Talk:Francisco Goya

Timeline

Here is a quick Goya timeline, from a random meta: page link to [1].

1763 Madrid, Academy San Fernando
1771 in Rome (since 1768?); returns to Spain in June 
1773 married Josefa Bayeu 
1774 commissioned by Mengs to do cartoons for tapestries 
1775-92 various tapestries 
1780 member of Royal Academy 
1786 a painter to the King 
1789 Court painter 
1792 ill; deafness (lead poisoning?) 
1795 Director of Painting, R.A. 
1797 resigned above position, due to ill health 
1799 1st Court painter 
1808 French invasion 
1814 French Expelled 
1815 Spanish Inquisition; Maja paintings 
1819 serious illness 
1823 King restored to absolute power 
1824 Goya went into hiding; exile in Bordeaux 
1828 dies in Bordeaux

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sj (talk • contribs) 18:43, 28 April 2004 (UTC)

1792 ill; deafness (lead poisoning/ encephalitis/ syphilis?) — Preceding unsigned comment added by De Coverley (talk • contribs) 17:55, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Added picture

Added a picture of Goya in Bordeaux --MichaelVD 21:39, 15 November 2004 (UTC)

missing most famous picture?

i was looking at the photos and shouldnt goyas The Shootings of May Third 1808 (many consider this to be his most famous and most recognizable) be in the top group of the pictures, we can remove the clothed maja and leave the nude one since we dont need 2 versions of the same picture there. ill change it later on if noone objects.Tik 15:15, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

I would tend to agree, assuming that someone can find a good version of it that we can use. It should be out of copyright, so Bridgeman vs Corel would apply. I still rather like starting artist bio articles with a self portrait, if there is one. However, I'm not so sure about removing just one Maja - the most interesting thing about those paintings is that Goya painted two versions. On the other hand, they are also shown on the nudity article and I've also considered using them on erotic art as a nice parallel with Masaccio's Expulsion of Adam and Eve, although that article really needs to grow a bit before there is room. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Solipsist (talk • contribs) 18:08, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

I think you miss the point of copyright. It is the copyright of the photograph that is at issue here, unless you could somehow manage to post the original painting. Copyright covers 'an expression of an idea in a particular medium, so if the photo is recent the photographer will have rights. 81.102.245.243 (talk) 21:29, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

The official position taken by the Wikimedia Foundation is that "faithful reproductions of two-dimensional public domain works of art are public domain, and that claims to the contrary represent an assault on the very concept of a public domain". For details, see Commons:When to use the PD-Art tag. Lithoderm (talk) 22:19, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Romanticism?

Last I checked Goya wasn't a romantic, but I'm not an art critic or historian, is it fair to say that Goya was "a romantic Artist, whose art was envoked by his inner most feelings," rather than "an impressionist artist whose..." or "a gothic artist whose..."??

I need someone more familiar with these terms to make the call. -Diabolic 14:34, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Goya is one of the quintessential Romantics, perhaps the most important of them all. Though your point about feelings is totally appropriate to Romanticism as it is inherently an emotional - as opposed to rational - movement. Impressionism was a solely French movement in the 19th century, epitomized by the works of Monet and Pissarro, whereas Gothic art tends to belong to the medieval period. — Preceding unsigned comment added by De Coverley (talk • contribs) 17:48, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Of course Goya has to be considered a Romantic if we are going to put him into a category, which may be useful for the purposes of Wikipedia, but we should also question the definitions of Romanticism and of Goya as an artist. After a semester's serious study, it seems to me that it is very difficult to define Goya as a whole. There are many different, and sometimes conflicting faces of his work, from the tapestry sketches of the 1770s to the Disasters of War prints. Presentation of Goya as a Romantic should be critical, and someone should make the point that a facile definition of Romanticism will never fit his work.

--Fixifex 04:55, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Romanticism, at the time was a movement of realism , opposed to the idealism of neo-classicism, the early romantics often painted experiences that either were not considered fit subjects for art or with an attitude to the subject that was not considered polite.Their pictures also made plain their 'painted'or constructed nature indeed much of the horror expressed about their work in academic circles was to the 'lack of finish' that their works showed. All of this is true of Goya. -- john walker — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.100.134.179 (talk) 05:11, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Questioned works?

