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)

• I don't know the Spider Man films. I did happen to watch Prometheus the other night, and noted in my diary the following: "A king has his day, and then he dies. That is the natural order of things." There's a poem by Shelley which expresses the same sentiment. You can have that as a parting message if you like. BTW that's not any kind of a threat. Just an observation about the natural order of things, to which we are all subject alike (even Wikipedia administrators). Coat of Many Colours (talk) 01:09, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

• Right. It's not the Spiderman films. Its this essay I was referring to. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:25, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

• Perhaps you could have wiki-linked the reference? Needless to say I didn't know the essay and I hadn't the faintest idea what you were going on about. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 04:38, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

• And I do remember the Manet business. I referenced it when you ignored my plea in my oppose at Featured Pictures that I didn't want to debate the issues here (it was simply a protest vote, but your group would not let me be). But that Manet business was after the image had been featured and had appeared on Wikipedia's front page. I choked on my toast when I saw it. You might have as well have painted the subject a Simpson yellow. It is precisely because I don't want to see a repeat that I take an interest in the nominations at WP:FP. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 06:07, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

The German image is the same image- has the same bright orange area. I think there are only two colour images actually made from the painting, the earlier being the one from which the 1961 print was made. This shows an example of what might have happened to the painting. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 08:16, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

That might well be. There are also mentions of a lithograph that was popular. Those may have been chromolithographs perhaps. Finally the French wikipedia notes there are several versions of the painting extant, of which the catalogue you and Crisco have already quoted mentions one in Limoges. You're suggesting it might have been damaged by restoration (a recent newsworthy example)? For all Crisco's hype about the image, I don't think it's a particularly fine one and it doesn't really resolve to the mark. I agree the paint looks thin in places and that surprises me for a painting that was lovingly laboured over for a period of three years. As I understand Crisco, the assumption was that the painting has deteriorated - that it actually looks like the image now? Why make that assumption when the group knows very well that images of works of art, even from the institutions owning them, are sometimes dreadful? I would say it's much more plausible that the image is color-cast. And in this case it's really relevant. I myself dismissed the painting out of hand at a glance looking at the article image. But seeing the original image uploaded I concede that in fact it's rather a beautiful painting, kitsch or not, and can't be dismissed as lacking all artistic merit. I think you will agree, as Crisco should, that a sine qua non of a Featured image is that it should faithfully represent its subject. The only solution to this is to enquire from the holding museum (reviewing your discussion at the nomination I see that in fact you and Crisco have already emailed the education department?) It wouldn't surprise me that they're loathe to respond. Frankly, why should they, and I can very well imagine they're embarrassed by this painting. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 11:35, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Proposed re-write

Proposed re-write of the first two paragraphs of the Description section, which are messy and repetitive at the moment. The logical order would be to begin with the simple description before going on to interpretations. So:

September Morn depicts a naked girl or very young woman standing ankle deep in the water near the shoreline of a tranquil lake surrounded by hills. The figure is backlit by the morning sun, but fully visible. The young woman's arms are folded about her body, her right arm passing below her breasts as she grasps her left elbow, while her left arm conceals her pubic area. This pose has been variously interpreted as an attempt to protect herself from the cold, as an effort to cover her modesty, or as sponge bathing. She is without escort and viewed obliquely, in a manner characterized by the Australian art historian Fae Brauer as a "peep on the other side of the bushes".

Notes: dropped “along” - incorrectly implies extent; Tr. L. says “backlit”; left and right were reversed; “erogenous zones” are irrelevant, this is not about any arousal on her part; the possible general terms are “pudenda” (yuk), “private parts”, or “secondary sexual characteristics” (cumbersome at best) - better simply to be specific; Au Crépuscule is off-topic.

I haven't been bold for fear of messing up the refs.

