Talk:John William Waterhouse

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article is supported by the arts and entertainment work group.

Visual arts

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Visual arts, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of visual arts on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Visual artsWikipedia:WikiProject Visual artsTemplate:WikiProject Visual artsvisual arts articles

Archives

Archive 1

This page has archives. Sections older than 28 days may be automatically archived by when more than 4 sections are present.

Oil painting

Does he work primarily in oil? --Morbid-o 16:58, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Rfc re Hylas and the Nymphs controversy section

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Consensus is to keep. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 20:11, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Should this article contain the section currently titled "Hylas and the Nymphs controversy" which relates to a 2018 controversy at the Manchester Art Gallery? 18:40, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Responses

Exclude (nominator) - I believe that this controversy, which occurred over 100 years after Waterhouse's death, should be excluded from this biographical article. While inclusion at the painting's article is likely warranted, including it here is misleading and would imply that this controversy somehow had a profound or important effect on Waterhouse's life or legacy - I think it is clear that it does not. This would appear to be a very isolated incident relating to a single painting and a single art gallery. I believe this is a clear case of recentivism, where this was added soon after the event in question, without considering whether the impact of the event was significant. I think in 2019 we can analyze this and see it does not belong. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 18:43, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, even if recentism played a part in its inclusion here it shows it's still a relevant painting and Waterhouse a relevant artist in the 21st century. A good publicity stunt by the gallery in the midst of international discussions about women and objectification, it introduced many new readers to Waterhouse's artworks and made this particular painting a tourist destination. I hope their p.r. person got a raise. Randy Kryn (talk) 20:48, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with Randy Kryn's argument above. Wayne Jayes (talk) 04:47, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The issue of removing the painting is evidently important. Substantial issues were raised and publicly debated, such as the potentially "very old-fashioned" way of presenting images of women's bodies as "passive beautiful objects" or "femmes fatales", along with the issues of alleged "puritanism" and "political correctness." And the debate has been widely reported in the media, among which are obviously reliable sources. Therefore, we should assess this not as being about a permission to include the relevant information, but as an obligation to do so. -The Gnome (talk) 10:24, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Artists don't exist in the vacuum of history, but are largely defined by their legacy and how their works are seen decades or centuries after their death. This publicity stunt by the Manchester Art Gallery proves the strong feelings Waterhouse's art can still provoke among the art public even in the 21st century and it IS important when discussing his legacy. Yes, the controversy in this case had more to do with art in general, rather than with the works of this specific artists (unlike in the case of , say, Balthus), but the fact that this specific work by this specific artist was chosen to make this specific statement is relevant to the way Waterhouse is judged by history. PraiseVivec (talk) 11:59, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak exclude, or pare to a minimum and link. This content would clearly belong on the Gallery page, but it isn't clear to me that it imparts any useful info about the artist. If more specific criticism of this artist or this work had been made, I might lean the other way, but the protest seems against a generic class of paintings. Whether the whole incident was a PR gaffe or PR stunt, it doesn't seem to have much to do with Waterhouse. Pincrete (talk) 21:24, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hobson archives

I am Wikimedian in Residence at Coventry University, where we have the Hobson archives. I would like to suggest that someone add a sentence at or near the end of the article:

The archives of Waterhouse's biographer, Anthony Hobson, relating to Waterhouse, are held at Coventry University.^[1]

References

^ "Dr. Anthony Hobson papers". Coventry University. Retrieved 17 March 2020.

-- Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:38, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hole in the picture

Quite amazing there is no mention of the models he repeated used. Dozens of paintings of the same women. Why? Shenme (talk) 21:13, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This was the reason I looked at the article today. No mention, but I was more surprised how little there is about him, his work, inspiration, style, technique, et cetera, other than a just brief outline of his life and a bunch of pictures. — al-Shimoni (talk) 03:19, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[CU-1] "Dr. Anthony Hobson papers". Coventry University. Retrieved 17 March 2020.

[1]