of this painting as suggestive of anal sex appears to be anomalous. JNW ( talk) 05:39, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
I've been looking for my copy of the Lloyd Goodrich bio..and I haven't found it yet, but this quote seems pertinent:
I'll keep looking for my book... Modernist ( talk) 05:19, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
Eakins on his resignation:
Such indignities anger me. Can not anyone see into what contemptible inconsistencies such follies all lead? And how dangerous they are? My conscience is clear, and my suffering is past.
This seems relevant to the article text... Modernist ( talk) 05:25, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
Somebody with the books to hand needs to add page numbers. This should be done before the page is expanded further. And I agree with the above that this could be FAC. Ceoil ( talk) 06:33, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
What we now need is something on how it relates to the tradition of group nudes, from the High Renaissance, especially Michelangelo's Battle of Cesana, the Battle of the Nudes (engraving) and various Diana & nymphs etc, through to Cezanne etc. It seems to me somewhat of a riposte to Titian's Andrians the fete champetre motif. Johnbod ( talk) 17:42, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
I'd like to nominate this as a featured article candidate soon. Before I do, I'd like to get an idea of what you guys think is missing. What topics should this article address, or do a better job of addressing? Raul654 ( talk) 09:35, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
I want to add a little more about the restoration, and maybe the recent pic of hte lake (I'm still undecided on that one). Once that's done, I think I'm going to nominate this on the FAC. Raul654 ( talk) 18:34, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
Also, people are going to object to the use of a gallery and want it broken up into seperate images. Raul654 ( talk) 18:39, 3 January 2009 (UTC) I doubt that, as visual arts galleries seem accepted at FAC now, & there isn't room in the text for them all, plus they form a distinct group. Johnbod ( talk) 19:01, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
I am looking all over for this painting and I can't find it...What collection, what size, etc.. I think we need more information about it... Modernist ( talk) 03:33, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
I found that there's a German Wikipedia article on this painting - one of their "excellent articles" (their equivalent of our featured articles). It appears to have been written primarily by °, our friend who uploaded the harry eakins scan. Can someone who speaks german take a look at that article and copy over any relevant facts or information not found in this one? Raul654 ( talk) 10:24, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Here are some quotable tidbits from "Thomas Eakins and the Swimming Picture" that I'm transcribing as I get through it. Feel free to cite and/or quote these as you find appropriate:
Forward (Rick Stewart)
Chapter 1 (Marc Simpson)
I just added to this article a pic of Thomas Eakins (circa 1882) and of Edward Horner Coates. Both of these were scanned from Bolger's book. Raul654 ( talk) 01:08, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Raul, it looks like we are both using the 'T.E. and the Swimming Picture' for refs now, and perhaps using separate cites. Please feel free to alter my cites to match yours for consistency. Okay, probably done for the day here. Thanks, JNW ( talk) 06:09, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Is this unreferenced claim what we really mean to say? in this work, Eakins took advantage of an exception to the generally prudish Victorian attitude to nudity, in that swimming naked was widely accepted. Is this really factual? Is it meant as men only? Or in sex segregated areas? Or was it the original Woodstock at the lake? Somehow I can't imagine Victorian England with both nude men and women swimming down by the banks of the Thames... Modernist ( talk) 17:23, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
After the game....I gotta go out now too.. Modernist ( talk) 17:31, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
I've just expanded the sections describing the rejection by Coates and a sentence or two about the Whitman/homosexuality connection. I'm pretty much finished now -- I think the article is more-or-less complete now. Raul654 ( talk) 07:46, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
I am *so* very tempted to ask William Innes Homer to comment on this article... Raul654 ( talk) 08:15, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
I just got off the phone with Dr. Homer. He said this article was "a good piece in general". He picked up on two fairly minor factual errors which I have now fixed and a couple of minor grammatical errors (one had already been fixed by Yomangi this morning, the other I fixed in that edit). He also suggested changing the notes section to use the full name instead of just the last name. I asked if he we would mind if I talked with him again in the future, and he said it was OK with him. Raul654 ( talk) 16:54, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
JNW, Modernist, et al - can you guys address Awadewit's FAC comments about the Interpretation section? I didn't write it, so I'm not particularly well equipped to address them. Raul654 ( talk) 20:49, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
The final three sentences are a little confusing.