Awien (talk) 02:18, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks Awien, that sounds like a good idea. Were you thinking one paragraph, two, or three? — Crisco 1492 (talk)

Merge the original first two into one, total two instead of three. Bonne nuit, Awien (talk) 02:31, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

• Meri beaucoup, Madame. What do you think about having "Au Crepuscule" in a footnote instead? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:34, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

I've put it in a footnote, but feel free to remove it if you think it best. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:36, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

• Support Awien. At the very least I think it's important to qualify "young woman", a subjective impression by no means shared by all.The stuff about "pudenda" etc. should definitely go (yuk). I would prefer to see the lede qualify Chabas with some remark such as "the French painter Paul Chabas, noted for his genre paintings of naked young girls". Finally I would like to see the hideous lede Met image, which I suspect is a montage of three separate colour channels uploaded for the benefit of scholars (of course the channels can easily be separated out again), replaced by the 1961 image. That would probably mean the image would hve to be de-featured. What a loss, eh, but there you go. Meanwhile the article should surely explain the discrepancy between the two images for the sake of very puzzled readers. At a much later date I shall edit at Paul Chabas to set his work in the context of his genre (it will mean a trip to my university library, which I rarely undertake these days and in any case cannot right now) and subsequently make some WP:BOLD edits here where Crisco has edited ineptly in my view. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 08:25, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

• You've not actually looked at the colour channels, have you? Give an example of "a montage of three separate colour channels uploaded for the benefit of scholars". Secondly, the 1961 image is also defective; your experience of the visual arts must be limited for you to suggest that as an alternative. Note the "bruising" on the skin- this is 1961 printing technology. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 11:31, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

• First of all the lede image is hideous. It's only possible justification (other that as anchor for a Featured Picture of course) is that it is in fact what the current condition of the painting is (think Mona Lisa as Crisco remarked). Now it's possible that it got damaged in some way (lor what a loss to Art that would be), in a flood perhaps with all the rest of the Met's priceless collection in store. But I do think we would know that, don't you? My "experience" of the visual arts is far from limited, but even if it was and even if my tired old eyes were loads mankier than they are, I can see the 1961 image is a far better image. The expanding editors here have to explain the disparity. Featured Pictures regularly reject museum images because they don't consider them adequate - my nomination of Millet's Angelus for example, evening prayers under a darkening sky, rejected by your experienced group because it was erm ... too dark. And now your group is eagerly supporting Crisco's curious discovery of Millet's Gleaners (too many brush strokes in my opinion, but I'll hold my peace). Why is September Morn exempt from the stricture that it should be a good representation of the painting? You seem to believe, it's your only possible rationale, that it's been damaged, either by neglect or (your suggestion) restoration. What is the basis of that implied assertion? As for splitting color channels, that's a routine edit I could write myself in my sleep with my limited experience of the art of computing (you can have that), and no I haven't done it because why the hell should I. But I'm making a sound guess that's the origin of the Met image. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 12:54, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Brauer

Can someone please tell me what actual term Fae Brauer uses to categorise September Morn? (Child pornography? Exploitation of a minor? Something else?) Word(s) with page ref. would be useful if you can. Thanks. Awien (talk) 17:10, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

The abstract references "girl-child pornography". Crisco should make you a copy of the paper available to you if you ask him. I emailed Professor Brauer myself, but as I was an ordinary editor and not an administrator enquiring on behalf of Wikipedia I don't suppose she paid much attention.

Regarding the term "child pornography", I subscribe to the view that it is a contradiction in terms, one that can even be used to justify its existence ("come on, it's just kiddie porn"). So I prefer always to use "indecent images of children", clumsy though that might sometimes be. Similarly in the same context, I prefer to use the term "subject" over "model".

In UK law "indecent" is an undefined term which is left to juries to decide (by "children" are meant minors under the age of 18, although again it is up to the jury to decide the age of the subject). I don't what the situation in the US is, nor in the EU as a whole (nor whether it has been harmonised under a directive - of course there are human rights issues that can be depended upon). I do happen to know that in Holland the law used to refer to images that "arouse" the viewer. I don't know whether that is still so. Also important is that UK law refers to photographs and not works of art. So I suppose, but I don't know because I'm not a lawyer, that this painting can not in itself be regarded as indecent (but a photograph of it?) whereas the Lewis Carroll Hatch odalisque, an image of which an editor favoured you at the FP discussion, would probably be regarded as indecent today.

