Talk:September Morn

Untitled

I trimed the image caption, including removing the text saying " Ironically the scandal causing this fame was provoked by the person that wanted to prohibit people ever seeing it—if he had done nothing, nobody would probably even remember the painting, and even less probable that it would still be on display in a major museum". This seems to me in part to be restating points already made and adding a POV spin. Even if one ranks it as a dated 3rd rate piece, such and worse can certainly be seen on display in many major museums; they are simply not among the museums' more famous or popular displays. -- Infrogmation 15:58, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC) Does anyone have the name of the model? This should be in the article as much as is the name of the artist.Tham153 (talk) 17:57, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Chabas never revealed her name. Ewulp (talk) 00:24, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

• The statement During his career he never completed a portrait of a man may be incorrect. Portrait d'homme barbu and Portrait d'homme toile are listed by Artnet as being by Chabas; the latter being sold at Piasa auction house, Paris in November 2012. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 11:48, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the note. Nixed (not really pertinent to September Morn, anyways). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:57, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Further sources

• Search
• Chicago (done)
• At the time of his death (done)
• Speculation on model (done)
• Censoring Sex (done)
• Duchamp in Perspective (done)
• Met Acquisition (done)
• Toledo (done)
• Not a sou
• Revolution! (done)
• The same old story
• Rejection from Philly (done)
• "Cold shoulder" (Done)
• Whereabouts (done)
• Man posed as September Morn (done)
• Milwaukee
• Westminster album
• Rather detailed opinion column (done)
• (done)
• (done)
• (done)
• (done)
• (done)
• (done)
• (done)
• (done)
• (done)
• (done)
• (done)
• (done)
• (done)
• (done)

• Free September Morn Pin (done)
• Chabas' Original Work Never in the US (done)
• Disorderly Conduct for bringing copy of painting home (done)

• Toledo again (done)
• I Ain't No September Morn (done)
• Girls imitate the pose; boy steals the pictures (worth including?)

• Another description of the model by an artist who claimed to know both Chabas and the model. This says she was 25 in 1913.
• (done)
• (done)
• (done)

• • I believe the artist was Jules Eugene Pages (1867–1946). California born, but active in Paris since 1902. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:12, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

There's also a 1910 book about Chabas at Open Library, which could be used to expand his bio if someone can read French. We hope (talk) 00:36, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

• At the very least I'm taking that picture of him. 48 pages isn't too bad... not sure my French would be up to par, however. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:39, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Not even 48. It's like ten pages of text. The rest are pictures. Even I could probably read that. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:43, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

I never studied it but can make out some words (can read enough to keep myself from imminent danger). :) We hope (talk) 00:47, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

• Once upon a time, I was the best in my French class. Now I haven't used it in years, so... — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:56, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Lead

Interesting picture, interesting article . . . but I wonder whether the lead should describe the pose as "protecting herself from the cold". It's a very ambiguous pose, which different critics have described and interpreted differently, so maybe no one should be stated in the lead as definitive. At first glance, the rest of the article is fine, gives even-handed coverage to different opinions. (Full disclosure: as an older woman, I definitely see this as child porn/erotica sanctioned by being Art, and the pose as provocative on the part of the artist, not the model). Cheers, Awien (talk) 12:29, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks for the commentary. I'll touch up on the lead later (was a bit rushed doing it, to be honest). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:48, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Sounds good! Awien (talk) 12:52, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, agree with Awien, as per my position at this painting's Featured Picture candidacy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/September_Morn. I do think any article pretending to completeness here should examine Professor Brauer's paper I cited, whose purpose it to examine how art like this escaped sanction as indecent, though I'm afraid her estimate of 11-13 for the subject's age strikes me as a subjective estimate rather than based on any objective evidence. I suggested in the forum that Suzanne Delve was in fact the French actress Suzanne Delvé and this does seem confirmed by Google images of her when compared with the newspaper image (arched eyebrow, prominent chin).