The Swimming Hole marked the beginning of homoerotic imagery in American art. Eakins left a record simultaneously provocative and ambiguous on matters of sex. Based on the same visual evidence, that of the photographs, oil sketches, and the finished painting of swimmers, art historians have drawn markedly varying conclusions as to the artist's intent.
What is the "record" being referred to in the second sentence? The photographs, oil sketches, and the finished painting of swimmers? If so, it needs a more obvious connection to the final sentence. If the "record" is referring to his life's work or his personal effects, it needs to say so, but in that case the placement of the final sentence is awkward - it would be better placed as the second of those three sentences to avoid going from specific (the painting) to general (his life) then back to specific (the painting again). Yomangani talk 02:06, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
In changing Eakins's to Eakins' throughout there are two quotes which get changed, Bolger's I have corrected back to "Eakins's", but somebody with the book should check Goodrich's "Eakins' most masterful use of the nude" (formerly "Eakins's most masterful use of the nude"). Yomangani talk 00:58, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
The article states "in some cases it is uncertain as to whether the forms portrayed are male or female". I'm not asware of any uncertainty. I've no doubt that mixed sex naked swimming would have caused more controversy at the time than the male-male buttock-gazing. Paul B ( talk) 18:28, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
All the longer quotations in this article had boxes around them, which I have removed. Boxes are used, stylistically, for quotations that are memorable within themselves, or exemplary of something that has been written, eg: "To be or not to be, that is the question...." or Lincoln's Gettysberg address, when inserted into an article on Lincoln.
In the case of the quotations here, they were all merely descriptive of the work, the process, or the history. Even the artist's indignant statement is not, of itself, memorable.
Part of the problem created by boxes is that they cause formatting problems. The first box was in part disappearing underneath the lead pic. The largest box (Eakin's statement) was being forced downward by the pic above it so that there was a gap in the text between "Eakin said:" and what he said. This may not have been apparent on all screens and at all settings. It your screen is narrow, your text large and your pictures small you wouldn't be aware of it, but on a wider screen boxes often create a problem.
Amandajm ( talk) 01:05, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Forward: "... depicts six men swimming naked in a pristine lake."
With pristine eluding to being uncorrupted by civilization, untouched, etc, doesn't referencing a lake with swimmers render it no longer pristine? Maybe "serene" would be a better description?
-- MtnMisty ( talk) 00:53, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
It was lovely to log in and find this on the Main Page! Amandajm ( talk) 03:20, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
In this otherwise quite strong article, it's not clear how the painting came to real public attention. The painting was exhibited only three times in its first 40 years, to a striking lack of interest, and sold in 1925 for $750, a fifth of what another Eakins painting sold for a decade earlier. It was displayed in the Ft. Worth public library, which one would not think a great venue for wide public attention outside of Ft. Worth. And yet, somehow, by 1990 it was worth $10 million. Is it possible to add some indication of how the painting finally did achieve critical and public success? John M Baker ( talk) 13:46, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
There was a suggestion above that something should be said about Tuke's paintings, of which this is perhaps the leading example. I've added a "see also" but no doubt someone more knowledgeable about Eakins' work could weave something into the text. -- Theramin ( talk) 01:13, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
In re-reading part of this, I came across a reference to a 1906 painting by Serusier, which I removed because I thought it was out of context. Then I checked and found the statement was contributed by Modernist--no harm intended, and if you think I've erred please restore it. Thanks, JNW ( talk) 02:51, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
When I look at The Swimming Hole, I feel a bit like seeing a mirror-reversed and more daring version of Sweerts Bathing Men, painted in 1655, what do you think? Cheers, Insert coins ( talk) 20:23, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
The Swimming Hole. 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 08:18, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
This article now has at least a couple of different citation styles. Unless someone objects, I'm going to undertake to unify the citation styles, probably using {{ sfn}}, or related templates, or <ref>{{ harvnb}}</ref>, or related templates. The goals of the conversion will be to:
Right now, the article generally does the first, but not the second. There will be no deadline. Any objections? Regards, TransporterMan ( TALK) 22:20, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on The Swimming Hole. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
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.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 18:30, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
