Talk:Egon Schiele

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

dystonia[edit]

can anybody actually confirm this assertion that schiele had dystonia? i was able to find one article from a medical journal which mentioned the painter's being afflicted, but only in passing and with no corroborating evidence. all the other hits i got doing a simple google search were copied off wiki. if schiele did have dystonia, this is relatively new knowledge, as none of the well-known monographs from the 1980s and 1990s mention this condition. it represents a fairly new take on the painter if he actually had to move his body in that spasmolytic manner; given the unprecedented nature of this assertion it would be good to have citations/references of some kind ---- —Preceding unsigned comment added by User: Dionysian_kat (talk • contribs)

There is no mention whatsoever of dystonia in the major biographies of Schiele: Frank Whitford, Alessandra Comini, Jane Kallir. Mick gold 09:19, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Colbert Report[edit]

On a recent episode of the Colbert Report featuring Andrew Keen, Keen claimed "even the Nazis didn't put people out of work", to which Colbert responded with "what about Egon Schiele"?

Given that Schiele died in 1918, does anybody know what Colbert could have been talking about? Given the pictures I've seen here, I would expect Schiele's art to have been classified as Entartete Kunst, so he would have been repressed were he still alive. But they can't very well put him out of work if he'd been dead for 25 years! --Saforrest 05:07, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The Cobert Report is parody or fake news and doesn't have to make sense, it only has to make money. Probably the writers meant Mucha. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.179.30.13 (talk) 07:38, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

i think its a referring to how andrew keen is an elitist and he says there is nothing wrong with that. some classify nazis as elitists. Egon was locked up for offensive paintings(i think other charges as well) so he was pretty much out of work. after he did his time, egon was in the austrian millitary which were allies to nazi germany. what i get out of it is that under authoritarian control, egon could no longer paint painting which were found offensive by some. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.213.49.51 (talk) 20:54, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

who gives a crap? I saw that dude on strangers with candy laugh so hard I had forgotten he even had his own shown. There could be an improvement on the origin of senior Egon. He'd died before the nah'zee'z so forgett about that and move on. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.208.110.90 (talk) 00:40, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Trivia section[edit]

Regarding the "Tributes" section, we need some valid third-party sources attesting to the significance of these "tributes" per WP:V. If none can be found the section will need to be removed.--John (talk) 19:40, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

three months with a tag for factual, non-BLP violating material isnt' great, but it's hardly cause for removal. On their face, these tributes generally seem to be modern artists attributing their work to having been influenced by his work. None of it's negative. Start finding sources. ThuranX (talk) 19:45, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For the first one, http://www.amazon.com/Music-Egon-Schiele-Rachels/dp/B0000037O3 substantiates that it exists.

