Talk:Black Paintings

message: Regarding my removal of the paragraph containing speculation on a link between Goya's illness and his creative output, I think one should bear in mind that the illness that resulted in his deafness occurred many years before he created the "Black Paintings."  It is a mistake to think, as some people apparently do, that Goya's biography reflects a downward spiral towards depression, because he created plenty of upbeat paintings both in the interim between the illness and the Black Paintings and afterward.  Moreover, I doubt that the demonstrable link between creativity and mental illness applies in Goya's case, because, apart from two relatively brief episodes, the artist was well in control of his faculties until the end.  A simpler explanation is that Goya, in retirement and having been well compensated for his lifetime of painting for Spain's upper crust, had the means and the wherewithal to express his private imaginings without fear of public disapproval.  As the article points out, Goya continued to experiment with new media such as lithography and miniatures throughout his life, despite his advanced age, so such an outburst of creativity should not be written off as madness. Wiccan Quagga 08:51, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  heading 

message: The names were given to the paintings afterwards by "art historians"?  This needs a whole section of the article to talk about it.  Surely some of the namings were controversial?  Is that really Saturn?  How sure are we that it's really Saturn?  If we're not very sure, then it doesn't seem germane to have a big discussion of the myth in the article, either - that is, if the name is just some speculation by some historian.  Tempshill 22:08, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The names 

message: Article should state in detail how the paintings were "transferred" to canvas.  As a layman this sounds impossible to me.  Tempshill 22:08, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This site, not a reliable source, states most of the works are "Oil on plaster, mounted on canvas", which sounds feasible.  The NY Times piece cited in the article describes the transference as when the restorer "hacked" the pieces off the wall and mounted them on canvas, and one person is quoted in the article as having said that there was a lot of repainting that occurred at this time.  Tempshill (talk) 04:19, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  "transferred" 

message: The act in Saturn Devouring His Offspring should not be referred to as cannibalism, because Saturn is a God, and typically the concept of cannibalism is at best a parallel in this case.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.187.37.106 (talk) 08:03, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Cannibalism

message: The article talks about an "original version", whatever that means, of Fight with Clubs having the setting of a meadow, and makes it sound like only the overpainting made it appear that the two fighters are knee deep in a quagmire.  Surely this is not true?  Tempshill (talk) 03:18, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clubs and the quagmire 

message: I added yesterday a paragraph about the fact that Juan José Junquera has questioned the authenticity of the Black Paintings as Goyas. The paragraph was deleted. One could say that he's just one art professor who said his opinion, as many others do, and we don't have to accept whatever he says. But since Manuela Mena (the senior curator of 18th-century painting of Museo Nacional del Prado) has said: We cannot send 'The Dog' to the museum basement because it was on the APPARENTLY NONEXISTING second floor of the Quinta., I think it should, at least, be mentioned in the article. Here's the full article from The New York Times:
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/07/27/magazine/the-secret-of-the-black-paintings.html
--NNeilAlieNN (talk) 07:47, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Neil, would you mind providing a trimed down version of the paragraph. Ceoil 18:26, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

text: I added a much shorter version of the paragraph. I hope it's O.K. now.--NNeilAlieNN (talk) 11:04, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Neil. Ceoil (talk) 14:20, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

text: It seems an editor deleted the entire paragraph as WP:FRINGE with this edit on 9/9/18. However, as the forgery theory has been discussed in at least two reliable sources (the NYT and the Telegraph) I don't see why it shouldn't be mentioned, if only briefly. I have re-added a short paragraph about it with two citations. Comments welcome.--Muzilon (talk) 02:03, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Newspapers are absolutely not RS on art history, as they report all exciting new theories with enthusiasm, and with very little expertise. Any mention should be extremely tentative until solid secondary art history sources & in particular the Prado start to take this seriously. The NYT article is interesting, but none of the art historian specialists they talk to endorsed the disattribution. The reverted account of the matter did not quote them. The new account is better, but this all originally blew up in 2003, and if it were gaining scholarly traction that should be evident by now. Johnbod (talk) 04:16, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: To me, the key sentence in the now re added para is "Junquera's theory was rejected by Goya scholar Nigel Glendinning." Ceoil (talk) 07:50, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Authenticity of the Black Paintings

message: In Spanish, "Dos viejos comiendo sopa" can mean either "two old men eating soup," or "two old ones eating soup."  Since the person on the left appears to quite possibly be female, to myself, the latter title seems to be a more accurate translation.  Someone's questioning of this caused me to verify this using Google Translate, just to be sure, which I did.  Thanks, 50.97.196.7 (talk) 05:34, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Title for "Two Old Ones Eating Soup" 

message: Some of this article seems like someone is trying to write an essay on his works - “we are faced with the digestive tract” makes zero sense unless, I’m assuming, the reader is some kind of art critic. It feels like there should be some sources of who is talking about his work like this. ElleBlair (talk) 15:38, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opinions rather than fact? 

message: In the analysis section, it currently has the following:  Where did this originally come from? I see this article but that article came out in 2019 and the line was added to the Wikipedia page in 2013 so that would be a circular citation. And based on the edit note for that line, it seems to be a translation from the Spanish version of this page. On that page, the line (~)
 was added in 2007 with no source, and from a few searches I can't find an earlier online Spanish source either. It could be considered original research but I think the bigger issue is that it's incorrect, right? Because red, yeah? Also, not a problem really but why was it moved from the estilo section to the analysis header section? Quite the mystery we've got here. - Procyonidae (talk) 10:48, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: You're absolutely right. I went through the article history and the entire section has been unreferenced since 2005, with a few editors expanding it, again, without citing any sources. I took the liberty of deleting it since it goes against WP:OR. I think almost 20 years of waiting for sources is more than enough. - Ïvana (talk) 03:53, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Source for chromatic range?