# Talk:Girl with a Mandolin

It was subsequently owned by the Belgian collector René Gaffé, who sold it to Picasso's friend Roland Penrose in 1938, and by Nelson Rockefeller, the future Governor of New York, who bequeathed it to the Museum of Modern Art in New York City.
Rockefeller had bequeathed it by 1958 to the MoMA,where it has been held since his death in 1979.

"Bequeathed" refers specifically to transferring ownership after death through a will. However, Rockefeller was still alive when MoMA acquired the painting. MSincccc (talk) 03:00, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

He had written it into his will by 1958, because it appeared in an exhibition of promised works in that year. "Bequeath" means to make the arrangement — not necessary to actually transfer ownership (that happened when he died in 1979, as you can see from the accession number). See Cambridge here. UndercoverClassicist T·C 06:07, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Girl with a Mandolin/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Nominator: UndercoverClassicist (talk · contribs) 08:30, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
Reviewer: Tim riley (talk · contribs) 14:41, 24 October 2025 (UTC)


#### Tim riley looking in
A pleasant surprise to bump into you at GAN. A downmarket venue from your usual habitat and also an off-piste subject for you, methinks. The article is plainly of GA standard, but before I do the honours, just three quibbles:

"as a partial move away from naturalism, though comparatively legible" – I struggle with the word 'legible' for a picture. As I hardly need tell a classicist, 'legible' comes from legibilis meaning clear enough to read. I think you need a different adjective, though I flail around for the mot juste: perhaps discernible, distinguishable, recognisable?
"The artist and art historian John Golding wrote" – your other authorities are quoted as being in the present tense, which I think is customary.
"the portrait's subject remained discernable" – discernible, please.
That's my lot. I am to the visual arts what hippopotamuses are to knitting, but I enjoyed, and I think completely understood, your article. Tim riley talk 14:41, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

Hi Tim -- good to see you around here too. It was a bit of a diversion from my current project, which seems to be turning Category:Art historians who were inadvertently best mates with Soviet spies (two potential members now, in case you were wondering) into a blue link.
On "legible" -- I think this is the right word. The meaning here, at least if I understand the sources correctly, is that we can "read" the portrait clearly enough -- we can interpret parts of it as a human face, a mandolin, a woman's body, and so on (even if they don't really look like them) -- whereas that's not true for other Cubist treatments of the same theme and indeed many later Cubist works in general. We conventionally use terms like visual literacy for this sort of thing, so I think "legibility" is under the same umbrella. Happy to take an alternative suggestion, as ever.
The other two straightforwardly done. UndercoverClassicist T·C 14:25, 25 October 2025 (UTC)
Very well. I am pretty ignorant of the nomenclature (and much else) of the visual arts and will suspend my disbelief that pictures can be read. No further questions, m'lud.


### Overall summary
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality: 

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists: 

Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources: 
Well referenced.
B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary: 
Well referenced.
C. No original research: 

Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects: 

B. Focused: 

Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias: 

Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc: 

Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales: 
Well illustrated.
B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions: 
Well illustrated.
Overall:
Pass or Fail: 

I look forward to your article on Anglo-Bolshie art experts. Whatever next!? Tim riley talk 14:36, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

... that Picasso's Girl with a Mandolin was confiscated by the French state as "enemy property" during World War I?

ALT1: ... that Picasso left Girl with a Mandolin unfinished – perhaps because of his lover's jealousy of its model? Source: Daix, Pierre (1994) [1987]. Picasso: Life and Art. Translated by Emmet, Olivia. London: Thames and Hudson. p. 101. ISBN 0-500-27742-7 – via Internet Archive.
ALT2: ... that the titular mandolin in Picasso's Girl with a Mandolin has been attributed with "a mild autoerotic suggestion"? Source: Chave, Anna C. (2005). "New Encounters with Les Demoiselles d'Avignon: Gender, Race, and the Origin of Cubism". In Garrard, Mary D.; Broude, Norma (eds.). Reclaiming Female Agency: Feminist Art History After Postmodernism. Oakland: University of California Press. p. 308. ISBN 0-520-24252-1.
Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/The Banquet of Cleopatra (Jordaens)
Comment: 2nd QPQ: Template:Did you know nominations/Impact events in fiction

UndercoverClassicist T·C 17:54, 29 October 2025 (UTC).

 Interesting detailed GA, on fine sources, offline sources accepted AGF, no copyvio obvious. I wonder why you don't include the image which is public domain, and recommend to delink Picasso, because te analysis of the viewcounts is interested only in the statistic for the bold link (which I don't understand). I like ALT1 best and ALT2 least (because I don't like "attributed" hooks), but approve all. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:34, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
Oh, yeah -- we definitely could do it as a pictured hook with the lead image. I'll let the promoter make the call depending on what else they've got in the set. UndercoverClassicist T·C 16:52, 30 October 2025 (UTC)