![]() | The Swimming Hole is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | |||||||||
![]() | This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on October 16, 2009. | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
![]() | A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the "
Did you know?" column on
December 19, 2008. The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that artist
Thomas Eakins was fired shortly after the exhibition of
The Swimming Hole (pictured), cited as a prime example of
homoeroticism in
American art? |
![]() | This article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Good to see this started. A couple of quick thoughts: All the men in the painting are shown in profile, giving the work an anal sex undertone is problematic because all the men are clearly not shown in profile, and the mention of anal sex seems out of place for the second paragraph--too much, too soon. One wouldn't think of introducing the same idea into the early paragraphs of The Rokeby Venus, for instance, or other great nudes. Incidentally, the swimmer at far right is a self-portrait, and the dog was probably his Irish Setter, Harry, who is also featured in the portrait of his wife Susan in the Metropolitan Museum. JNW ( talk) 04:43, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
I'm about to go to bed. Just a few thoughts before I sign off -- I think it's a good start. There's a few things I'd like to see expanded (by myself or someone else):
Eventually, it might be worth nominating this article as a featured article candidate. Raul654 ( talk) 06:02, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
This article is going on DYK in a few hours. Raul654 ( talk) 21:59, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
For clarity: I did not say that the terms being used were euphemisms; I was genuinely inquiring whether others thought so. For prose reasons alone, as well as a way of accurately representing the bulk of scholarship on Eakins, I find them preferable, and don't think they skirt the issue. Eakins has a lot of biographers, and Adams' interpretations represent a recent extreme; he also conjectures at length, based on circumstantial evidence, on the likelihood that Eakins was sexually abused as a child, as well as the possibility of his having engaged in incestuous relationships. Adams writes things like "Some therapists I have spoken with find it quite likely that Eakins had sex not only with both men and women but even with animals ." Also, "While we have no direct evidence on the subject, one psychologist I spoke to noted that on the basis of Eakins's symptoms he felt that there was 'an 85% chance that he was the victim of some form of sexual abuse'." One is not saying that these things were not possible, but this is wildly speculative stuff, and propositions that begin with "Some therapists I have spoken with" don't pass muster by Wikipedia standards.
The following are several passages from a review in the Los Angeles Times after the publication of Adams' biography [4]:
The response of other Eakins experts has been skeptical. “You’d be hard-pressed to come up with someone who’s really on the side of Adams or in his camp,” says Cheryl Leibold, an archivist at the Pennsylvania Academy of the Fine Arts, where the Bregler Collection is housed. “He’s really so extremist. What he’s done is really take Freudian psychology and try to apply it to the documents that survive. In actual fact, nobody buys into Freudian psychology anymore.”
Michael J. Lewis, professor of art history at Williams College in Massachusetts and the only critic reached for this article who says he has read the Adams book in its entirety, says he finds it both reductive and confusing. “Instead of weighing the evidence,” says Lewis, author of “Frank Furness: Architecture and the Violent Mind,” “he seems to very quickly have decided that Eakins was one sick puppy, and proceeded to diagnose six or eight maladies that are self-contradictory. We find out that Eakins was perhaps gay but also a compulsive seducer of women, an exhibitionist, a voyeur, a manic-depressive, he had a serotonin imbalance, he drank too much milk. In every instance, he [Adams] looked for the worst-case scenario.”
Elizabeth Johns, professor emerita of art history at the University of Pennsylvania and the author of “Thomas Eakins: The Heroism of Modern Life” (1983), says she is “surprised and sorry that Adams took this tack – focusing exclusively on Eakins’ putative sexual identities and behavior – because much of Adams’ earlier work has been very fine art history.”
This is submitted by way of underscoring that not all published scholarship is alike, nor universally accepted. Wikipedia does not censor, but it also seeks to record scholarship responsibly. While Eakins scholarship has recently accepted the homoerotic interpretations, and even these are based as much on speculation as on factual evidence, the interpretation of this painting as suggestive of anal sex appears to be anomalous. JNW ( talk) 05:39, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
I've been looking for my copy of the Lloyd Goodrich bio..and I haven't found it yet, but this quote seems pertinent:
I'll keep looking for my book... Modernist ( talk) 05:19, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
Eakins on his resignation:
Such indignities anger me. Can not anyone see into what contemptible inconsistencies such follies all lead? And how dangerous they are? My conscience is clear, and my suffering is past.
