Talk:Grande Odalisque

Ctiticism

"Ingres continued to be criticized for his work until the mid-1820s when Eugène Delacroix appeared". The reference to Delacroix appears to be a non-sequitur; presumably it should say "...Delacroix, who became the centre of criticism of romanticism" or some such.--Grahame (talk) 23:37, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Title

Discussion about the article's title.

From [1]: The Louvre calls the Mona Lisa La Joconde. This is not comparable, as "La Joconde" is not the original title. Books refer to the titles "Grande Odalisque" and "La Grande Odalisque" [2] ([3] / [4]). Encyclopedias Britannica and Universalis use the title "La Grande Odalisque" ([5], [6], [7]). So which title should be used? Korg (talk) 04:39, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

This is not comparable, as "La Joconde" is not the original title.

• Correct. But we don't have an article called "Prese Lionardo a fare per Francesco del Giocondo il ritratto di mona Lisa sua moglie". We have one called Mona Lisa, its common name. Similarly, I am using the name commonly used in Gardner's Art Through the Ages, a book specifically devoted to the study of major artworks.

Books refer to the titles "Grande Odalisque" and "La Grande Odalisque" [8] ([9] / [10]). Encyclopedias Britannica and Universalis use the title "La Grande Odalisque" ([11], [12], [13])

• So you've admitted that serious books omit the "La". And Encarta uses "Grande Odalisque". But what I think is most important are the naming conventions that argue against adding definite articles like "The" (which "la" is a translation of) at the beginning of article names. I've listed the alternate spellings as suggested, but I recommend against changing the article name.

-- VegitaU (talk) 05:33, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

This naming convention does not apply to specific titles of works, as the policy says somewhere, and you will see very many articles on paintings, works of literature etc use articles. Nor am I inclined to treat Gardner as revealed wisdom. Presumably this is or was known as the "grande" O to distinguish it from other, smaller works by Ingres of Os? If so, there is a case for calling it "the large O". The article should cover this in any case, & also that the Louvre now just calls it "an odalisque". The main thing is to have all options covered by redirects. Johnbod (talk) 14:09, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that the common name should be used. As for the naming conventions, WP:NCD applies; the definite articles are not disallowed.

So you've admitted that serious books omit the "La". - No, I've pointed out that both titles are used. Encarta uses also "La Grande Odalisque" in the French version: [14], [15].

At this point, I just ask which name should be used for the article title. Korg (talk) 00:27, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

As Johnbod says, if there is doubt or argument 'the main thing is to have all options covered by redirects. Ceoil (talk) 00:33, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

True dat. And they are covered. -- VegitaU (talk) 01:18, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Hugh Honour and John Fleming, A World History of Art, 1982, Macmillan, London just calls it "Odalisque", in effect like the Louvre, but that is a tad confusing, as there are others, like the Baltimore one (which again the article should mention). A Google Scholar search shows that all Burlington Magazine and Oxford Art Journal mentions (of GO) have no "La", using "the" instead, which is good enough for me. Johnbod (talk) 02:35, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Can I just say I think this argument is irrelevant, and wastes time that could be spent adding content to the article. Who cares what the painting is called; it is what is it is; brilliant and amazing. It's title is the less fantastic thing about it. Ceoil (talk) 02:40, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

New Picture worse?

User:Evrik has taken it upon himself to change the picture. As seems to be invariably the case when this is done, the new picture seems to me worse, though in fact both are poor. It will be noticed the new one is cropped on all 4 sides, as well as being out of focus, with dull colours. The old one has very sharp detail at small size, though tonal values are poor. What do others think, and can anyone find a really good pic? - these are both book scans I think. Johnbod (talk) 21:08, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

New

Old

Link to Louvre's website

I know you Wikipedia-users don't like changes without discussion, so here's my opinion and see for yourself what you'll do. I think there should be a link somewhere that heads to the website of the Louvre. There's a lot more information about this painting and it could only help people find the right information.

http://www.louvre.fr/llv/oeuvres/detail_notice.jsp?CONTENT%3C%3Ecnt_id=10134198673226311&CURRENT_LLV_NOTICE%3C%3Ecnt_id=10134198673226311&FOLDER%3C%3Efolder_id=9852723696500815&bmLocale=en —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.198.71.57 (talk) 16:05, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Grande Odalisque. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080118010317/http://www.louvre.fr/llv/oeuvres/detail_notice.jsp?CONTENT%3C%3Ecnt_id=10134198673226311&CURRENT_LLV_NOTICE%3C%3Ecnt_id=10134198673226311&FOLDER%3C%3Efolder_id=9852723696500815&fromDept=true&baseIndex=5&bmUID=1189640260361&bmLocale=en to http://www.louvre.fr/llv/oeuvres/detail_notice.jsp?CONTENT%3C%3Ecnt_id=10134198673226311&CURRENT_LLV_NOTICE%3C%3Ecnt_id=10134198673226311&FOLDER%3C%3Efolder_id=9852723696500815&fromDept=true&baseIndex=5&bmUID=1189640260361&bmLocale=en

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: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:17, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Who was the Model for La Grande Odalisque?

The following information may be of interest in the main body of this article.

Ingres wrote that he used a ten-year old girl from Rome as the model for the painting.

"Des obligeants, comme il y en a tant par le monde, ont accrédité à ce qu'il paraît que j'ai eu l'intention de retracer les traits de Mme Murat dans cette peinture. Cela est absolument faux, mon modèle est à Rome, c'est une petite fille de 10 ans qui m'en a servi, et d'ailleurs ceux qui ont connu Mme Murat peuvent me juger."

Danya Epstein comments: "Ingres’s assertion that he employed a ten-year-old girl as his model as a defense of Queen Caroline is undoubtedly rather baffling, given that the odalisque clearly does not have a prepubescent body. Ockman suggests that this is Ingres’s attempt to desexualize the perception of the painting, though why a painting of a nude ten-year-old girl would be more appropriate is unclear. Ingres himself harbored some anxieties about whether the Grande Odalisque would be perceived as indecent, or too 'voluptueux,' in his own words."

Danya Epstein, "Pathology and Imagination: Ingres's Anatomical Distortions" PDF

(Alternatively, perhaps the girl was only used as model for the head.) 37.170.182.100 (talk) 15:22, 13 April 2023 (UTC)