Talk:A Bar at the Folies-Bergère

message: What does the last clause (part after the comma) of this sentence actually mean?: "A Bar at the Folies-Bergère is a modern version of Velazquez's Las Meninas (1656-7), the most profound meditation on the portrait. I"
(And for that matter, what's the word "I" doing there?) PiCo 12:42, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  ? 

message: There's no point in editing articles if what you add (an explanation of the problem with perspective in this picture, with a reference) is going to be removed.  Why did someone do that? Sorry, I failed to sign my edit.  Is that a big enough problem to remove content?  I notice that whoever removed my contribution replaced it with original research regarding whores and product placement.  Truly, we are surrounded by morons.  No wonder I personally prefer to be surrounded by bottles of liquor. 24.27.31.170 (talk) 16:19, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm.  I suppose I should apologize.  My edit doesn't show up on the article history.  I'M DOING IT WRONG. Blah.  I'm not going to re-create what I did yesterday, though. I added a less formal, unreferenced version, and let's see what happens to it. 24.27.31.170 (talk) 16:28, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Very well.  I have found my previous edit in the article history.  It is this: ***The writer Barry Grant Brissman, writing as Barry Grant in his book "Sherlock Holmes and the Shakespeare Letter", has Sherlock Holmes explain the paradox of the reflection. "[I]f you assume yourself to be in the position of that looming man in the mirror on our far right, the man in the top hat approaching the bar -- if you imagine yourself to be in his exact position, so that your reflection is his reflection -- then every object and reflection in the painting is perfectly matched, and all makes sense." Holmes goes on to explain that Manet could have painted the picture from that viewpoint, with himself in the position of the man in the top hat, and then removed his easel from the painting.Grant, Barry. "Sherlock Holmes and the Shakespeare Letter". Severn House Publishers Ltd. 2010. *** 
There is nothing wrong with this.  It explains the major issue with this painting.  If you have a source that disagrees with this, please edit the article to include your source, or discuss it here, instead of removing what I have contributed without comment.  As it says on the history page: "If you are undoing an edit that is not vandalism, explain the reason in the edit summary. Do not use the default message only." 24.27.31.170 (talk) 02:25, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

text: A couple of things. It's not the type of information that should be in the introduction. It's too specific and represents one writer's interpretation rather than a general view. This article does need expanding and has been neglected for such an important work. The paragraph you introduced would belong in a section on interpretation, if there were one. I'm going to post a note over at the Visual Art Project talk page to see if I can get some more editors involved with a much-needed expansion of this article. Your contribution is appreciated and was formatted correctly--unfortunately given the state of the article, it's a bit premature. freshacconci talktalk 02:36, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I appreciate the additional explanation but not the formalities you propose before anything can be done here.  I was just explaining that I was going to create a section in the article about the mirror, the view, how the painting was created, and so forth, and I ran into an edit conflict. I was ready to do the work a few minutes ago, but now I'm not.  Let me ask: why remove my change, which you seem to like, and leave behind the other matter that doesn't belong in the introduction AND which is original research? I suppose I'm just to used to being in charge. I had no idea that a note to the committee was necessary prior to well-intentioned contributions or that contributions needed to be made in a particular (not to say arbitrary) order, or they must be lost.  I thought I left all that behind when I quit my last job.  I have an account now though.  Wastrel Way (talk) 02:55, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll leave a message at your user talk page, a standard welcome that will give you some info on how things are run here. But in a sense, yes, we do run things by committee here. It's all a joint effort and I've had to leave my ego at the door more than a few times. As for removing your info and leaving other less-than-desirable bits in--as I said, the article is in bad shape. I suppose it would have been easy enough to leave as is but I've seen too many articles languish so I was hoping to actually get things going on this one. If you want to add a section on interpretation or some other subheading and re-add your edit there, go right ahead. Not to contradict myself, but one important guideline here is to be WP:BOLD with your edits. Otherwise, nothing gets done. I can't personally devote much time to it until probably the weekend. My edits the last few days have been fairly uninvolved. Glad you signed up and hopefully you'll stick around. freshacconci talktalk 03:23, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Freshacconci that this article needs a major re-working however the additions above by the IP 24.27.31.170 and/or by User:Wastrel Way are grossly inaccurate and aren't particularly helpful either. According to the Metropolitan Museum of Art in its catalog of its massive Manet exhibition in 1983 the painting was made in the studio and the gentleman in the Top Hat was posed by the painter Gaston La Touche. The essay in the catalogue discusses the mirror perspective at length as well as the art historian T. J. Clark's speculation about prostitution and alienation. A lengthy study is called for - however the comments added the other day were not accurate or useful...Modernist (talk) 04:27, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds like you're the man to do it! I see we say "should the background of this painting indeed be a reflection in a mirror on the wall behind the bar as suggested by some critics, ..." but does anyone now not think there is a mirror at the back?  Also there must be a less washed-out pic on the web somewhere.... Johnbod (talk) 05:02, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll give it some thought, although I don't have that much time to devote right now...Modernist (talk) 05:07, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