From the outset at the FP discussion I made it clear that in my view Wikipedia should apply common-sense and discretion in valorizing such images. Contrary to what Crisco avers above, I did not introduce paedophilia from the start. I was perfectly aware that Chabas is noted for his genre paintings of naked pubescent and pre-pubescent girls but preferred not to embroil myself in a discussion on the issue. I said at the outset I simply wanted to record my opposition without debating it. It was only when the ensuing discussion endlessly visited and re-visited the same familiar territory of age and erogenous zones, that I introduced a reality check and suggested that the test was whether the image could gratify a paedophile and pointed out Fay Brauer's paper. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 17:54, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

By the way (I believe you're French), my own personal protest over this image being Featured was to upload a high resolution image of Emile Bayard's famous Cosette illustration and caption it with Victor Hugo's preface to Les Miserables, placing it on my user page. I encourage editors everywhere to share the image together. Perhaps we can get it Featured one of these days. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 18:12, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Re: "a voyeuristic "sneak-up peep on the other side of the bushes""

Hi Awien, I'm not too sure the addition of a "voyeuristic "sneak-up" to the quote adds anything more to the article than make sure Brauer's opinion (that the painting is an indecent depiction of a child/young woman) clear from paragraph one. As you stated above, we shouldn't be going into analysis yet, but the inclusion of "voyeuristic" and "sneak-up" give greater credence to Brauer's position than anyone else's. Her disdain for the work is already clear through "peep", which already suggests something furtive, something done voyeuritstically; making the statement even more POV, I think, is not the way to go. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:00, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Can I ask you to let it stand for tonight - I'll think about it.

And I'm just completing a note for here (talk page) that I'll post in a minute (or 10), and hope you'll read.

Thanks, Awien (talk) 01:17, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

• No problem. Earlier I was thinking that we might be able to hold on until PR / GAC / FAC and see if others disagree think it's POV or not, so we can do that too. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:05, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Ok, I think I’ve solved this. The problem sentence is: “She is without escort and viewed obliquely, in a manner characterized by the Australian art historian Fae Brauer as a voyeuristic "sneak-up peep on the other side of the bushes".” What’s happened is that we’ve digressed from what interpreters say the pose IS, to the MEANS by which Brauer says the effect is achieved (placing the viewer in the position of a peeping tom sneaking a peek). So what Brauer says the image IS is right there in the sub-title: the fetishisation of innocence. If we substitute that for the present version, balance is restored. Two sentences merge to become: "This pose has been variously interpreted as the subject protecting herself from the cold, covering her modesty, sponge bathing, or the artist's fetishisation of innocence."

If people are ok with that, I'll leave you to make the change.

Awien (talk) 12:39, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

• I like that, but I think we should keep the bit about the subject/model being viewed from an outside position, as it still speaks to the description of the painting rather than a reading of it. What do you think of this, Awien? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:50, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Good, fine by me. Awien (talk) 15:00, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Brauer II: ‘Moral Girls’ and ‘Filles Fatales’: the Fetishisation of Innocence

Fae Brauer's credentials: "Fae (Fay) Brauer is Research Professor for Visual Art Theory, School of Cultural Studies and Creative Industries at the University of East London and Associate Professor in Art History and Cultural Theory at The University of New South Wales College of Fine Arts."

Interestingly, this paper by a Research Professor (a higher rank than a professor in North America [1]) is not actually an indictment of September Morn at all. The picture’s “paedophilic eroticism” (p. 134) in relation to a “moral girl” is taken as a given, while the paper is an examination of of how it managed to escape the censure and censorship brought to bear on depictions of “filles fatales”, “bad” girls, at the time. Other relevant quotes are that it “arguably portray[s] a paedophilic fantasy - being able to spy upon an unaware naked child in a park or countryside . . . rape with the eyes”, (136) and as already quoted in our article, that it constitutes a “sneak-up peep”. The absence of any other person in the frame she analyses as allowing that space to be “kept vacant for the voyeur”.