here's a critical review, so I think that will substantiate the first adequately? http://www.westword.com/1996-04-04/music/playlist/ ThuranX (talk) 19:48, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As you know, the onus is on editors wishing to retain material to demonstrate its encyclopedic nature. I therefore leave this task to you. Good work so far. --John (talk) 19:49, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, the onus is on people wishing to change the status quo. You can help, I'm not doing all this alone, especially since within two minutes I was able to ref the first one. Alternately, having done so, I can just walk away now, but I won't. here's a link showing the writer of the first listing as credited in the second listing. http://www.answers.com/topic/for-the-birds-rock-album-1. Enjoy, and get to work. finally, if you do scurry off now, I'll have good foundation for ignoring and auto-reverting any future edits of yours, since your talk page request that we work this out wasn't made in good faith. ThuranX (talk) 19:55, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Scurry off? Not made in good faith? Auto-reverting? Please see Wikipedia:"In popular culture" articles and WP:CIVIL. Alternatively,feel free to seek another hobby. Very best wishes to you, --John (talk) 20:01, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Get Real. You came to my page talking of cooperation. I came here, said we should keep them, and sourced the first one. While I was doing that, you were busy throwing the load on me and running off like an agent provocateur instead of like a collaborator towards improvement. that's hardly showing good faith on your part, and thus, I have no obligation to reciprocate. Enjoy the cleanup on your own from now on.ThuranX (talk) 20:07, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You may well find WP:BURDEN to be interesting reading, assuming you are not familiar with it as it seems from the above. --John (talk) 21:07, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I know all about BURDEN. You brought it to talk, you asked me for HELP with it. Then, you ditched and ran like a gigantic asshole. Now you're pissing and moaning about being called on it. I demonstrated easily that these could be referenced, and your response was 'HAHA IT'S ALL YOUR JOB NOW BYE BYE'. That's a dick move, and you know it is. Now, trapped by your own pride, you insist that I'm to blame for the condition of the article, and to blame for proving you wrong, and that blame needs to be punished by my doing all the work, despite you asking for help. As such, I don't respoect you, and will be ignoring you from now on. You've burned all the AGF you've got with me, jerk. ThuranX (talk) 21:29, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on content, not users. Like most such trivia listings--sometimes of interest, usually more esoteric than important. I don't think the article suffers from this section being reverted. If consensus is suggested, this can be posted on the visual arts project page. JNW (talk) 21:32, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I object to the 'reverting', since HE is the one bringing the change, and needs to argue for its value, value I've already repudiated by finding the citation for the first, and given him a start on the second. What policy precludes that lazy jerk from doing some actual work? Other than his own craven behavior, that is. ThuranX (talk) 21:39, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There. All done. John, never expect a single shred of respect, grace, good faith or kindness from me again. persona non grata. ThuranX (talk) 22:12, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work, ThuranX. You improved the article, which was a result for the project. In future there is no need to be so upset when someone asks that our policies be followed. Thanks for your good work. --John (talk) 01:35, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Drop dead and keep the fuck away from me, you smug jerk. ThuranX (talk) 03:42, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

....... well, that was awkward. Genetikbliss (talk) 01:36, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

misplaced paragraph[edit]

This paragraph:

Schiele participated in numerous group exhibitions, including those of the Neukunstgruppe in Prague in 1910 and Budapest in 1912; the Sonderbund, Cologne, in 1912; and several Secessionist shows in Munich, beginning in 1911. In 1913, the Galerie Hans Goltz, Munich, mounted Schiele's first solo show. A solo exhibition of his work took place in Paris in 1914.

is in the article section entitled "War". Yet it has nothing to do with the war and its placement here breaks the otherwise chronological order of the article. Chronologically, it should be placed just before the last paragraph of the "Controversy" section. Yet, as written, the paragraph itself has nothing to do with the controversy. So instead of moving it, I decided to suggest it and see if other Wikipedia authors had a better idea. Ronewolf (talk) 03:35, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Style[edit]

Third paragraph of the Style section, "Since 1920"--Is this a typo? He died in 1918.````

His "The Artist's Room in Neulenbach" is also a tribute to Van Gogh's painting of his room in Arles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.180.163.253 (talk) 06:10, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

.[edit]

Sorry, replaced some of the artworks chosen because all tended to show about the same style, skinny figures and unfinished works, with wery little colour. We need to show all kinds of artwork, even the differen ones of his works. Hafspajen (talk) 02:48, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Labels Covering Pictures In Gallery[edit]

(Tested in Firefox) Labels and descriptions of paintings in the "Gallery" and "Self-Portrait" sections sometimes completely obscure the picture when highlighted so that a viewer is unable to click on the work for an enlarged view. I did not want to edit the descriptions, and do not have the technical expertise to ensure that the description does not cover the work. Perhaps a way can be found to overcome this, or static descriptions can be placed underneath the work rather than appearing when highlighted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.1.40.113 (talk) 04:02, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Made text smaller- Try clicking above the white inscription. Then it will enlarge. Hafspajen (talk) 04:10, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Egon Schiele - Self-Portrait with Physalis - Google Art Project.jpg to appear as POTD soon[edit]

Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Egon Schiele - Self-Portrait with Physalis - Google Art Project.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on December 6, 2015. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2015-12-06. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:37, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Egon Schiele
Self Portrait with Physalis, by Egon Schiele (1890–1918) completed in 1912. Schiele, an early expressionist painter from Tulln an der Donau, Lower Austria, produced numerous self-portraits during his career, including several in which he depicted himself naked. His works are characterized by twisted body shapes, intensity and raw sexuality.Painting: Egon Schiele
Archive – More featured pictures...

