Talk:Le Rêve (Picasso)

How big a tear and can it be repaired??[edit]

There two accounts over in the Steve Wynn article about the tear, each consistent with the one given here. See Talk::Steve Wynn for details Modus Vivendi 09:28, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to the Wynn on Monday and will let you know. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.197.169.68 (talk) 14:39, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Le-reve-1932.jpg[edit]

Image:Le-reve-1932.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 07:08, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fellatio speculation[edit]

I removed this sentence:

Walter’s face deliberately can be seen in two perspectives, in one of which she seems to perform fellatio^{[citation needed]}, suggesting that the title of the painting may refer to Picasso’s rather than Walter’s dream.^{[citation needed]}

A search of LexisNexis Academic, the New York Times archives since 1851, Google Scholar and Google Books for

"Le Reve" AND Picasso AND fellatio

produced no results.AxelBoldt (talk) 03:53, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's because most people are embarrassed about it and the others have not used a polite term for it before. Obviously, the second part can be left off, readers probably will conclude this for themselves, but the first, not hard to see now the painting is back on the page, has references. See for example halfway the paragraph following the picture in Nora Ephron's description of the Wynn incident, Wynn explaining it to his adoring friends. Afasmit (talk) 04:38, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your reference reports

he told us that [...] you could see that the head of Marie-Therese was divided in two sections and that one of them was a penis.

I think it would be fine to add this statement to the article, properly attributed to Wynn (unless we can find some higher caliber art critic expressing the same sentiment), but I find it quite different from the sentence I removed. No "two perspectives", no "fellatio". AxelBoldt (talk) 15:55, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You've now, probably unintentionally, rewritten the section as if Wynn was the first to see "it". Googling is complicated with the number of available synonyms, but, among many others:

"As for Le Reve , you can only assume the planned resort won't share the painting's in-your-face phallic imagery.” Rough Guide to Travel, published pre-2004

“The work is suffused with an intense eroticism; note the dual reading as both a front portrait and a profile view with penis -- presumably the artist's -- above her face.” [1]

And, coincidentally in the September 2006 issue of Art News, a month before the incident:

"Picasso, who propagated the notion that sex and art are the same thing, called his paintings a series of “cock-and-bull stories.” The sexual puns in Picasso’s works are so prevalent, says Robert Rosenblum, a professor of art history at New York University’s Institute of Fine Arts, they become like “nonstop jokes.” In Le rêve (1932), for example, the artist, age 51 at the time, planted an erect purple shaft in the upturned face of his then-21-year-old mistress, Marie-Thérèse Walter. According to Picasso biographer John Richardson, the artist perceived his young blond lover “in terms of his own penis.” Las Vegas casino mogul Stephen A. Wynn, who owns Le rêve, told ARTnews, “My take on the sexual aspect of the picture is if you are a 51-year-old man and you have a 21-year-old girlfriend, the fantasy is Picasso’s, not hers. Any 51-year-old man would be wishing or hoping that she was dreaming of his body parts. If you take this view,” he continues, “a more appropriate title would be Prendre ses désires pour des réalités, translated as Wishful Thinking.” (I didn't think I would have anything in common with Wynn, but we shared this interpretation, blatantly obvious as it may be.)

Before 1997 it apparently wasn't considered a particularly notable painting, and "Le Rêve" is not mentioned in "Grove Art Online", I couldn't find a discussion in a scholarly online art journal, and I don't have a Picasso bio. Still, are John Richardson and Robert Rosenblum sources of sufficient caliber? Afasmit (talk) 06:26, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly, especially the last reference is a great one, thanks for digging it up. I'll add it to the article unless you beat me to it. Cheers, AxelBoldt (talk) 21:57, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Le Rêve (Picasso). 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070313144526/http://www.artnet.de/magazine/news/spiegler/spiegler01-17-07.asp to http://www.artnet.de/magazine/news/spiegler/spiegler01-17-07.asp

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) 21:08, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]