In other words, a pretty distinguished art historian takes it for granted that in cruder terms it's child porn. Worth thinking about.

Awien (talk) 01:35, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

I'd query "pretty distinguished" & she's "Visiting Research Professor", but whatever.... Her publishers are rather obscure. Johnbod (talk) 19:50, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, exactly, and I stressed in my own comments here that I was indeed curious myself to know how Chabas escaped censure. The fact is Chabas is a forgotten artist (not a single mention of him at our community's main competitor), his paedophile paintings long ago removed from display in European galleries as this example at the Met for more than 40 years. If Lewis Carroll's Hatch odalisque was nominated for Featuring, there would be an outcry. That there was no outcry in this case simply reflects the obscurity Chabas has settled into. Nevertheless his self-acknowledged "masterpiece" in the genre is now featured in Wikipedia. How that came about is something that ought to be examined dispassionately at some point in the future. The only consolation is that this single sorry memorial to his solitary art is the color of shit. That at least is fitting. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 02:12, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

• (ec) Thanks for reading the paper, and reaffirming my understanding of her position. I have inserted the "voyeuristic" viewpoint in the discussion of Brauer's paper. To be honest, though, I'm concerned that the one paragraph may currently have excess weight dedicated towards it; Brauer's analysis is given a full paragraph, considerably more than others, although I note that she also goes into considerably more detail than any of the other sources, and I'm not sure we can cite Dijkstra for a similar position because (from what I've read) he doesn't emphasize this work in his analysis.

As for the implicit question of whether or not the image should be displayed here, as it has been considered child pornography, I point to previous discussion over Virgin Killer, which has held that the cover art is allowed to be displayed in the article. The question of POTD can (and will) be dealt with by RFC when the time is appropriate; it is controversial enough that simply scheduling it would be foolish, but not clear-cut enough to automatically render it ineligible (as demonstrated by the very vocal and differing views at FPC). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:18, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

First of all the Virgin Killer image is (I accept necessarily) a Fair Use file less than 0.1 MP in size. Try to blow up what editors here have variously referred to pudenda, vulva or erogonous zones (i.e. pink bits) and one will be disappointed. This Featured image by contrast is 26 MP in size and any (yellow) bit one fancies available for intimate study at a resolution close to the mark. As far as I know the Virgin Killer band whoever they are, I mean I can't actually be arsed to find out exactly, don't have a massive ouevre of similar cover art. Finally the issue is not about displaying the image in its article (though frankly I would prefer to have the much superior low resolution 1961 image in the lede), but about slapping a gold star on it and valorizing it as one of Wikipedia's finest images. If I'm still around (increasingly dubious it would seem) when it's put up for Featured Picture of the Day (POTD) you can be sure I will oppose. I suspect it will be a shoe-in. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 03:40, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

I see that's it's been passed for a Did You Know nomination. That is to say at some time in the future all the world and their children when they turn to the front page of Wikipedia will be met by a thumbnail of the painting and a question enquiring whether the world and their children knows that this once incredibly popular painting is now in a warehouse? What can the purpose of that be but to publicise it? Indeed one of the reviewers gushes "Let's bring this painting out of the darkness that it's in!" Now we don't know, because the Met hasn't answered our emails of enquiry, but I (and in my opinion you also should) think it's a reasonable surmise that, latterly at any rate, the reason it's in a warehouse is that the Met probably wants it kept in the darkness and in turn they want that because they gauge that is what the public want. Don't you think this also should be dealt with by a Request for Comment (RFC). Perhaps there's still time for one. Will you undertake to set one up, please? Coat of Many Colours (talk) 06:11, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Crisco, you admit that it's a "dirty picture", and that the girl it portrays is underage, which makes it child pornography. Society and galleries have decided that it is inappropriate to display child pornography, not for the sake of the children who would see it (it would mean nothing to them), but because of its appeal to paedophiles. I have no desire to censor this article, it has its place in an encyclopedia. But given the special nature of Wikipedia, I do strongly urge you to refrain from giving it the exposure the Main Page affords, so much more than any gallery ever could. That can be achieved so simply, by withdrawing it from DYK, and refraining from nominating it for POTD. Please. Awien (talk) 17:04, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't see any issue with a DYK picture, but the doubts over the image quality (whether from the photo or varnish) probably rule out FPOTD. Start an RFC if you want to meet all the WP:NOTCENSORED crowd. Johnbod (talk) 19:50, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

