Wikipedia:Peer review/Portrait of Adele Bloch-Bauer I/archive1

Portrait of Adele Bloch-Bauer I

The Portrait of Adele Bloch-Bauer I is an interesting work in its own right, exemplifying the golden period of Klimt as it does. Additionally its murky provenance of being stolen from its Jewish owners by the Nazis - a fact that was covered up by the Austrian National Gallery - and the subsequent legal battle that went to the US Supreme Court, all add to the story that made this the most expensive painting ever owned at one point. This has been extensively re-written and a further review at FAC is the aim for this PR. Thank you and all the best, The Bounder (talk) 13:49, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Johnbod

• There's inevitably an awful lot on the history compared to the actual painting. I wonder if the best sources are used here (no idea what these would be, I'm afraid, but I notice Grove's long list seems to only share a couple of names with what you use). The article doesn't give much context about his other gold-ground works (nor mention that this was the dominant background to at least religious paintings until the Renaissance). The lead is only 3 paras, over 2 of which are on the ownership history. Johnbod (talk) 02:49, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. I shall add a little more detail on the use of gold (probably in and around Klimts visit to the early-Christian Byzantine gold mosaics). In terms of the sources, the Grove long list is largely German; of the nine English language works, we use five (others include Klimt's relationship with Emilie Floge or focus on different aspects we do not need to worry about, like his landscapes), and we use sources common in academic art history. I'll re-think the lead, but it reflects the balance of the article, which i think is probably about right, given the painting's provenance, although I'll obviously take on board what other reviewers say too. All the best, The Bounder (talk) 04:56, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

To be clear - I don't think the balance is right. For FA the actual painting needs a good deal more. Johnbod (talk) 18:22, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

And when the sources don't have more on the painting? I've got maybe 2 or 3 more documents from JSTOR to go through, but these are of the barrel-scraping end of the searches in terms of relevance. I've accessed several specialist Klimt works in German which either make only passing reference to the work or none at all. There is one work I have on order from the British Library which may contain more, but it is something of a long shot. - The Bounder (talk) 07:17, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Let me clarify, as that all seems a bit negative. There is a certain amount of research I am building up regarding Klimt, his use of gold, the wider use of gold and some (very limited) information on the description of the work, but some of this is more background than fully germane to this painting, for which there is limited data available (and I am trying to avoid synthesising general comments about the golden phase with this particular painting). I may yet discover a mother lode, rich in detail, which increases the background and understanding, but on the basis of the research undertaken so far, I am not optimistic of the chances. All the best, The Bounder (talk) 10:58, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Update. The BL don't have a copy (or won't release it on an inter-library loan), so I've ordered it from a seller in the US. It's a bit pricey, but I hope it will be worth it when it gets here. All the best, The Bounder (talk) 10:33, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Gerda

I am not familiar with the topic, so may ask funny questions, but understand that it is what you want ;)

• I will look at the lead later, but know already that "golden phase" needs a link to somewhere specific in the painters bio, and I miss articles about the lady and her husband, made ill connections to German for now. The lead needs more on the artwork! Too much history of what happened later.

• I made some changes, please revert what you don't like. I trust that Reception will eventually be longer (some "reception" is already in Description), and then image II can move to the right.

