Talk:Flaming June

message: "Please allow me to relate a topical anecdote. In 1960 the British Cartoonist “Giles” published a cartoon entitled “Flaming June” It was a satirical piece, aimed at a philistine society that failed to appreciate ‘Fine Art’ A recent Auction Sale had an item of singular note, that failed to reach it’s reserve of $140, regrettably my internet search has been unable so far, to locate the Lot number of the sale, but I was in luck with the Giles Cartoon:- http://www.cartoons.ac.uk/record/GAA141747 
We believe it was a London Auction, but need confirmation of this, In any case the story goes that Sir Fredrick Lord Leighton P.R.A. ‘s magnificent painting “Flaming June” exquisitely framed by Arnold Wiggins & Sons, was the inspiration for Giles’s satire! It was picked up by an interior decorator/dealer just for the frame. He had a standing order with the Auction House to let him have good frames from Lots that failed to reach reserve. His clients, mostly American, used to convert them to barroom mirrors. The painting itself was thrown in the trash. where art students often rummaged for old canvases. They would sand them down with a Black & Decker, reprime them and paint some abstract monstrocity. Fortunately this canvas was spotted, and found it’s way to Ampsterdam…Wikipedia pick up the story:-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flaming_June
Art Historians will confirm that about 75% of all the Old Master paintings are lost forever, most of them put on bonfires, in a clear-out. When Leighton’s “Flaming June” became ‘fashionable’ once again, the Gallery that owned it, tried to negotiate the re-purchase of the frame…No dice!…so they asked Arnold Wiggins and Sons if they could find a suitable frame. “No problem! we have the original drawings to work from, Sir Frederick was after all The President of The Roayal Academy!” ….PHILISTINES!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alastair Carnegie (talk • contribs) 16:44, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comment on Max Keiser 

message: "The transparent material worn by the sleeping woman – through which her right nipple can be seen clearly – is typical of Leighton's artistic predilections"
Right nipple?  Really?!  Is this another example of USofA prurience? Yes, parts of human bodies can, indeed, be seen in pictures of humans.  And you're surprised?  Consider it worthy of comment?  Perhaps you would care to point out that a nose, leg, eye, etc., etc., can "be seen clearly".  This adolescent POV is a joke to most of the civilised, educated world.
And as for "artistic predilections", (i) in what possible sense is this a predilection? (ii) in what sense would it be (were it to be a predilection) an "artistic" one?
It is comments such this that so clearly distinguish between the anyone-can-have-a-go "editorship" of Wikipedia and the educated, literate editorship of a real encyclopaedia.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.118.19.182 (talk) 22:31, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Though you might be correct, I see you made no attempt to fix the offending phrase in over a year. It is comments like this which are the reason Wikipedia is not, and will never be, perfect. Plenty of people with time to spare thumbing their nose at imperfect articles, but lack the minute-and-a-half it would take to fix the problem. Alt lys er svunnet hen (talk) 20:55, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Predilections 

message: "The transparent material worn by the sleeping woman – through which her right nipple can be seen clearly – is typical of Leighton's artistic predilections"
Leaving aside "artistic predilections", whatever that is supposed to convey, being such a general term in the absence of clarification, what can be seen in this sentence, "clearly", is the US-ian predilection to focus on a normal part of the human anatomy in a schoolboy-like, guilty-but-naughty, tittering way.  You didn't choose to mention fingers, toes, knees, ears, hair or any other standard part of a standard human being as a focus for "artistic predilections", though you might equally have done so.  What you are commenting upon is not "artistic predilections" but your own predilections moulded by your upbringing and society.
For goodness sake grow up and learn to keep your own suppressed childishness to yourself rather than presuming to have an insight into the thoughts of an adult artist, neither of which you seem to be.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.130.99.194 (talk) 07:29, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for your suggestion. When you believe an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes.  Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the edit this page link at the top. The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills.  New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). --jpgordon::==( o ) 14:20, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Predilections 

message: Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that :File:Flaming June, by Frederic Lord Leighton (1830-1896).jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on September 15, 2016. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2016-09-15. 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) 04:28, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:File:Flaming June, by Frederic Lord Leighton (1830-1896).jpg]] to appear as POTD soon