This seems relevant to the article text... Modernist ( talk) 05:25, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
Somebody with the books to hand needs to add page numbers. This should be done before the page is expanded further. And I agree with the above that this could be FAC. Ceoil ( talk) 06:33, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
What we now need is something on how it relates to the tradition of group nudes, from the High Renaissance, especially Michelangelo's Battle of Cesana, the Battle of the Nudes (engraving) and various Diana & nymphs etc, through to Cezanne etc. It seems to me somewhat of a riposte to Titian's Andrians the fete champetre motif. Johnbod ( talk) 17:42, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
I'd like to nominate this as a featured article candidate soon. Before I do, I'd like to get an idea of what you guys think is missing. What topics should this article address, or do a better job of addressing? Raul654 ( talk) 09:35, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
I want to add a little more about the restoration, and maybe the recent pic of hte lake (I'm still undecided on that one). Once that's done, I think I'm going to nominate this on the FAC. Raul654 ( talk) 18:34, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
Also, people are going to object to the use of a gallery and want it broken up into seperate images. Raul654 ( talk) 18:39, 3 January 2009 (UTC) I doubt that, as visual arts galleries seem accepted at FAC now, & there isn't room in the text for them all, plus they form a distinct group. Johnbod ( talk) 19:01, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
I am looking all over for this painting and I can't find it...What collection, what size, etc.. I think we need more information about it... Modernist ( talk) 03:33, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
I found that there's a German Wikipedia article on this painting - one of their "excellent articles" (their equivalent of our featured articles). It appears to have been written primarily by °, our friend who uploaded the harry eakins scan. Can someone who speaks german take a look at that article and copy over any relevant facts or information not found in this one? Raul654 ( talk) 10:24, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Here are some quotable tidbits from "Thomas Eakins and the Swimming Picture" that I'm transcribing as I get through it. Feel free to cite and/or quote these as you find appropriate:
Forward (Rick Stewart)
Chapter 1 (Marc Simpson)
I just added to this article a pic of Thomas Eakins (circa 1882) and of Edward Horner Coates. Both of these were scanned from Bolger's book. Raul654 ( talk) 01:08, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Raul, it looks like we are both using the 'T.E. and the Swimming Picture' for refs now, and perhaps using separate cites. Please feel free to alter my cites to match yours for consistency. Okay, probably done for the day here. Thanks, JNW ( talk) 06:09, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Is this unreferenced claim what we really mean to say? in this work, Eakins took advantage of an exception to the generally prudish Victorian attitude to nudity, in that swimming naked was widely accepted. Is this really factual? Is it meant as men only? Or in sex segregated areas? Or was it the original Woodstock at the lake? Somehow I can't imagine Victorian England with both nude men and women swimming down by the banks of the Thames... Modernist ( talk) 17:23, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
After the game....I gotta go out now too.. Modernist ( talk) 17:31, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
I've just expanded the sections describing the rejection by Coates and a sentence or two about the Whitman/homosexuality connection. I'm pretty much finished now -- I think the article is more-or-less complete now. Raul654 ( talk) 07:46, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
I am *so* very tempted to ask William Innes Homer to comment on this article... Raul654 ( talk) 08:15, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
I just got off the phone with Dr. Homer. He said this article was "a good piece in general". He picked up on two fairly minor factual errors which I have now fixed and a couple of minor grammatical errors (one had already been fixed by Yomangi this morning, the other I fixed in that edit). He also suggested changing the notes section to use the full name instead of just the last name. I asked if he we would mind if I talked with him again in the future, and he said it was OK with him. Raul654 ( talk) 16:54, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
JNW, Modernist, et al - can you guys address Awadewit's FAC comments about the Interpretation section? I didn't write it, so I'm not particularly well equipped to address them. Raul654 ( talk) 20:49, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
The final three sentences are a little confusing.