• I have the feeling that many interesting details are hidden in footnotes ;)
  • Interesting, yes, but not necessarily encyclopaedic enough in all cases. I'll have a second look to ensure nothing important has been put in the notes that would be better served in the body. - The Bounder (talk) 16:09, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
    • If it's not encyclopedic I guess it shouldn't even be in a footnote ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:27, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
      • The information is encyclopaedic enough for inclusion on the page, but not to the level of inclusion in the article's body. The information is needed somewhere to fill gaps that raise questions if the information is not present elsewhere. As I have said, I will go over them again to see if there are any that warrant inclusion in the body. – The Bounder (talk) 17:46, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
• I am no expert in dashes but please get advice by someone who is ;)
  • The article largely uses unspaced emdashes. I'll go over it again to make sure, but I'm fairly happy they are correctly used throughout.– The Bounder (talk) 16:09, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
    • I saw at least one spaced ;) - I prefer not use any myself, to avoid that problem. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:27, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
      • Could I ask where? I have gone through by eye and used a text search, and the em dashes are all unspaced as far as I can see, so I hast have missed it. Thank you. – The Bounder (talk) 17:46, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
        • I see "The portrait was the first of two depictions of Adele by Klimt – the second was completed in 1912". --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:53, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
          • Ah, that's a spaced en dash, rather than an em dash. No problem having the two, but I will swap it over. – The Bounder (talk) 20:33, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
• In her will, "I ask my husband after his death" is a strange translation, yes in the source.
  • It is a cumbersome read, but that's the translation from one of the sources, so probably the best to go with for the present. - The Bounder (talk) 16:09, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
    • Yes, it's in the source, but perhaps we should make a more literal translation, or find a different source. Or my English is bad. How can she ask him after his death? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:27, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
      • I do not have a sufficiently strong grasp of German to be happy with any translation I would make, which is why I used a source which provided one. I will have a look for a source with a different translation, but outside that, I am unsure of the policies or guidelines with 'self-provided' translations, and whether they would breach any WP:OR guidelines. (As for her asking Ferdinand to leave something to someone after his death, that is what the will is for, surely? She asked that after he died the pictures should be donated to the gallery.) – The Bounder (talk) 17:46, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
        • Our own translations are no problem, - quoting too much from sources may be. I was talked into making one for this poem, because published translations were under copyright, see talk where we developed it in collaboration. A different word order would save her "wish", but she can't ask him after his death when she died before him, no? She asked him to arrange something for after he died, - that's different. - Her spelling is quite unusual, btw, Gallerie instead of Galerie, and I don't know at present what she's saying. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:53, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
          • I've trimmed the quote to remove some of the problem with the second half. It is more concerned with her library, rather than the paintings, so we lose nothing in the cut. - The Bounder (talk) 11:03, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

That's it for now. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:24, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. I'll have a read through the article again with these in mind and act accordingly. All the best, The Bounder (talk) 16:09, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

• Another question: "In 1946 the newly reconstituted Austrian state—now formally separated from "Greater Germany"", - I would drop the clause, or not link to a 19th-century question. Better link to whatever describes Austria after 1945 best.
  • I have reworked the clause to leave a link to Ostmark (Austria), the wartime name of the region. - The Bounder (talk) 19:15, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
• Hint: the German article of the painting has good illustrations, as you probably know. It's simply her name, - Any reason to have "Portrait of"? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:53, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes, to disamb it from a bio. Ceoil (talk) 18:57, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

If it is not a title, but a disamb, should it be italic?

Several sources give Portrait of Adele Bloch-Bauer I as the title (and italicise it or smilar); others give it as Adele Bloch-Bauer I and italicise (or similar) accordingly. I have no idea on the relevant WP guidelines for a 'non-formal' title. – The Bounder (talk) 19:24, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

I just remember that this was italic almost until TFA day (14 April) and then changed as "not a title". I bet others are more competent in the field of translated art titles than I am. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:59, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Completely different. Ceoil (talk) 21:38, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

• This source looks decent. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:07, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Ceoil

Have really only skim read so far, but to say this is rather well written. Ceoil (talk) 15:59, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

• That is very kind of you, thank you. All the best, The Bounder (talk) 16:15, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Wehwalt

I agree, it is well written and interesting, just the usual nitpicks.

• It strikes me that while doing a lede that consists of chronological events, you may not be getting the best bang for buck in an era when only the first few words of the article may be read or taken to be summarized. I would lead with my strength. This painting is famous because it was restored to the family of the person it was looted from, and it was sold for a record sum. Consider putting those facts much higher in the lede, likely in the first paragraph.
• "niece's" nieces
• "an arbitration committee in Vienna agreed that painting, and others, had been stolen from the family" I don't think the "that painting" works. Suggest inserting a "the" after "that".
• "the Burgtheater, the Kunsthistorisches Museum and the ceiling of the Great Hall at the University of Vienna.[3][4] Klimt changed his style from a traditional approach to become what the Neue Galerie describes ..." what is your rationale for italicization of names composed of foreign words?
• "Adele's parent's" parents. I would take the opportunity, now and then, to refer to Adele by last name or full name, lest someone find offense in your style.

• I think we refer to Adele herself (as opposed to her portrait) over 60 times, and Ferdinand over 30, so if we go with "Bloch-Bauer", there will inevitably be confusion over the two (particularly when her maiden name was different). I think that if we refer to her as "Adele Bloch-Bauer" over 60 times there would certainly be some complaints. I think I have followed the advice of MOS:SAMESURNAME, but I am open to suggestions. – The Bounder (talk) 08:32, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

• I don't say sixty, but perhaps three or so times more than at present, at strategic points.