It is well known in circles of Goya scholars that many attributions to the prolific master are incorrect. In my own experience, paintings hanging beside his name in museums as prestigious as the Hispanic Society in New York and the Prado Museum in Madrid can safely be eliminated from his oeuvre. One such contentious attribution is ""Saturn Devouring his Son,"" which is illustrated on the Goya page here. This should be noted.--Fixifex 05:01, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Maybe someone can add a pop culture reference to how Goya's Duke of Wellington was stolen around the time that the first James Bond fild Dr. No was being filmed, and the producers had the the picture pop up in Dr. No's place, as if he stole it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nospamtodd (talk • contribs) 02:40, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

cf. http://themedium.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/04/15/goyas-painting-not-by-goya/ --91.64.176.234 (talk) 16:23, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

http://www.sgallery.net/artnews/2009/01/27/prado-museum-determines-that-colossus-is-not-an-original-goya.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7475405.stm FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 04:38, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Added material which may be copyrighted

For the purpose of scholarly research, it is important that a reader knows about the article from the NY Times Magazine, not just referenced, text which may be copyrighted by the interviewer or another party. I have added the reference (not the picture). As is often the case in WP, the author may however benefit from the added attention drawn to the material, and not raise an objection. I myself own a few reproductions of these so-called black works after a visit to the Prado. JohnClarknew (talk) 11:39, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Image changes

I have moved one image and deleted another, primarily to improve the look of the page, but also because the reproduction of the portrait of the Duchess was of such poor quality, it was of no benefit. The page needs a lot of work: structured headings, information on his early work, cites, etc. JNW 00:12, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Biography

The details of his personal life in this article are in need of the attention of an expert. I don't claim to be one, but I'm pretty sure that The details of his later life in particular are wrong. Rosario Weiss, for instance, was rumored to be his daughter and also to be under his tutoledge. The painting "The Milkmaid of Bordeaux" is contested as to its authenticity as a Goya piece, and is more commonly being attributed to Rosario. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 154.20.225.134 (talk) 20:23, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I have begun to address the relationship aspect to which you refer. Thanks, JNW 20:34, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough, but to be honest I've never heard of any such disputes regarding the authenticity of "The Milkmaid of Bordeaux". Wasn't the whole thing with that work, that it was supposed to be his last painting, with a noteable revision back to his famous realist-style just before he died? I'm suprised I've never come across that dispute before, espcialy considering the importance of the work. Jason McConnell-Leech 06:51, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

"Dry lands"

I took out the clause about his house in Fuendetodos, "and which was surrounded by the dry lands". What did it mean, please? --RobertG ♬ talk 14:57, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I think it means a desert-like region, but I've not been able to confirm that notion. --sparkit^TALK 15:15, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Napoleonic Invasions 1808-1814

As you all know, during this time period Spain was experiencing a French invasion (as well as sorting out the whole Charles IV led independence scuffles etcetera..). During this time Goya served as a court painter for the French (ie. effectively a war painter), and as far as I can see, this is not mentioned in the article. I can't see why this is not a significant enough detail to be left wanting. Especially since this was among the most potent events that shaped his realist style; not to mention the focal point of his Disasters of War Series (which coincidently also seem to be lacking a mention).

(Sources are here, and here.) Jason McConnell-Leech 06:45, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Majas

I reverted anecdotal and uncited paragraph on the Majas' identity. The story sounds apocryphal, if only because neither figure could have been painted as rapidly as suggested--these are highly finished works. As well, primary speculation connected with Godoy is that the model was his mistress, not his wife. The deleted paragraph follows: JNW 13:17, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

One of the best known stories of these two paintings is that Goya was having an affair with the woman, and her husband (possibly the Duke of Alcudia) found out. At the time, Goya had painted a voluptuous nude of her, questioning his alibi as an "innocent" artist. Finding out, the outraged husband demanded to see the portrait, she claimed was a legitimate reason for seeing the amorous painter. Goya was informed of this discovery, and quickly painted a clothed version. The husband beat on the artist's door and demanded to see the portrait, barged in, and saw the painting, "La Maja Vestida" - his wife. He was immediately apologetic to the master painter, and removed himself from the awkward moment. The clothed maja is a testimony to his quick capture of the human form, as well as his genius. Some say, the clothed version is more seductive - after all, what is seduction? Years later when Goya was brought before the Spanish inquisition, it wasn't his satanic paintings that were questioned - it was the identity of the nude maja. Perhaps having the Duke of Alcudia claiming he commissioned it (them), and as compensation for the lie, the Duke got possession of both.