The Swimming Hole marked the beginning of homoerotic imagery in American art. Eakins left a record simultaneously provocative and ambiguous on matters of sex. Based on the same visual evidence, that of the photographs, oil sketches, and the finished painting of swimmers, art historians have drawn markedly varying conclusions as to the artist's intent.
What is the "record" being referred to in the second sentence? The photographs, oil sketches, and the finished painting of swimmers? If so, it needs a more obvious connection to the final sentence. If the "record" is referring to his life's work or his personal effects, it needs to say so, but in that case the placement of the final sentence is awkward - it would be better placed as the second of those three sentences to avoid going from specific (the painting) to general (his life) then back to specific (the painting again). Yomangani talk 02:06, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
In changing Eakins's to Eakins' throughout there are two quotes which get changed, Bolger's I have corrected back to "Eakins's", but somebody with the book should check Goodrich's "Eakins' most masterful use of the nude" (formerly "Eakins's most masterful use of the nude"). Yomangani talk 00:58, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
The article states "in some cases it is uncertain as to whether the forms portrayed are male or female". I'm not asware of any uncertainty. I've no doubt that mixed sex naked swimming would have caused more controversy at the time than the male-male buttock-gazing. Paul B ( talk) 18:28, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
All the longer quotations in this article had boxes around them, which I have removed. Boxes are used, stylistically, for quotations that are memorable within themselves, or exemplary of something that has been written, eg: "To be or not to be, that is the question...." or Lincoln's Gettysberg address, when inserted into an article on Lincoln.
In the case of the quotations here, they were all merely descriptive of the work, the process, or the history. Even the artist's indignant statement is not, of itself, memorable.
Part of the problem created by boxes is that they cause formatting problems. The first box was in part disappearing underneath the lead pic. The largest box (Eakin's statement) was being forced downward by the pic above it so that there was a gap in the text between "Eakin said:" and what he said. This may not have been apparent on all screens and at all settings. It your screen is narrow, your text large and your pictures small you wouldn't be aware of it, but on a wider screen boxes often create a problem.
Amandajm ( talk) 01:05, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Forward: "... depicts six men swimming naked in a pristine lake."
With pristine eluding to being uncorrupted by civilization, untouched, etc, doesn't referencing a lake with swimmers render it no longer pristine? Maybe "serene" would be a better description?
-- MtnMisty ( talk) 00:53, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
It was lovely to log in and find this on the Main Page! Amandajm ( talk) 03:20, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
In this otherwise quite strong article, it's not clear how the painting came to real public attention. The painting was exhibited only three times in its first 40 years, to a striking lack of interest, and sold in 1925 for $750, a fifth of what another Eakins painting sold for a decade earlier. It was displayed in the Ft. Worth public library, which one would not think a great venue for wide public attention outside of Ft. Worth. And yet, somehow, by 1990 it was worth $10 million. Is it possible to add some indication of how the painting finally did achieve critical and public success? John M Baker ( talk) 13:46, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
There was a suggestion above that something should be said about Tuke's paintings, of which this is perhaps the leading example. I've added a "see also" but no doubt someone more knowledgeable about Eakins' work could weave something into the text. -- Theramin ( talk) 01:13, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
In re-reading part of this, I came across a reference to a 1906 painting by Serusier, which I removed because I thought it was out of context. Then I checked and found the statement was contributed by Modernist--no harm intended, and if you think I've erred please restore it. Thanks, JNW ( talk) 02:51, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
When I look at The Swimming Hole, I feel a bit like seeing a mirror-reversed and more daring version of Sweerts Bathing Men, painted in 1655, what do you think? Cheers, Insert coins ( talk) 20:23, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
The Swimming Hole. 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 08:18, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
This article now has at least a couple of different citation styles. Unless someone objects, I'm going to undertake to unify the citation styles, probably using {{ sfn}}, or related templates, or <ref>{{ harvnb}}</ref>, or related templates. The goals of the conversion will be to:
Right now, the article generally does the first, but not the second. There will be no deadline. Any objections? Regards, TransporterMan ( TALK) 22:20, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on The Swimming Hole. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
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.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 18:30, 13 October 2017 (UTC)