Talk:Girl with a Pearl Earring

message: Who says that the focal point is the pearl earring. I think eyes both constitute the focal point. 206.217.201.28 (talk) 23:59, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Focal Point

message: An imitation of this painting was used in the Less Than Perfect episode The Crush with Sara Rue as the girl. ----DanTD (talk) 18:16, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another fictional reference 

message: BTW the current way the picture used in the article is cropped removes the signature; on the uncropped version, it is barely visible in the upper left part of the painting. One can see, very faintly, "Meer", with the "I" over it (see http://www.essentialvermeer.com/catalogue/girl_with_a_pearl_earring.html for description of signature).
Ll1324 (talk) 03:57, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Signature 

message: This is touring to the de Young gallery in San Francisco starting January 2013.  I'm not sure where it is going after that.  Is this information relevant to the painting.  I think the touring information of famous paintings could be interesting and informational, but I haven't seen too much of it mentioned on other wikipedia painting pages.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.49.44.154 (talk) 22:47, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Touring? 

message: Does anyone else find it bad/sad/wrong that the file of the picture used on this page (and in a great many places apparently) has the wrong name for the work? THE GIRL WITH THE PEARL EARRING is not the name of the painting; it is GIRL WITH A PEARL EARRING.  Am I wrong? ◦◦derekbd◦◦my talk◦◦ 00:23, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed. There's rarely any point getting worked up about Old Master titles, which are made up on a whim by curators or come from 18th century auction/inventory clerks. The Arnolfini Portrait has been given I think 5 different titles by the National Gallery in the last 100 years. And the hassle of changing an image file name is almost never worth it. Johnbod (talk) 04:03, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Wrong title of picture

message: What does she wear on her head? It looks like a turban. Komitsuki (talk) 15:13, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes it does, though it is probably best not to call it exactly that. Head-wraps like this were quite common for both sexes, especially in informal wear at home, or when working. Johnbod (talk) 15:51, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Headdress  

message: The image is quite unsatisfactory. It has been cropped removing the signature (why cropped for god's sake) and it's too dark. A high resolution image  might be more adequate were it nor for the healthy rose-pink cast the editor has chosen to add to it. Meanwhile attempts to upload the fine Mauritshuis image are met with opposition from City Hall. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 12:33, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Would this picture work better? Looks quite OK to me, certainly better than any other reproduction I've seen online. --Jashiin (talk) 17:04, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, that's a very acceptable image I think. I have in fact this afternoon uploaded the new Mauritshuis image  here. Your image comes from geheugenvannederland.nl ("Memories of Holland") which is a national archive whose contents are theoretically in the public domain. But the Vermeer image there is credited to the Mauritshuis, and since it's slightly different I expect it's an old version (conceivably before its 1995 restoration). I've nominated the new Mauritshuis image as a Featured Image, and if that gains consensus I will change the article image. Thank you for your input. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 22:39, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry to see an editor has reverted to the cropped and saturated version on the grounds it's a "Featured Picture". Very city hall. I shall go to Commons and endeavour to have it unfeatured. That was in any case the advice given me when I tried to have the excellent recently made available Mauritshuis version "Featured". Coat of Many Colours (talk) 20:33, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Image

message: Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that :File:Meisje met de parel.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on April 20, 2017. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2017-04-20. 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) 02:13, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:File:Meisje met de parel.jpg]] to appear as POTD soon 

message: Is it known, or is there any credible speculation, on who the model for the painting actually was? Thanks. --Lbeaumont (talk) 02:59, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: No. Various members of Vermeer's family are sometimes thought to have been used for his figures, but there is no evidence. Johnbod (talk) 10:15, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

text: There's no written evidence although visually it appears to be his daughter, Maria, who appears in several other of his attributed paintings although at different ages of course. 157.131.199.223 (talk) 17:45, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Who was the model? 

message: As you can all observe she has no eyebrows. I don't see hair at all actually. I would like a professional to look and consider if she might have had treatment against bugs like fleas. Only a professional can write and publish an article about how bugs in that era were handled. At my side of reasoning, she had her hair and eyebrows perhaps including what you don't see shaven or cut away. This needs a professional artists journalist to publish about. Why doesn't she have eyebrows? Or any other hair? Professional middle ages and opinion of professional hair dress journalists are hereby invited to publish about her physical condition. She looks to beautiful to have a modern treatment that causes people to not have hair. Thank you for reading. If a professional is willing to publish about her circumstances. If someone had insects like fleas, it sounds logical to remove all body hair. Including as described. Citation needed of middle ages expert journalist before modify of article. Regards.
~~  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.128.97.71 (talk) 15:25, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Professional Opinion of Middle Ages 

message: The 2006 film is not mentioned at all, but the book is, did I miss a link? Jack Nunn Jacknunn ([]) 11:48, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes you did, the film appears in the disambiguation tab at the head of the article. Since the article is about the painting, mention of the film would have been WP:OFFTOPIC. Sweetpool50 (talk) 12:25, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Film not mentioned 

message: — Assignment last updated by MarvinKano011 (talk) 01:35, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: ARH 371_The TransAtlantic_Cross-Cultural Representations