text: Thanks, Modernist.  I appreciate the comments.  Since I'm not an art expert (or indeed, not very interested in visual arts, only music), I guess i saw more in "Sherlock Holmes's" theory about the painting than is there.  However, when I look at this painting now, I no longer wonder about the view of the room or the backside of the bartender in the mirror, because I realize that I'm looking at it through the eyes of the man in the top hat.  When "Sherlock Holmes" explained that to me, and I was so delighted that I added it to the article.  I suppose the catalog of the Manet exhibit that you mention is a better source than a work of fiction.  Wastrel Way (talk) 00:46, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: You are very welcome Wastrel Way. I regret that I can't devote more time here at the moment. The Metropolitan catalog has an excellent study of the painting by the brilliant French art historian Françoise Cachin (1936-2011), (in english) -> . There is an interesting discussion about the painting here  and another discussion here  (click on the painting below)...Modernist (talk) 03:57, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  After a month-and-a half, nothing has been done to improve this article.  The committee system has failed again, and neither Freshacconci nor Modernist have gone ahead and made improvements on his own, despite the excellent references above by Modernist.  I say that deleting my attempt to add infromation to this article was merely snobbish territoriality, and I'm leaving it at that.  24.27.31.170 (talk) 13:12, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: One of the fundamentals of this project is WP:NPA - you want action? Is that what you want? This is an independent volunteer project - you were advised as to how to gain the information you wanted and now you want someone to do something faster? That suits you?...Modernist (talk) 16:22, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why edit? 

message: As the article syas, the bottles of beer on the counter are identifiable as bottles of Bass by the distinctive red triangle. This was the first corporate logo to be registered in the UK (perhaps the world) in 1870. Does this painting, then, contain the first image of a corporate logo in a (major) work of art?
213.123.248.238 (talk) 11:16, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Corporate Logo 

message: In the page for Manet, where the painting is, naturally, referred, the title is given as LE bar, rather than UN bar. I have also seen it elsewhere, in television and art appreciation books, as LE bar. Searching the internet, there is both UN and LE, but one or the other could be secondary from Wiki, rather than a true source itself. Which, then, is the correct title?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.229.59.238 (talk) 23:05, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The correct title for the painting in French uses Le in Spanish Un in English A; Manet was French and Un is fine...Modernist (talk) 11:15, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: A Bar at the Folies-Bergère uses Un; The Bar at the Folies-Bergère would use Le...Modernist (talk) 11:32, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on A Bar at the Folies-Bergère. 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/20100605094933/http://www.melbourneartjournal.unimelb.edu.au/E-MAJ/ to http://www.melbourneartjournal.unimelb.edu.au/E-MAJ/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:59, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The article presents Malcolm Park's theory unchallenged, but there has been a significant critique of it by Thierry de Duve, here:- https://nonsite.org/article/intentionality-and-art-historical-methodology-a-case-study The main snag is this:- "In the painting, the reflection of the group of bottles on the left side of the counter seems ill-placed: it should be near the counter’s edge that is the closest to the spectator, and not the furthest away. Park demonstrates that this group in fact sees its reflection pushed to the right, hidden by that of the barmaid. The bottles we see in the left part of the mirror actually form another group, an S-shaped garland that remains entirely outside the visual pyramid—a perfectly coherent solution, given the off-center position of the spectator, except that it forces Park to considerably stretch the bar on its left, with several unpleasant consequences."
Specifically, Park's theory requires the left end of the bar to extend much further than its reflection shows it to go. Park's reconstruction photo itself embodies a Manet-like bit of legerdemain: the bottles seen on the left, in the mirror, are not the ones seen in direct vision, as those are blocked by the model's own reflection. Instead another group, off-camera to the left, stands in. But we can see that the bar in the painting doesn't go far enough to allow room for that trick. The bottles are clearly meant to be the same group, consisting of grenadine, beer and champagne. And the end of the bar in the painting is at a much steeper apparent angle than in Park's photo. It would project to a vanishing point in the middle of the model's face, suggesting that the viewer is directly in front of her and not offset to the right. Park deals with this in his dissertation by claiming that the bar top must be trapezoidal in shape, so that that angle is deceptive. (Of course, the original sketch shows the right-hand end of the bar and it seems rectangular, not trapezoidal, but the viewpoint is very clearly offset right, and the model is clearly turned that way. The sketch still involves trickery: the reflected man in the hat must be well to our left, and the model is looking past us to our right, but in the mirror she appears to be looking at the man. https://www.sothebys.com/en/auctions/ecatalogue/lot.8.html/2015/impressionist-modern-art-evening-sale-l15006 In the final painting, Manet moved the apparent viewpoint and the model's gaze to the centre, which is more arresting, but he kept the offset reflections from that sketch so the model didn't obscure them.) Although Park's theory is a nice one, and is much repeated on the internet, it doesn't resolve the picture's paradoxes quite as neatly as it purports to. And as Park himself points out, the reflection of the auditorium is impossible: the bars were on the ground floor, so the mirror would actually show the stalls and the slope of the stairs around the side, not the loge level. Manet has moved the bar up to the mezzanine just for effect. He has also eliminated the railing at the edge of the bar area because it would get in the way. Khamba Tendal (talk) 12:26, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Park theory 

message: The original painting has been replaced with an ms paint sketch of people playing Fortnite.
I recommend you revert the changes.
142.196.210.65 (talk) 23:03, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: , I’m so glad you found out about the image. I decided to look at the edit history of the article, but cannot find who uploaded the ms paint sketch. I will delete it altogether. LPS and MLP Fan (LittlestPetShop) (MyLittlePony) 23:07, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism 

message: " By including a dish of oranges in the foreground, Manet identifies the barmaid as a prostitute, according to art historian Larry L. Ligo, who says that Manet habitually associated oranges with prostitution in his paintings.[7]"
The fact that the fruits in the picture are obviously tangerines makes this already dubious association between oranges and prostitution pointless.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.23.16.247 (talk) 18:44, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wrong symbolism