• That works for me. I have added where I think best, although please move them around or add if you think appropriate. - The Bounder (talk) 11:01, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

• "Many of the critics were negative to the two paintings," possibly they "had negative reactions" to them.
• "The couple shared a love of art, and collected and patronised several artists, primarily nineteenth-century Viennese paintings and modern sculpture." I would have expected, after the second comma, to see examples of the artists they patronized, not of the art.
• "Around her neck is the same jewelled choker Klimt included on the Judith painting." I would expect "in the Judith painting" unless this is an ENGVAR thing
• "O'Connor writes that the painting "seem[s] to embody femininity", and likens it to the Mona Lisa as a result,[32]" I don't like the "as a result" hanging off the end. I would delete it and insert "thus" before "likens".
• "The background and gown contains" contain.
• What is an "open-eye"?
• "Klimt exhibited the portrait at the 1907 Mannheim International Art Show, alongside the Portrait of Fritza Riedler (1906)." I would substitute "his" for the "the" before "Portrait".
• "shown as the executor" I would say "named" rather than shown, unless this is an ENGVAR thing.
• The latter part of the will translation doesn't seem to make sense, revolving around "Brezan library". Is it poor German or poor translation?

• A poor translation in the source; (this point was also made by Gerda Arendt above). I will look for a more smooth translation to put in its place. - The Bounder (talk) 08:54, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
• I struggled to find a different translation, so trimmed the quote (the second part referred to her library which she wanted given elsewhere, so we lose nothing in the cut). - The Bounder (talk) 11:01, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

• "he included a document that stated that some clauses in the will were precatory, i.e. an advisory request rather than a binding testament. He added that Ferdinand had said he would honour the clause, even though he, not Adele, was the legal owner of the paintings." I would cut "advisory" as unneeded, and substitute "those clauses" for "the clause".
• "while his castle in Czechoslovakia was taken as the personal residence of the Nazi general Richard Heydrich.[47][48]" I might add "after the German occupation" after "taken".
• "the Führervorbehalt decree" can we have a pipe to the appropriate article?

• Only to the one on German Wikipedia. Should we link to there, along the lines that Gerda Arendt has linked to some other articles on German WP? - The Bounder (talk) 08:57, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

• If Gerda recommends other interwiki links, then yes, I would add it to the list.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:15, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

• Now added. - The Bounder (talk) 11:01, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

• "1945-" I might add "present" or else just title the thing "Subsequent history"
• "Republic of Austria v. Altmann" case names should be italicised.
• " The case passed though a federal district court, the Ninth Circuit court of the Central District of California and the Supreme Court.[47]" I would say, "The case passed through the United States District Court for the Central District of California, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:10, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

• Wehwalt, Thank you very much for your most welcome comments. I have altered in line with your suggestions (in these edits, except where I have commented above. Your thoughts on two of the points would be most welcome. All the best, The Bounder (talk) 09:02, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Comments by K.e.coffman

Just a couple:

• "...donated heavily..." sounds odd & vague; is it known what the donations amounted to?

• I've added one figure to the article ($7 million), although I suspect the amount may be higher, as he also purchased items that he donated later (a letter from Einstein being one of them). Having it as "over $7 million" should cover us. - The Bounder (talk) 11:13, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

• "...the such a ..." -- Is "the" needed here?

K.e.coffman (talk) 18:17, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

• Thank you very much for your comments, both of which have now been dealt with. All the best, The Bounder (talk) 11:13, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Iridescent

As usual, I haven't read other peoples' comments yet so there may be some duplication. This version is the one on which I'm commenting. (Per my comments on my talkpage, I think this is one of the ugliest artworks ever painted so may be a little uncharitable.)

• General note—there are still a lot of typos and grammatical errors scattered through this. I haven't fixed them at this stage as it makes more sense to wait until the PR and rewriting are complete, but it needs a good going-over before any future GAN/FAC.