The expanding editor here was initially reluctant to include Delve on the grounds there was no reliable source. When he did finally edit, he thought fit to stress the presence of the subject's mother but omitted her age and the "instinctive" pose. I supplied those details, obviously significant, and in the circumstances I feel entitled to warn editors against uncritically accepting Chabas' account of the painting's genesis. That his subject actually posed in the freezing waters of Lake Annecy strikes me as extremely implausible. Artists' models have to hold their pose for long periods of time and there would have been significant issues with privacy and possible attention from the local police. I do hope we are not to eventually see a "Do You Know" along the line of "In 1909 a young girl stepped into the freezing waters of Lake Annecy and her recoiling pose subsequently became famous throughout the world ...". That would be a travesty, and I can add that the pose is not in fact the body-hugging, knee-clenching pose one adopts trying to protect oneself from cold. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 15:54, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

• So you are coming here and accusing me of being "reluctant" to add Delve (after having accused me of resorting to OR in describing her as an actress, which is reported in the source?)? I did not add her immediately because MoH is not a reliable source. Period. Once I did get a RS, she went right in. That is not being reluctant. That is following guidelines and policy. I did not include her age because it was, and remains, irrelevant to the painting as a whole; September Morn would have been September Morn no matter if she was 12, 15, or 19, and frankly the paragraph on her goes into a bit too much detail even now. Inserting each claimants age at the time the painting would have occurred would have been WP:UNDUE and (considering your apparent obsession with this model being under the age of majority) very WP:POINTy.

Indeed, the emphasis on the age of the model has been your obsession since the FPC nomination started, and right now one of the weakest paragraphs in the article is basically there as an anchor for the Brauer article. As I've said already, I'll be happy to look at the article once I get access to it, and once I can read it I may find something that can be better worked into the article's structure. I don't have ready access to it, but I've posted several requests at WP:RX for sources which could be used – including Brauer.

As for "not being critical", at the time you made the comment I was not yet aware that almost every single aspect of this painting's history has been reported and misreported since the controversy first broke out. Once you pointed out the existence of multiple narratives, I almost immediately included them, and almost every time I've found discrepancies in the sources I've been careful to note that. Right now I've got a couple RSes which Google hints may have elements reported in the non-RS you mention (the American girl's head, and of Ortiz being the owner of the shop in New York), but they are snippet view only, and thus I am not adding anything yet.

And, for the last time, the article's content (or lack of it) is not germane to the quality of a scan as a picture. Actually read the criteria, or talk with people who know the process. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:11, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Well exactly, as you say, you were reluctant to edit until you had a reliable source, as I said. So why your agressive response? But the source was immediately accessible from the Ministry of Hoaxes blog, was of the same nature as those uploaded in the "Further Sources" section and in fact had already been uploaded.

I glanced at the rest of your post and don't see the need to respond except in one detail: that my objection to valorizing this image as Featured Picture, equivalent perhaps to hanging it in a gallery (I'm not suggesting the image should be removed from its article), is based on a subjective impression that the subject is too young to make the image a decent one by modern standards. I am entirely disinterested as to its legality or to the age of the subject. It's a painting that plainly has the potential to gratify paedophiles and Wikipedia should apply common-sense and discretion valorizing such paintings. I made all that very plain at the forum.

Normally I would be content to reply to your responses endlessly (and why not so long as I have the energy) but I fear I cannot because I will be away for a while. On my return I should be happy to continue. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 16:46, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

• Following policy and guidelines in a quest to present a high quality article is not an act of personal reluctance, as you implied through your statement ("finally edit", indeed, as if I had deliberately put off adding the information... you wonder why you get bad responses? check how you word your observations), but good editing practice. The article was not uploaded to Museum of Hoaxes, and it was not in the Google News Archive. Thus, I had to rely on We hope, who kindly clipped it and posted a link here, which I followed and included after including about a dozen other references in my spare time (which, owing to time zone differences, is often significantly distanced from US editing times).

As to "a subjective impression that the subject is too young to make the image a decent one by modern standards. I am entirely disinterested as to ... the age of the subject." ... you can't actually see any flaw with that reasoning? If you are entirely disinterested as to her age, why would you worry she is too young to make the image a "decent one"? The first sentence negates the second. As for "It's a painting that plainly has the potential to gratify paedophiles ..." - any image of a child has that possibility. Even of a little girl in a white sundress on a fine summer morning. A toddler walking happily in a diaper could conceivably arouse a certain kind of pedophile. There are no bounds to human perversity. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:55, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

• Still here :)

You came on to my Talk page here to rant at me for failing to notice the Delve piece described her as working on the stage (gentle reader - my response includes what I consider to be a definitive assessment of Chabas' September Morn painting - catch it if you are a mature adult with a strong stomach ...). I'm not sure that I'm not entitled to rant at you similarly, because the Museum of Hoaxes September Morn piece does include a detailed reference to Delve, with a long quote from the article including all the detail I subsequently added, and giving the origin as a "Kings Feature" syndicated article. A quick Google search on the terms "Suzanne Delve King features" on my server (Netherlands) gives a link to the relevant newspaper.com link as its first hit, which I copied on to the forum for your attention

There are indeed paedophiles who are aroused by pictures of babies in nappies. We've already been there. It was your first remark to me in the forum and in my reply I said I would similarly oppose Wikipedia valorizing any such image that sought to eroticize its subject. The point about September Morn is that does strive to eroticize its subject, not in terms of its nudity but in its treatment, which is arguably voyeuristic in intent, and if not deliberately intended as such, can certainly be fantasised as such.