Wikitedium: Wikipedia's Goya article

Jonathan Jones, "Wikitedium: The lazy and passionless tenor of art coverage in Wikipedia is both mystifying and aggravating" The Guardian. The dispiriting dead hand of uninformed Wikipedia "enforcers" of No POV has been noted within Wikipedia, too.--Wetman (talk) 23:46, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Briefly discussed a few weeks ago here: [2]. One muses over the inevitable results of an NPOV 'free' atmosphere. When desiring to express point of view this contributor writes, as does Mr. Jones, for publication. JNW (talk) 23:58, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

A little less snippily: of course the writing is uneven, sometimes good, sometimes not, but I don't think the dulling effect of neutrality is the prime culprit. Uneven scholarship and the fingerprints of many different contributors can lead to results either bland or inspired. Passionate expression is not irreconcilable with encyclopedic tone. If this or any article on the arts is lackluster, anyone is welcome to energize it. Including Jonathan Jones. JNW (talk) 02:16, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Goya's Deafness

In various sections of this article, there is a distinct explanation for how/why Goya was deaf. If there are multiple theories, perhaps these all should be corralled into one section. I can't do this as I don't know enough about Goya, so I just have to make the suggestion at this point, for the sake of narrative coherence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.223.128.186 (talk) 18:14, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Lead image

Goya, by Vicente López y Portaña

I thinks might make a stronger lead. It is used on the monster es article.[3] Ceoil ^sláinte 22:41, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

This is months late in response, but sure, Ceoil. JNW (talk) 00:54, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Saturn Devouring His Children

It is important to display all of a painter's abilities, but is it really necessary we display "Saturn Devouring his Children" on Goya's page? Please keep in mind this is a disturbing painting, and I think a link is appropriate in this situation. Some input on this point is appreciated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.237.230.2 (talk) 00:39, 12 July 2010 (UTC) 216.237.230.2 (talk) 00:40, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

It's gruesome, but it accurately reflects the tenor of much of his late work, and is mentioned in the article as a primary example of the Black Paintings. Also, it's fantasy, unlike the Third of May directly above it, which is far more disturbing for being based on actual events. That said, I don't have a problem with keeping the link to the separate article and using a different image. As with many of the masters, there's an abundance of images which can be switched out from time to time. JNW (talk) 00:52, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

File:Vicente López Portaña - el pintor Francisco de Goya.jpg to appear as POTD

Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Vicente López Portaña - el pintor Francisco de Goya.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on July 8, 2013. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2013-07-08. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. Thanks! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:10, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Picture of the day

Francisco Goya (1746–1828) was a Spanish romantic painter and printmaker regarded as both the last of the Old Masters and the first of the moderns. Goya was a court painter to the Spanish Crown, and through his works was both a commentator on and chronicler of his era. This portrait was completed when Goya was 80 years old.Painting: Vicente López y Portaña

unsourced section: Darker subject matter

The entire "Darker subject matter" section is unsourced, does anyone have citations for the claims being made? If not it should probably be removed. GrassHopHer (talk) 00:24, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

It does need cites, but I wouldn't scrap the section; there's nothing especially controversial or off-base. Better to allow for editors to provide cites as they can. JNW (talk) 00:30, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

General Junot

Napoleon did not lead an army into Spain. He sent a general. That was for the war with Portugal. In 1808 Napoleon was in Spain for the war against Spain. Ealtram (talk) 14:25, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Leocadia Weiss

The article claims she was born 1790 and cites two sources: (1) JJ Junquera, and (2) a mysterious source, "Stevenson", who is nowhere else mentioned in the article or references. The Spanish-language Wikipedia gives her dates as 1788-1856, citing the Prado Museum's biography. So, it would appear that her year of birth may be wrong, and at the very least there is a problem with the "Stevenson" citation. Muzilon (talk) 08:26, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

ADDENDA: OK, having looked at the article about La Leocadia, it would seem that the incomplete reference is to Ian Stevenson's European Cases of the Reincarnation Type (2003), p. 243. I've fixed this accordingly. But although Stevenson does give Leocadia's birth year as 1790, this still contradicts the Spanish sources. Muzilon (talk) 09:30, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 7 September 2021 and 31 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Metermaid666, Vansybil, Jiffy98, IsakHilde, Noahalterlife, Leserdy, The Enchiridion, Everwind30, Soulkiley, Oscarw3113, Meg's Goldfish, AnnieCarlson09, Sunbess.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 21:47, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 15 September 2021 and 21 November 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Msdemure, ProbSteve, Naowa, Nabourbeau, Rjoy000.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 21:26, 17 January 2022 (UTC)