Lead

• The lead doesn't describe the picture at all, or give any indication as to why it's significant. Remember, not everyone reading this is going to know anything about it, and at least some readers won't even see the thumbnail in the infobox—it doesn't need a full description and from the title it's apparent it's a portrait, but from the existing lead for all the reader knows it's an obscene cartoon of Adele Bloch-Bauer dressed as Olive Oyl in a pornographic parody of Popeye.
• Hubertus Czernin, the Austrian investigative journalist, the lawyer E. Randol Schoenberg and the businessman and art collector Ronald Lauder—while I normally dislike the obsession certain people have with ensuring Wikipedia isn't sullied with false titles, on this occasion they'd have a point; the existing wording makes it sound like they're the only journalist, lawyer and businessman in Austria respectively.
  • I will leave the lead to the end of any other work, as the article's balance should change once the additional work is done and this will be easier to reflect one that is done. - The Bounder (talk) 14:18, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Background

• [Klimt was] what the Neue Galerie describes as "one of Vienna's preeminent modern artists"—since the Neue Galerie is the plaything of the Lauder family who own well over 100 Klimt works (including this one), they have an obvious commercial interest in making him sound important. This kind of statement really needs to be sourced to something completely independent.
  • Reworked to take the peacockery out. I've replaced it with the influences that turned him away from the traditional to his own style. - The Bounder (talk) 15:58, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
• I appreciate [Vienna] "witnessed a cultural flowering unparalleled elsewhere" is a direct quote, but it's dubious to say the least and we probably shouldn't be repeating it in Wikipedia's voice. I think even the most ardent Francophobe would concede that the artistic surge of the late 19th and early 20th centuries was focused on France and that the Vienna Secession/Jugendstil in Austria and Germany were very much hangers on and imitators; there's a reason even the Germans call the period Belle Époque", not "Schöne Epoche".
  • Changed to 'during which time the city made "an extreme and lasting contribution to the history of modern art"', which is a less peacocky way of describing the situation. - The Bounder (talk) 15:58, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
  • I entirely agree with the point you make, but I would not rely on the language of the name. I use Kölnisch Wasser from [1], rather than the more commonly used Eau de Cologne. - The Bounder (talk) 08:46, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
• By 1900 he was the preferred portrait painter of the wives of the largely Jewish Viennese bourgeoisie—is this because he had some connection with the Jewish community, or just because he followed the money and in 1900s Vienna the Jews had a disproportionate amount of it? Normally this level of detail wouldn't be appropriate in an article on an individual artwork, but since the story of this painting is largely the story of its relationship with the Nazis, it needs to be explained why Hermann Goering considered a picture of an Austrian Jew worth seizing rather than burning.
  • Clarified to explain the nouveau riche were industrialists that bought the art the galleries wouldn't. - The Bounder (talk) 21:11, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
• Is Klimt also used the gold to give subjects a sacred or magical quality based on the man's own words, or of the words of an art historian? If the latter, it should be made clear that it's a historian expressing a personal view. Gold ground artworks (paintings like this where the figures are set against a gold-leaf background) are a tradition going back to the Romans, and he might have just liked the shiny effect.
  • Added that it's Néret's opinion - The Bounder (talk) 20:21, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
• I know "collected several artists" is standard English wording, but is there any way it could be rephrased? It makes it sound like Ferdinand was keeping them chained up in the basement. Remember, a lot of people reading en-wiki have English as a second language and won't necessarily understand idiom.
  • Reworded to "The couple shared a love of art, and patronised several artists, collecting primarily ..." - The Bounder (talk) 15:58, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

The painting

• The background and gown contain symbols suggestive of erotica, including triangles, eggs, shapes of eyes and almonds, and decorative motifs on the theme of the letters A and B. A statement that bizarre at the very least needs an explanatory footnote—these are the symbols in question, and I'm not seeing anything particularly erotic there. In European Symbolism lidless eyes traditionally represent either divinity or integrity, and while triangles can be a symbol of femininity that's only if they point downwards, which none of these do. (I presume the As and Bs are just her initials and there's no intention to suggest they have an erotic intent—they should probably be separated out into another sentence to make that clear.)

Reception

• Many of the critics had negative reactions to the two paintings and In 1908 the portrait was exhibited at the Kunstschau in Vienna where critical reaction was mixed—do the "many" and "mixed" imply that some critics liked them? If so, you should say who and include some balancing quotes; at the moment it only gives negative commentary. (This may be an artefact of many of the sources being published by galleries who are consciously trying to encourage the "so far ahead of his time nobody appreciated him when he was alive" mythos as it makes for a better story; c.f. Van Gogh.)