I'm entirely disinterested in the subject's age, because whatever her age, Chabas plainly portrayed her as under-age, a subjective opinion I'm entitled to and one shared at least by a critic at The New York Times you quote. Men fantasise not only about breasts but also about bottoms. In this image the hip development is definitely girlish rather than adult, as was the case with Manet's Olympia, an image of which you warmed to your satisfaction for the discerning connoisseurs at Wikipedia's Featured Pictures.

You can have me here until about 10:30 when I fly out. I should have flown out this afternoon, but I was nursing the mother of all hangovers following festivities in bonny old Scotland. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 19:03, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Film notes

Plot of the lost September Morn:

"SEPTEMBER MORN (Feb. 26).— Dennis is a good seaman, but is totally deficient in skin adornments, so dear to a sailor's heart. He sees with envy the various tattooed designs upon the arms and chests of other members of the crew, and his first day ashore seizes the opportunity to have his own person treated in a like manner. On visiting Ali he is shown a book of designs, all of which he scorns until he sees the picture of the shrinking maiden standing in the chilly water. This meets his entire approval and at his request Ali tattoos the picture upon his chest. Now Genevieve, Dennis' sweetheart, is the energetic leader of the Purity League and conducts a militant campaign against all representations of the human figure unadorned. Raiding a shop where the "September Morn" is prominently displayed in the window, she meets her Waterloo and Is washed out of the door by a powerful stream of water from a hose directed by the indignant proprietor. Smarting from her defeat she returns home just in time to greet Dennis proud of the aid to beauty which he has just acquired. Her horror at seeing the offending picture upon his chest may he imagined. The sorrowful Dennis is sent back to Ali to have the beauty clothed. Dennis does as bidden, but selects the split skirt for the purpose. When Genevieve sees the result she is even more indignant and insists upon accompanying Dennis to the tattoo artist, where she has the split skirt sewed up, the figure fully and respectably clothed and the "Votes for Women" added.

• Source: "September Morn". Moving Picture World. 19 (8): 1008. February 21, 1914.

Colour

Quote from article "The painting is dominated by grays: the gray of the woman's shaded body, the blue-grays of the September water, the green-grays of the sky, and the pink-grays of the hills". The accompanying image is dominated by yellows, which suggests that the varnish has degraded, or that it's heavily stained with nicotine and tar, due to close examination by people smoking pipes and cigarettes. The title of the painting sometimes gets rendered by OCR software as "September Mom". Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 07:04, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

• I know, Xanthomelanoussprog, it's been bugging me too. The yellowed scan is from the MET, so unless they had a serious issue with their scanner, it's pretty damn accurate to what the painting looks like now. This scan appears to be from a 1961 artbook, "Carson, Gerald. (1961). "They knew what they liked." American Heritage. 12(5)" (coverage of said artbook in Life uses a scan with similar colours). I don't think anyone's actually written about the staining the painting appears to have undergone though, so I don't think we can reference that it has changed. Perhaps the most we can do now is phrase that in the past tense. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:18, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Now who to ask... or maybe this has something. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:21, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

• I'll ask (soon as I can work out which person to ask). I did try a quick rebalancing in an image editor- it brings out a lot of subtlety in the landscape (and it brings out details such as a coat hidden behind the bush in the lower left). Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 07:46, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks. I wonder if, in a case like this, we'd be able to cite personal communications. It's usually a really big no-no, but for such an obviously pertinent piece of information, which is not covered in secondary sources... I'd think an exception should be allowed.