I beg to differ on DYK. The issue there is that two or three editors (I assume administrators) on their own say so seek to release this painting from the decent obscurity that it presently languishes in ("Let's bring this painting out of the darkness that it's in!"). What gives them that right given its background of controversy and the unassailable fact that art history has passed its creator by except as an example of a late Victorian paedophile painter?

The expanding editors here have filled the article with quotes from approving reviews of the period citing the painting's "purity" and "innocence" (but of course these were just the terminology of the ideal of the "erotic innocent girl" identified by Kincaid and Dijkstra). Opponents of the painting had a far harder task to face as the vocabulary of paedophilia had yet to reach public consciousness. The word "paedophilia" itself had only entered the English language (via Havelock Ellis in 1906) just three years before Chabas began his three year posing of the pubescent child subject we see in September Morn. The word "paedophile" is not recorded until 1951 in medical journals. The Oxford English Dictionary doesn't record it before 1975 in popular discourses. Before the 1970s, ordinary people were scarcely aware of even the possibility of paedophilia except as an unspeakable crime of hideous depravity decent folk never alluded to.

It was only in the mid 1970s, with the excesses of the '60s Sexual Revolution bringing Western society to a degree of decadence matching only that of the late Roman Empire, with the advent of garden-shed printing presses and video recordings, that the public gradually educated themselves in paedophilia and child sex abuse. Today we take the possibility of, for example, paedophile priests for granted. Even of paedophile Wikipedia editors.

And this is a paedophile painting by a noted exponent of the genre. It is for the expanding editors here, wishing to better disseminate this painting to the the world and their children ("Let's bring this painting out of the darkness that it's in!") to bring an RFC. Again I ask them to do that and to ensure that it's brought to the attention of a properly representative group of Wikipedia editors, and not just that small group of editors (about a dozen I would say?) interested in Featuring works of art. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 20:47, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Even if it is painted by a paedophile (and I don't think this issue is settled) and excites paedophiles, I don't feel it justifies this reaction. There are innumerable other legal images that could in theory excite paedophiles even if this painting were purged from our archives and from documented history. The argument that a paedophile excited by fictional depictions is more likely to commit actual child abuse seems to me be a tenuous one, and does not necessarily override the wider issue of censorship. This "think of the children!" overreaction is typical of society today. The same mindset that trades freedom for security without really looking at a logical cost/benefit analysis. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 22:04, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm not asking that an image of the painting be purged from Wikipedia's archives, still less from the article (how many time do I have to repeat myself there?), no more that the Met should destroy the painting. But, just as US and European galleries no longer exhibit Chabas' paedophile paintings, so should Wikipedia not do the equivalent, which in Wikipedia's case is to Feature it and display it on the front page. As for your '"tenuous" you are entitled to your view, but the evidence is that artworks can and do gratify paedophiles and we should be guided by common-sense and discretion. Even your colleagues at Featured Pictures, or at least one of them, accept that a work such as Lewis Carroll's 'Hatch' odalisque (often comparered to Manet's Olympia your group has so creatively promoted to Featured Pictures) is exploitative. But as I pointed out, Chabas' painting are quoted in the literature as belonging to the same tradition. Obviously there's a problem with artworks. UK law does not attempt to classify paintings as indecent whereas it will a photograph of the same same subject in the same pose. In the case of Carroll and Chabas it really should be clear where the line of decency is to be drawn. Something like Caraveggio's Amor Vincit Omnia would be a grey area where I personally would be prepared to defer to others' wishes. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 22:41, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Whether or not Chabas WAS a paedophile is irrelevant; he DID churn out eroticised images of children to sell to paedophiles. Such images are no longer displayed in galleries for fear they might contribute directly or indirectly to paedophiles acting out their inclination on actual children. If that concern is real enough for them, it should be real enough for us. We refrain from featuring other kinds of images on the Main Page out of concern for potential harm, and this should be one such.