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Egon Schiele. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:49, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Chronological order[edit]

Putting the Schiele article into chronological order is only half way done. If you start to reverse the process midstream I will not be able to complete putting the article into chronological order for other editors to continue editing. I am three quarters of the way through with the completion of putting the entire article into chronological sequence. Do you want me complete this process of putting the article into chronological order? ManKnowsInfinity (talk) 14:56, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ManKnowsInfinity. This really should be discussed at the relevant Talk page. While I may be mistaken in my edit summary, and at your talk page, about copy-pasted material, I noticed that the article, prior to your intervention, was already in chronological order. So I recommend you write a short paragraph in Talk on exactly how you intend to rearrange the article. If not someone else is likely to revert. Coldcreation (talk) 15:08, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Coldcreation: It makes sense to keep all comments here in one place, since I had placed one quick response on your talk page and you had placed one quick response on my talk page. There is no copy-paste in the article. I think that the article as a whole would benefit from being put into chronological order in a main Biography section at the start of the article with appropriate section designations added after it is in chronological order. My effort this morning was three quarters complete when you did your rollback. I would like to complete the edit sequence for you to see how the article would look with a redone biography section at the start of the article. If you don't like it when its fully in chronological order then just rollback again and I will let it stand in the version you prefer. If you can undo your rollback, then I can try to complete the remaining edit sequence, and you can decide whether to place a rollback or to endorse the new chronological version of the biography. ManKnowsInfinity (talk) 15:25, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Good call. Done...Coldcreation (talk) 18:23, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The current form of this biography article is starting to get close to where I was trying to get it earlier this morning. I am somewhat concerned for some of the image 'bunching' and possibly you might have a better eye for some pruning and best placement of the images. The Style section, I think, was interesting after I moved the specifically dated material to the corresponding passages in the chronology of the biography since there was very little left. The remaining part of the Style section I decided to leave there for purposes of future development. Of course, I am dependent on any adjustment alternations which you might feel would make this "chronological" version of his biography better and more useful to readers and editors of the article in the future. I plan to remain faithful to my original offer about your making the changes back as you feel might be needed, and thanks for the opportunity to allow me to complete this version of the edit sequence I had initiated this morning which can now be assessed and reviewed by interested editors. ManKnowsInfinity (talk) 19:08, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Notable work" in the infobox mentions 4 paintings, but only 2 are shown in the article.[edit]

See German wikipedia de:Tod und Mädchen for one of the missing paintings. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.178.135.35 (talk) 10:18, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dämmernde Stadt[edit]

This painting was autioned at Sotheby's with alternative titles Die Kleine Stadt II and Die Kleine Stadt III. This article has a different painting under Die Kleine Stadt II, and where is then Die kleine Stadt or Die kleine Stadt I? I'm reluctant to make Die Kleine Stadt II a redirect until explained. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:01, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education assignment: 20th-21st Century Art, Performance and Media[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 14 March 2023 and 28 April 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Tikka1rj (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Ceiap (talk) 20:42, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong hyperlink[edit]

The Max Oppenheimer painting links to Max Ophüls (who's birthname was Max Oppenheimer), a german director who could not have been the subject of Schiele's painting. Rather it should link to Max Oppenheimer, the austrian painter. 2001:4BB8:141:AA4B:0:0:5314:E105 (talk) 13:27, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Egon_Schiele&oldid=1194979686"