BTW, I've added yet another damned version of who the model was. Together with the one mentioned above by We hope, I count seven different versions of the story. The provenance itself has at least two versions (that Ortiz got the original painting, brought it to NY, couldn't sell it, then sent it to Paris to sell to Mantashev [like appears mentioned in a couple sources that are snippet view], or that an American [perhaps Ortiz] tried to buy it, couldn't pay the asking price, and was sent on his way). This would be a hell of a journal article, if my field were art history. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:56, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

• Just downloaded the pdf of the book- Chabas is on p 221 (book is an unsearchable scan). It suggests the head belongs to an American girl, Julie Phillips (later Mrs Thompson) who was sitting with her mother in a Paris cafe. Chabas saw her profile and thought it was exactly what he was looking for; he sketched her and then introduced himself and apologised for his presumption. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 10:47, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

• I, er... kinda already added that. I was also able to download the book. Nothing on the (dis)colouration, though. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:49, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

• Sorry! Getting behind the times here :) Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 10:57, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

• No worries! This is far from my field of expertise, so it's nice to have extra eyes. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:59, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Am I right in saying that there is an unspoken presumption here that the image reflects the current state of the painting? I frankly think that's extremely unlikely. As the article says, the painting has been reproduced numerous times and it seems clear that originally it was a delicate and by no means displeasing symphony of pastel greys. If that is so, then I think it extremely unlikely that the Met allowed it to slide into the condition suggested by the image, which might simply be yellow color-cast (as indeed suggested by image processing software). 100 years is a rather short time im a painting's life-time and both Chabas and the Met would have had to be extremely negligent in their technique and storage for it to degenerate into this essentially monochrome yellow condition in that short time. In turn that surely has implications for the project of having this image Featured as one of Wikipedia's finest. I have emailed the Met about the issue, but I probably shan't be able to share any response for a while as I shall be away. Incidentally the Met catalogue mentions another smaller version of the painting in Limoges, France.Coat of Many Colours (talk) 16:41, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

• I am considering emailing them myself, as well. As for the smaller painting, I saw that but short of any further clarification (is it the copy Chabas made for himself [which was smaller than the original], or is it something else?) I wasn't sure it was worth giving too much detail to, at least not yet. If we can get another source, with more detail, that would be grand. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:48, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

• Can I ask you to email in your capacity as administrator and expanding editor here, please. I emailed their "education" centre and subsequently copied to their "press" centre, but I haven't received a reply and short of applying through freedom of information I doubt I will get a reply as a mere "concerned citizen" as one your colleagues would put it. In general can I ask you to make a real effort I really think it is important to research this. My suspicion is hardening that this image is merely an old postcard reproduction. Given that the museum doesn't seem to have hung this painting, on a regular basis at any rate, in the last 40 years, it's quite possible they don't have a recent image of it. It's obviously of significance to your project of Featuring this image. It would be ridiculous to Feature an image that is blatantly color-cast and in no way reproduces the painting satisfactorily. I do think that nomination should be set at hold until the issue is resolved. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 09:34, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

• See Coat, this is where people get offended. Asking "can I ask you to make a real effort to research this" is patently offensive, as if going from 1500 characters, two references, and one image to 27000 characters, 92 references, 14 images, and 1 block quote in a little over a week (less, really, as I was busy with RL work) is not "real effort". I've already said that I'll be glad to contact them. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:48, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

• I would say you're being a little sensitive there Crisco. I had no intention to offend you and I'll rephrase it directly. Can I just re-iterate: this is a painting I had never heard of from am artist I was certainly aware of in the field of sexuality (I have an interest there as well: if you look at my sandbox 4 you will see I am preparing an article on a landmark transsexualism ruling by the ECJ). When I looked at the image of it offered in the article, I immediately dismissed it as entirely without merit. If I was Featuring it myself (over my dead body), the first thing I would do is check the image's faithfulness. If I may so, FP doesn't have a very good track record concerning the faithfulness of its images in recent months, and I can add that at least one of your colleagues involved over there makes no attempt whatsoever to hide his personal attacks and distaste. You simply have to settle this issue of faithfulness before continuing with that process in my view. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 10:17, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

• And what you actually said is that you were "considering" contacting them. I'm encouraging you to do so. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 10:21, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Comments

I'd make the lead pic bigger - probably move outside the infobox, and move "reception" much higher, perhaps after "Description". Ideally expand it. You can easily crop details out with Commons crop tool, & a detail of the girl lower down might be a good idea. I must say I'd never heard of this painting, & otherwise the article seems pretty good on a quick look. You might spell out, sources permitting, that the point of the title is presumably to indicate that the water is somewhat chilly - I expect the extra vulnerability/discomfort of the girl that this conveys has been commented on somewhere. You might add some background on the very complex issue of attitudes to female nudes in art at the period, and why this attracted especial ire - or was it just because it was so popular? Johnbod (talk) 11:56, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks for the feedback, John! I've been toying with the idea of moving the controversy section into the reception section (it is technically a form of reception, in the most general sense) but that section depends rather heavily on the reader understanding the controversy over the painting. That's the same reason why I'm not too sure the Reception section would do well before the #History section (particularly how Chabas viewed the work).

