Talk:Joseph Ducreux

File:Joseph Ducreux (French - Self-Portrait, Yawning - Google Art Project.jpg to appear as POTD soon

Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Joseph Ducreux (French - Self-Portrait, Yawning - Google Art Project.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on April 1, 2016. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2016-04-01. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 10:59, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Picture of the day

A circa 1783 self-portrait of the French painter Joseph Ducreux (1735–1802) in the middle of a large yawn. Ducreux attempted to break free from the constraints of traditional portraiture in his depictions of subjects; another self-portrait, painted some ten years later, depicts him pointing at the viewer and laughing.Painting: Joseph Ducreux

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Joseph Ducreux. 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/20100709220908/http://www.getty.edu/art/gettyguide/artMakerDetails?maker=323 to http://www.getty.edu/art/gettyguide/artMakerDetails?maker=323
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060901210933/http://www.spencerart.ku.edu/collection/europeanamerican/ducreux.html to http://www.spencerart.ku.edu/collection/europeanamerican/ducreux.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090628164435/http://www.getty.edu/art/gettyguide/artObjectDetails?artobj=663 to http://www.getty.edu/art/gettyguide/artObjectDetails?artobj=663
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100709220908/http://www.getty.edu/art/gettyguide/artMakerDetails?maker=323 to http://www.getty.edu/art/gettyguide/artMakerDetails?maker=323

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) 13:10, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Joseph Ducreux. 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/20121008031556/http://www.getty.edu/art/gettyguide/artMakerDetails?maker=323&page=1 to http://www.getty.edu/art/gettyguide/artMakerDetails?maker=323&page=1

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) 15:14, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

The self-portrait is NOT the original.

The painting shown here is NOT the original. It is a copy painted 100 years later. From Reddit: "This particular painting was created a hundred years later as an homage to the original. It was signed and dated too, which is a good indicator that it was never intended to be a fake, but to respect the original. We have a number of terms that we will use in regards to paintings not conclusively by an artist, that never intended to be copies. We will say someone is "in the circle of" an artist, if it was created around the same time as an artist by someone who had the same style. Often we will say "attributed to" an artist if a work is unsigned but we feel conclusively that it is by the artist. For instance, we will get a piece of unsigned art from the family of an artist that we will attribute to them.

A lot of remakes and similar paintings popped up centuries ago, because of demand. For instance, someone would have seen the Ducreux painting and wanted one. Well, you couldn't exactly have taken a picture or purchased a poster. So, if you couldn't buy it, you would hire an artist to create a reproduction for you. In the case of this painting, it was well done, and has aged very nicely, lasting centuries, and having significant value itself." Please see this Reddit thread: https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/1m7dzu/we_work_for_an_international_auction_house_and_we/ Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 20:07, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

That Reddit thread is about a reproduction they were selling, though they mention that the original is in the Louvre. The image in our article is from the original. Woodroar (talk) 00:38, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I firmly believe you are wrong. Please look closely at the Louvre version here: http://cartelen.louvre.fr/cartelen/visite?srv=obj_view_obj&objet=cartel_10913_25551_p0001058.003.jpg_obj.html&flag=false This is clearly not the one on this article. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 21:40, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

I just spent 10 minutes comparing the images above as well as the image at the official French Ministry of Culture site and I see a ton of differences, but none that can't be chalked up to image resolution, compression, artifacts, and even lighting when the photo was taken. Maybe I just don't know what to look for, I'm certainly no expert. And I'm not sure a Reddit post is enough to convince me, either. (It certainly doesn't meet our requirements for a reliable source.) If it does turn out to be a fake, can't we just use the image from the official French site? (That question isn't just for you, Pyrrho the Skeptic, but any other page watchers as well.) Woodroar (talk) 23:39, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for checking it out, but please look at these examples of what I think show the difference clearly: https://imgur.com/a/Zb58JDj Also, the newer copy is not a "fake" exactly, it's an homage. It's explained here, from the Reddit AMA: ″Our painting was created in 1894 and is marked in the lower right "meurville anne (?)/1894". The original is a self portrait by Joseph Ducreux about 100 years before.″ The reason the original is not used on this Wiki article is because users thought this "version" had better image quality. My objection has also been brought it up earlier on this Talk page. The Reddit source is not just a user comment, but an offical "Ask Me Anything" from the auction house that sold the copy. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 01:53, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Oh yeah, I see it now, thank you! So now, what to do? Replace it with this version found from this page from the Louvre website itself? Ideas? Woodroar (talk) 02:05, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Oh, good! I'm glad I'm not alone, then. I guess either the credit should change, or the image. That link you provided seems the right one, to me. It might be easier just to update the metadata on the image so it's the correct info (he's still the subject of the image), if it can be sourced officially. But I'm still a Wiki newb, so I'm just guessing. I'm happy to make any edits necessary. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 02:15, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

I think updating the current image data would be tricky. We'd be taking the word of some anonymous person who claimed to work for an auction company selling what they claimed to be a reproduction of the original painting. Sure, it was at an AMA and the mods there ostensibly verified them through some non-transparent process. It all comes down to "On the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog" and we're supposed to edit based on what reliable, third-party published sources say. I'm short for time right now, so I'm going to step back for a few days and see if anyone else has ideas. Otherwise I'll probably bring this to one of our noticeboards...I'm just not sure which one. (And that's not to say you can't do the same if you'd like. If any boards on that list make sense to you, by all means!) Woodroar (talk) 02:46, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

I've uploaded a new image, File:Joseph Ducreux Original Self-Portrait.jpg taken directly from The Louvre's site, and replaced the main image. I also added the reproduction to the gallery at the bottom of the article. This article is about Ducreux, not the painting itself, so it should be fine to include the memed image of him. I hope this works for everyone! Woodroar (talk) 03:04, 23 December 2018 (UTC)