History and ownership

• His Viennese residence became the headquarters of Deutsche Reichsbahn—this seems very unlikely. Why would the Germans have moved the headquarters of a strategically vital industry away from Berlin, and into a relatively isolated city which Hitler was known to loathe?
  • Reworked - The Bounder (talk) 14:18, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
• He signed the note Heil Hitler—when describing a note that was sent in Nazi Germany, this seems redundant. I assume the intent is to insinuate that the unfortunately-named Herr Führer was acting on Hitler's orders, but this would have been a routine salutation at the time; it's akin to assuming that because a citizen of an East European state addressed someone as "comrade" they were an active Communist.
  • Removed - The Bounder (talk) 14:34, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
• She was informed that the filing fee (constituted of 1.2% of the amount in question, plus 13,180 schillings), which would have meant a fee of €1.75 million; this sentence seems to have become grammatically garbled along the line. Plus, it mixes schillings and euros; either is acceptable (Austria was already in the eurozone in 2000 but the new notes hadn't been printed so goods were still priced in schillings), but you should pick one and stick to it. (I'd advise euros; no reader is realistically going to remember what the value of the schilling was.)
  • I've re-worked this to remove the Schillings amount, which is only around €1,000. - The Bounder (talk) 14:18, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
• The posters said "Ciao Adele"—this is illustrated with a poster saying "Adele geht" (Adele is leaving), not "Ciao Adele".
  • I've swapped it over. It's not the best of images (a little blurred), but it is a better known strapline connected to the story. - The Bounder (talk) 14:18, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
• I know the art market is based on bubbles (this wretched daub recently sold for $300 million), but was there any commentary on why this painting fetched such a high price? Klimt isn't obscure but he's certainly not an A-list name, and $135 million is the kind of price you'd expect The Starry Night to fetch.
  • Added one opinion on the high price. As it's down to opinion only, do you want any more on this angle, or do you think the views of the editor of ARTnews to be sufficient? - The Bounder (talk) 20:13, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Legacy

• This is somewhat nitpicky and probably needs further discussion, but I'm not sure "stolen" is really the best word to use in Wikipedia's voice in the context of this particular painting, whatever the US Supreme Court may say. It's fairly clear that there was at least a case to be made that the Galerie Belvedere were acting in good faith throughout, and the fact that the case took so long to progress through the courts and was eventually settled by arbitration implies that the good guys/bad guys division isn't at all clear cut.
  • Replaced - The Bounder (talk) 14:18, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Hope that helps. I've approached this on the assumption that you want a review at FA standard, so it's fairly nitpicky. ‑ Iridescent 18:36, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for all these: extremely useful, and I'll work my way through them shortly. There is still much to be done before this goes near FAC, but the FA-level scrutiny was just what I was after. All the best, The Bounder (talk) 19:33, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

p.s. I know Klimt isn't to everyone's taste, but one of the "ugliest" artworks? ;) The Bounder (talk) 19:33, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

I know he has his admirers, but to me all his output, and particularly his golden phase, look like Rick Wakeman album covers as re-imagined by Ikea wallpaper designers. If it's any consolation, I have much the same attitude towards Van Gogh and Picasso (and can vent at great length about how unremittingly mediocre Leonardo was in comparison to his contemporaries). ‑ Iridescent 21:17, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

I could not agree more on the LDV (the artist's work is not quite as prosaic as its namesake), particularly the most over-rated artwork in the world. I try to tell everyone who says they are off to the Louve to go to the painting and turn their back. They can then look at something infinately superior. - The Bounder (talk) 14:18, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

The correct advice to give anyone off to the Louvre is "walk across the Pont du Carrousel and go to the Musée d'Orsay instead which is 3 euros cheaper, has about 90% less filler, a nicer building, less crowds, better food and views from behind the clock that rival the Eiffel Tower". That said, the correct advice to give to anyone visiting Paris is generally "go to London, Rome, Madrid, Berlin or Marseilles instead as it'll be cheaper, there's just as much to see, and the food is better". ‑ Iridescent 14:46, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

I like the d'Orsay - much better, as you say. London cheaper than Paris, you think? I guess it is wonderfully free to wander into most galleries in London, as opposed to the €18 or whatever it is at the Louvre. - The Bounder (talk) 15:28, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks to that nice Mr Farage, prices in London have dropped 20% against the rest of the world. The cost of living is still much higher in London owing to transport fares, fuel and housing, but for the things visitors spend money on like food, entertainment and consumer goods, London now works out considerably cheaper to visit. ‑ Iridescent 15:42, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Ah - just my salary that needs to grow 20% to keep pace then! ;-) The Bounder (talk) 20:15, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Thank you all very much. There have been some excellent observations here, and I have done all the minor ones I can. The shipping of the source from the States is taking a little longer than expected, but I hope to fill in some of the more glaring gaps that a few of you have highlighted. Thanks again to you all. All the best, The Bounder (talk) 08:46, 26 May 2017 (UTC)