Sources so far have not linked "September" with "chilly" explicitly, although several have noted that she appears quite cold (though they don't link that to vulnerability or innocence so far).

I agree that background on the issue of nudity in art in France and the US (Le Déjeuner sur l’herbe, etc.) would definitely be worthwhile, especially before an FA run.12:20, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

I'd keep controversy & reception apart, & concentrate on US attitudes only, as the painting, or its reproductions, don't seem to have aroused particular controversy in France, though that in itself might be commented on. Johnbod (talk) 12:43, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

• I'll have to keep an eye out. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:52, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

On another point, picking up on a remark above, I don't think the painting is "famous throughout the world" at all - I suspect just in the US (a google search on Chabas + the French title produced next to nothing in French). In the UK I'd never heard of it (or Chabas), which I think I would have done if it were anything like as famous as it evidently was in the US. The 210,000-strong database of paintings in UK public collections include nothing by Chabas. I think this may have something to do with the lax state of US copyright law at the time - the prints that made it famous in the US were perhaps legally pirated. Johnbod (talk) 13:26, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

• I agree, Life's definitely exaggerating. Might be worth trimming once I get to the "polish" phase. Re: the similar style mentioned below, I'll have to keep an eye out for discussion of Chabas and his style. He certainly had a thing for painting nude young women in bodies of water. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:05, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

JSTOR hits

That I don't think are used yet (not saying they should be, & I've not checked)

• James J. Rorimer, The Metropolitan Museum of Art Bulletin, New Series, Vol. 16, No. 1 (Summer, 1957), Published by: The Metropolitan Museum of Art, Article Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3257718
• I'd make more use of Pattison
• Lawrence and Pascin, Alfred Werner, The Kenyon Review, Vol. 23, No. 2 (Spring, 1961), pp. 217-228, Published by: Kenyon College, Article Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4334113 - should use
• Interesting comparison - Georg Sauter and the "Bridal Morning", Albert Boime, American Art Journal, Vol. 2, No. 2 (Autumn, 1970), pp. 72-80, Published by: Kennedy Galleries, Inc., Article DOI: 10.2307/1593898, Article Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1593898

Johnbod (talk) 13:09, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

• Re: Pattison: The controversy over nudity? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:11, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, he seems a full and relatively authoritative contemporary statement of the harmless/innocent/nothing explicit position. Johnbod (talk) 13:02, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Controversies over nudity

(Drafting area for a background section)

Background

Chabas

The painter, Paul Émile Chabas, c. 1910

By the time he painted September Morn, Paul Émile Chabas (1869–1937) already had an established career. He had won the Prix National at the 1899 Paris Salon with his Joyeux ébats, and in 1902 he was made a Chevalier in the Legion of Honour. (more biography)

Most of his output consisted of nude girls and women, many bathing and in a similar style to September Morn, although he also painted portraits of queens, princesses, and American society women. The pose assumed by the model in September Morn is similar to the one taken by the model of Au crépuscule (At Twilight), which he completed c. 1905; a 1913 Milwaukee Sentinel article described the only difference being that the girl in Au crépuscule had long, straight hair, and that she clasped her right elbow with her left hand. (more style)

(the paedophilia question, if I can get the references)

Nudity and the arts

(in France; Dejeuner sur l'herbe and the lack of concern over young women posing nude)

(in America: artistic circles)

(Purity Leagues and the arts)

Fair use, abstracts

I am sorry to see that both my Tennessee Williams quote and Fae Brauer abstract have been reverted by a Wikipedia administrator. The Williams loss is especially sad because it accurately represented what an American male of the period really thought of the painting. I should have thought a few lines from a play was acceptable Fair Use.

As for the abstract, it's true that they are copyrighted to the publisher. But in academia there's a long spoken tradition that abstracts can be freely disseminated in the interest of open access. Plainly the administrator here thinks otherwise.

This article needs to set Chabas' paedophilia within the context of, for example, Johns Ruskin's and Lewis Carroll's i.e. within the late Victorian tradition of the so-called "erotic innocent girl" identified by Kincaid, Dijkstra et al. I have to say I find its overt intent to re-establish Chabas as an artist of note both ridiculous and deeply deeply suspect. 103.27.231.206 (talk) 02:29, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

• First and foremost, in terms of copyright Wikipedia's policies are generally a lot stricter than academia in general. I am a literary major, and in a journal article it would not only be proper but almost expected to quote paragraph upon paragraph of copyrighted works if they are pertinent to my analysis. Wikipedia, however, is not like that, and if we intend to have our best articles "free" in every sense of the word we need to avoid over-reliance on non-free material. If Bauer's willing to release her abstract under a license compatible with Wikipedia, then by all means lets quote away.