It is particularly distasteful because of its voyeurism. At the heart of voyeurism is the sense of power it gives the voyeur, power over the victim whose privacy is invaded without their consent, “rape with the eyes” in the words of Erich Wulfflen as quoted by Brauer (p. 136). (Rape too is of course more about power over than irresistible attraction). To feature it on our Main Page normalises or validates a despicable act that is an actual crime in many places.

With the gazillions of glorious images of glorious things there are out there, we don't need to give prominence to this crummy image of an instance of the fetishisation of innocence.

Awien (talk) 00:54, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, you express the issues much better than I can and I'm grateful. Regarding the word paedophile itself, that's a relatively recent neologism (less than 40 years old for its first citation outside medical literature) and I think it's clear that it's moved on to include people who collect and disseminate indecent images of children. For the record these are the citations in the OED:

1951 Group Psychotherapy IV. 166 (heading) Psycho~dramatic treatment of a pedophile. 1954 Jrnl. Projective Techniques XVIII. 352/1 This sexualized view of a late middle-aged female, by a 26-year-old subject, reflects the strikingly immature confusion of sexual and maternal figures found in the pedophile group. 1975 Sunday People 1 June 2/6 Many paedophiles who read the article will have heard of P.A.L. for the first time and will be anxious that the organisation survives to continue this service. 1976 Publishers Weekly 23 Aug. 75/2 Hilary is nine. She's at the mercy of the old man she calls the Devil, actually a pathetic pedophile. 1977 Sunday Times 30 Jan. 41/2 The paedophile authors he discusses include the diarist Kilvert, Lewis Carroll and J. M. Barrie.

The 1975 citation references P.A.L. i.e. the notorious Paedophile Information Exchange. The article references just that Sunday People piece, which can still be read here. Normally I would at this point archive that source and add it to the article, but I am refraining from editing article space in Wikipedia (excluding talk pages and dramah boreds) for a period of one in month in protest at what amounts to a de facto ban from editing at WP:FP on pain of a block. I shall resume after 13:03, 28 October 2014.

Coat of Many Colours (talk) 01:42, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Coat of Many Colours, unfortunately there's a fly in the ointment of the fact that we are in agreement over what's wrong with this picture and why it shouldn't appear on the main page. That is the fact that you should not have accused Crisco of being a paedophile himself, and owe him an apology for overstepping the bounds. Otherwise, if I may presume, it's good that you have moderated your language in more recent exchanges. Awien (talk) 02:27, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

No. I understand your concern, I deal with it on my Talk page here and that has to be understood within the context of my regard that by paedophile today we must understand and include persons at pains to disseminate indecent images of children such as we are discussing here. In my response to the editor I said it it worked both both ways. I welcomed him to the mill. Let me give you an example going back to the 1975 scandal in the UK regarding these kinds of images, at that time on open display in the so-called "sex shops" in Soho, London. A headmaster at a major Scottish secondary school expressed his concerns about this situation at a National Union of Teachers's conference. He was excoriated for his pains by the UK press, the implication once again, as with Mary Whitehouse (can you imagine that her surname became the title of a very successful sex-magazine?) the all too familiar one that his activism was somehow "suspect". It did indeed affect his career.

Neither you nor I have attempted to come on to each other's Talk page over this issue. That is very different from the canvassing I suggest you can see between the editor whose user name I may not mention and the administrator I equally dare not mention because he will block me on the slightest pretext so I believe. Vive la différence I say.