Williams, on the other hand, cannot give a free license to his work (for obvious reasons) and the main gist of it is already clear from the sentence in the article, and including the whole quote (particularly in running text) is undue weight. Now, if a published reliable source claims that this " accurately represented what an American male of the period really thought of the painting", we might be able to make a strong enough rationale to include it (and I probably would argue for inclusion). However, as of yet we only have a passing mention in a 1957 play without any sourced critical commentary. That would not fulfill the non-free content criteria.

Now, as to "Chabas' paedophilia" (if he were living that statement would be deleted under the BLP policy, and even now the literature does not support an unqualified statement that he was a paedophile): I agree that the position of minors and nudity in art is important to this article, as is the issue of nudity in art in general, but we cannot build an entire paragraph on two abstracts by one author and expect it to be understood as comprehensive and (reasonably) unbiased. At the very least I want to have access to the article(s) proper, including the writer's rationale for making the statements in the abstract, before detailed information can be included. I am trying to contact Brauer regarding the article she published, and if she responds positively then key points of her analysis will definitely find its way here.

As for your closing note, about an "overt intent to re-establish Chabas as an artist of note"... You assume much too much. I couldn't care less if he's seen as an artist of note, an academic who only did art because its fashionable, or what have you. I want to cover this painting because it was a (ridiculously popular) social phenomenon, with a very interesting and complicated history. I particularly resent the "deeply deeply suspect" comment at the end; the implications are borderline personal attacks. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:30, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, but the fact is that Ruskin, Carroll and Chabas are dead and their paedophilia routinely cited. I think you are disingenuous to assert this article isn't an attempt to rehabilitate Chabas' reputation. It plainly is, and it should examine his paedophilia without attempting to repress it. I can understand that you feel personally attacked, but you have taken upon yourself a task which lays you open to such attack. It works both ways. Welcome to the mill. 103.27.231.160 (talk) 09:24, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

What's prompted your sudden and special interest in Chabas then, that you log in from "Indonesia" to scrape and paste two quotes from the net? Keith 09:44, 21 September 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Toirdhealbach (talk • contribs)

I've been editing on Chabas both here and elsewhere for a little time now (it's not "sudden"). I'm away from home presently and when I'm abroad I'm careful not to use my Wikipedia account. I made that clear in a concluding post here and also on my Talk page. I'm aware that IP addresses can be easily sourced to a location, but if it's all the same to you I would be glad if you would avoid broadcasting my locations. I just wanted to continue the conversation a little while longer. 103.27.231.160 (talk) 10:04, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

• By the sheerest of coincidences, apparently, Toird's comment above applies to both of us. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:06, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

• @103: If it were a conscious "attempt to rehabilitate Chabas' reputation", would it be done by someone who is not in the field of art criticism? As for "Ruskin, Carroll and Chabas['] ... paedophilia routinely cited", I do not see any scholarly consensus either way. That it is still discussed and questioned, rather than accepted as the truth, indicates that you are oversimplifying.

• I don't see why it should necessarily be. I don't wish to indulge what you might feel is a personal attack, but it could equally be attempted by someone with pretensions to be an art critic. You are a photographer who uploads many fine images to Wikipedia and likes to get them featured on Wikipedia. have warmly supported many of your nominations in recent weeks. The same group is also active in promoting art images. As you know I find that a somewhat curious and pointless enterprise. I've withdrawn from supporting those nominations, but I did give fair warning on my Talk page that I would oppose images I thought inappropriate. With respect, a number of posts by you and your colleagues there make it clear that you are attempting to rehabilitate Chabas, or at least get him better recognised. This really has to be my last contribution, because I'm being doxxed and I do have to be careful where I am (which is not Indonesia :)). 103.27.231.160 (talk) 10:20, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

@Toird: Coming across the image and wanting to improve the article. I've done it before. I wrote Extermination of Evil so that four of the five could become FP, Island of Lost Men for the poster to be featured, and The Princess from the Land of Porcelain for that painting's FPC nomination. This one was already extant, but started expanding it because of the poor quality of the original article; the sheer insanity of its history (getting caught up in the Russian revolution, controversies in Chicago and New York, the marketing frenzy, the amount of contradicting stories about how it was created, etc.) and relatively ready availability of sources made me interested in going even further. Or are you saying you'd rather the article looked like this? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:00, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

And what's with putting "Indonesia" in scare quotes? That I am here is patently obvious from Wikimedia Indonesia websites, my own editing history, and can be readily verified by asking a Wikimedian I've met in person. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:03, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

@IP, if you think the article as it is shows an "overt intent to re-establish Chabas as an artist of note" and "a number of posts by you and your colleagues there make it clear that you are attempting to rehabilitate Chabas" I think your critical reading skills are falling short. I hadn't looked at Chabas on Commons before, & now I have there are a lot more very similar pictures than I was expecting. The article could emphasize this a bit more: "Most of his output consisted of nude girls and women, many bathing and in a similar style to September Morn..." doesn't quite do it, in terms both of the pose and the age of the models. Johnbod (talk) 13:15, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

If you had sat there taking the flak, your finely honed reading skills might have become somewhat coloured as well, say jaundiced in the extremely pissed off direction of the spectrum. What I basically did there was say, in the nicest possible way, "for christ's sake he was a nonce ... end of ... let me just say it ... not on my account and let me alone please". But I wasn't left alone.

That Chabas apparently spent three years painting this masterpiece strike me as almost comical ... hmm ... let me see, what transitions in life are there that take three years more or less to complete? Chabas is routinely cited as a painter who made his career out of painting nude young girls in frequently considerable states of undress, flashing a puffy or two at least if not actually their pink bits. If he was working today, the general public would unquestionably label him a paedophile. He would have no galleries and if he attempted to distribute his work he would be prosecuted. We do now make common-sense judgements about this kind of thing. I'm minded of a story about David Hockney being invited to a mega-Hollywood celebrity's fantasy theme park home. Hockney arrived, found the place swarming with kids, or at any rate one half of that population group, commented "what the hell is it with all these kids?" and left in short order, further invitations not responded to.

I suggest Wikipedia visual arts could do with a dose of the same common-sense here. 103.27.229.2 (talk) 15:15, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Even if he were to be labelled a paedophile for practising his art in the 21st century, that isn't really the point as it was a different time with different cultural norms and a bit of consideration for this is needed. History is littered with examples like it. Things that are now considered crimes were not crimes in the past. Also, let's not forget that it isn't a crime to be a paedophile - only to act on it and abuse a child. Even if he was one, it's now just a footnote in history. Nobody is being abused by this painting's existence. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 20:34, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

The Fay Brauer edit looked good to me. Personally I dislike quote-strewn accounts, but then I am almost diametrically opposed to Wikipedia guidance on so-called " close-paraphrasing" - one reason I don't really edit very much these days. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 16:20, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks. I could perhaps rephrase "caught in compromising circumstances" as "her situation" (though that has significantly different connotations), and although "bud-stage" is not 100% key to her argument summarized here, I've included it because it alludes to why she gives an estimate of 10–13 for the model (she mentions documentation in the paper, but in her email to me she mentioned physical characteristics as a determinant as well). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:38, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Nudge nudge, wink wink

The photograph of Dave Lewis on the cover of the sheet music of September Morn (shown in the "Media and merchandise" subsection of the article) encapsulates the issue perfectly: the painting is the subject of sniggering, winking complicity among those in the know that this is a "dirty" picture. Awien (talk) 13:28, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

• I don't doubt that that's an element (hell, it's probably the main reason for the popularity [with "dirty" in the more general sense of mildly pornographic rather than what Brauer argues]; check out Wall's postcard), but short of a source discussing it in-depth our hands are tied. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:47, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

• Yes, I agree with Awien. I previously made a fair use quote of a passage from a play by Tennessee Williams that encapsulated what ordinary American men made of this painting, but Crisco deleted it. I strongly disagree with Cisco's "mildly pornographic" assessment. I think the painting was popular precisely because it was a painting of a very young girl. At the Featured picture discussion, an editor who prefers I do not name him, was at pains to link an image of Lewis Carroll's well-known Hatch odalisque (bolding the link for good measure should we have missed it), claiming that this was an image that is exploitative in a way that Chabas' paintings are not. But this is simply not how Chabas is viewed in the literature: Anne Witchard at page 186 of Dark Chinoiserie directly cites Chabas' paintings and Carroll's Hatch odalisque together via Dijkstra et al. It's perhaps best inserted in detail at Chabas' BLP, but this article ought to try and set this image in the context of Chabas' paedophilia and the ideal of the "erotic innocent girl". I might have endeavoured, but my edits are reverted.