Coat of Many Colours (talk) 03:07, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Far too much emphasis is being given to Brauer (who is not an especially notable/distinguished art historian) resulting in the neutrality of the article now being skewed. I do not see any reason for the DYK to be withdrawn. SagaciousPhil - Chat 05:23, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Fae Brauer has a considerable publication history (I've just realised I cited her earlier in the year but I can't for the life of me recall where) and her paper is I believe the the only contemporary peer-reviewed source for the article. Bram Dijkstra, James R. Kincaid are both distinguished and notable, while Anne Witchard is a senior lecturer at the University of Westminster. I dare say your group at Featured Pictures can similarly muster academic strength, but as to how notable or distinguished our respective academic strengths are is surely not really an issue (although both Crisco and an editor an administrator at your group has asked me not to name have attacked my own expertise, quaint as I am not an academic and have never claimed any expertise in art history). I'm not asking that the DYK should be withdrawn, though of course that is what I would eventually like to see happen. I'm asking that something so contentious should be the subject of an RFC. As for the skew of the article I've already said that I will eventually edit at Paul Chabas in terms of his paedophilia, which is in truth all that he is remembered for, and then make some WP:BOLD edits at September Morn but not right now of course, and if my edits continue to be routinely reverted by your group then naturally I shan't persist. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 08:48, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

There are a lot of things I was going to say, but setting them aside, I am prepared to compromise (that's a word that means everybody emerges from the deal equally unhappy). I will withdraw my objections to September Morn appearing as a DYK, if the group supporting the picture will agree not to nominate it for POTD. That way, we can all get on with our lives. Awien (talk) 14:52, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

No compromise from me. I don't see why these things should be settled by a single administrator (Crisco in the case of POTD) or just two or three editors on behalf of Wikipedia, which in practice, as far as its audience is concerned, means the whole world and their children. The world does care deeply about the pornography and indecency to be found everywhere on the internet, does try its best to protect their children from it, and so should Wikipedia and this is an indecent image by modern standards that it should not be affixing a gold star to and publicising in the way that is proposed.

I don't look at Wikipedia regularly enough to be sure of seeing them, but if I subsequently find either have passed through without the community having being given the opportunity to make a comment about them I will raise Cain about it. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 15:21, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Coat of Many Colours, no word from the proponents - the DYK now in prep.

Crisco, just because the panic over images of children has gone too far, which it has, doesn’t mean that we therefore reject *any* regulation and/or discretion concerning eroticised images of children; that’s also going too far in the opposite direction. It means we work to restore a reasonable balance. And since you seem to be framing this as a freedom of speech issue, you could hardly have been more misguided in your choice of ground. Awien (talk) 19:35, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Awien. I think common-sense dictates that a wider forum should be sought than that to be found at Wikipedia - Featured Pictures. I think we have common ground from that forum that an image such as Lewis Carroll's Hatch odalisque (for readers who do not know what that is, it is photograph of a very young nude girl child, Evelyn Hatch, sister of Beatrice Hatch, posing as an eroticized odalisque in a way that was acceptable in late Victorian society but clearly is not today) is "expoloitative" (that's not exactly how I would put it, but let it stand) and would never be featured. But paintings by Paul Chabas, of which he called September Morn his masterpiece, are cited by authors today (of which at least two are noted and distinguished), as examples of the same genre. I don't see how in the circumstances September Morn can be valorized in this way, let alone brought out of the closet as it were ("Let's bring this painting out of the darkness that it's in!").

For the one month period my protest strike lasts, I will check the front page daily for DYK and POTD appearances of this image and if I see one, and on checking ascertain that an RFC in fact hadn't requested, I shall seek a wider forum to discuss the issue, as I did with the group's featuring and subsequent POTD of a digitally restored version of Manet's Olympia, an image accepted as being that of a very young prostitute, (the flesh tone was warmed in a way that Manet certainly did not intend nor would ever have countenanced).

Coat of Many Colours (talk) 21:22, 30 September 2014 (UTC)