I think it worth repeating at every opportunity that is it not yet settled whether this is even a good image of the painting. I'm not sure the yellow color cast (if that is what it is) is not designed to mitigate the erotic impact of the painting. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 15:10, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Condition

Using a full-size download: The original painting has discoloured- the extreme edge of the painting, particularly at the top, shows the original colours where a frame has overlapped the surface. The paint looks thin; underdrawing is visible in the mountains, and "ghosting" pentimenti are visible round the face. Certain areas do look stained- there's a long rimmed stain over to the right which looks like a liquid has run down and dried. It's possible that the yellow stains are the canvas becoming visible. The overall yellow cast is the scan, not the painting; using the print of 1961 as a guide I was able to adjust the image so that the part of the sky that was covered by the frame is blue whilst retaining some semblance of natural skin colour. The blue channel of the image in RGB space is defective. Probably overcleaned some time in the 1920s or 1930s, whilst it was still in the frame, losing the top surface of paint, and has got dirty again. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 17:02, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

So that's right, then. The scan has a colour cast? So why on earth is Crisco trying to Feature it, when in reality it looks nothing like the original (I for one dismissed the painting on sight on the basis of the image provided here). Indeed why isn't this article illustrated by a better image, say the one originally uploaded at File:September-Morning.jpg. For what its' worth I suspect the scan here is a composite of three separate colour channels images. You will find it hard to get confirmation of condition from the Met. Galleries are notoriously sensitive about imparting such information. But they ought to be able to confirm the color cast in the image. This really ought to be the next step. Is Wikipedia really going to Feature a crap image of a suspect painting? That nomination should be paused while the facts are enquired. And I don't think the Met will oblige in providing a better high resolution image - just a wee guess there. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 17:49, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

• What better image? That's the same one. As far as I can see, the images of this painting are either derived from the MET or, in the case of the 1961 reproduction, possibly from a colour transparency that's gone through pre-press colour separation- the colours are off in that one as well, as a result of the printing technology (note the "bruising" on the abdomen). I take it you think the MET image was produced using three photographs taken through three filters? Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 18:21, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

• No, I meant the original upload on that file (uploader still active on the German wiki, though her source is defunct). Yes, that's what I meant by the separated colour channels. I just noticed they look very separate on the histogram, but I know hardly anything about image processing. But I do know about color casts and that they're pretty well the first thing you check out in the edit flow, because they can't always be corrected properly. The only reason I didn't recognise it here was because I didn't know the painting nor what to expect, and I suppose you do sort of take it on trust that the nominating editor knows what they're about. What's to be done? Frankly I would like to make a WP:BOLD edit here restoring the original upload, but I don't want to be a dick. I'll see how the nomination goes. It really is essential now that guidance from the Met is sought. I mean they're just not going to be pleased about any of this (they have huge kids and teens programs). I suggest it's time the distinguished administrator considered Wikipedia's public image. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 19:31, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

• I would appreciate it if you refrain from impugning on my name at every instance, especially when I've worked my damndest to respond to your comments re: the article's content. The sarcasm is dripping from your last line, and after your implication that I'm a pedophile when you were still editing as an IP (which, btw, you should probably have disclosed much sooner), your exact meaning with "they have huge kids and teens programs" is suspect. The MET has numerous nudes, including some in which the sexual organs are considerably more prominent than here, and I remain unconvinced that Brauer and the Dijkstra are correct about indecency and children in this instance (for instance, part of Brauer's reasoning is statements Chabas made "at the beginning of World War II", when he would have been two years in the grave; even that slight issue adds two years to her probable age).

Now, back to the colour profile: I have contacted them, as I said I would above and elsewhere. Short of actually being able to reference the image (i.e. have someone physically look at it), this remains the best scan, simply because we don't have any frame of reference for a digital edit. We'd end up doing the same thing you raised hell over re: the Olympia image. Remember that? A copyright discussion, an XFD, and a long spiel at WT:FPC and the POTD template. And now you're recommending doing the same thing here... — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:08, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

I absolutely did not imply that you were a paedophile. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 00:30, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

• Read this again, keeping in mind your focus on the paedophilic readings of this painting since I first nominated it at FPC, your naming of Chabas as a paedophile, and juxtopositioning of "overt intent to re-establish Chabas as an artist of note ... deeply deeply suspect" with the "erotic innocent girl" of Kincaid and Dijkstra. You may not think you implied it (it's possible, I'll admit), but the message is there, climbing the Reichstag in a Spider Man outfit. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:41, 25 September 2014 (UTC)