Talk:Painting 1946

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

Museum of Modern Art Low‑importance

	This article is related to the Museum of Modern Art.Museum of Modern ArtWikipedia:GLAM/Museum of Modern ArtTemplate:WikiProject Museum of Modern ArtMuseum of Modern Art-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

United Kingdom Low‑importance

	United Kingdom portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

[Untitled][edit]

I removed the following sentence from the article:

If Three Studies for Figures at the Base of a Crucifixion (1944) is Bacon's masterpiece, then Painting (1946) has a good claim to be his magnum opus.

dagonet (talk) 12:52, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 23 July 2017[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Move to Painting 1946. It does appear this title is in use, and so should be a sufficient title at least as natural disambiguation. Cúchullain ^t/c 14:46, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Painting (1946) → Painting (Bacon 1946) – The article treats "(1946)" not as a parenthetical qualifier, but as part of the title and italicizes the full title as "Painting (1946)". However, Template:Francis Bacon (artist), pipes the title as Painting (1946), thus indicating the title as simply "Painting" and "(1946)" as merely the title's qualifier. If "(1946)" is not part of the title, but only a qualifier, then the title should be analogous to such other titles in the template as Dog (Bacon 1952) or Two Figures (Bacon 1952). —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 07:10, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Announcement of this discussion appears at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Visual arts —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 07:10, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You should have researched sources outside WP before launching this. MOMA does treat Painting as the whole title but other sources may do differently. Please research more. Some disam is clearly needed, but I would prefer "Francis Bacon" to just the surname. Johnbod (talk) 13:04, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As above, please present your research for how reliable sources title the work before requesting a move discussion czar 17:40, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Many sources call it simply Painting[1][2][3][4], but francis-bacon.com calls it Painting 1946[5], and at least one serious blog calls it Painting (1946). The current title is not causing problems, so I think it's ok, but if it needs to be moved, it should be to Painting (Bacon) per MOS:VATITLE and WP:PRECISE. The other suggestions should be redirects. Station1 (talk) 18:39, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[See below for update. Station1 (talk) 03:32, 28 July 2017 (UTC)][reply]
Comment. The title is Painting 1946.[6] Ceoil (talk) 18:44, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would give priority to MoMA, as this work is in their collection. The MoMA website gives the title as "Painting".[7] In this case a vote by Google search hits is a poor indication. It is unlikely that Bacon kept records,[8] and I suspect that this name was not assigned by him. I would use whatever title is used in the recent Catalogue Raisonné, ISBN 978-0956927316 (but I can't afford a copy).

If the title of the artwork is "Painting" then the article title should be rendered as "Painting (1946)" (or "Painting (Bacon)"). The template should have "Painting (1946)", and the article text should refer to it as Painting. If the title of the artwork is "Painting (1946)" then the article title should be rendered as "Painting (1946)", and the template should have "Painting (1946) (1946)". Verbcatcher (talk) 23:31, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly MOMA calls it simply Painting but plenty of other sources put the 1946 in the title. Painting without more would as plainly inadequate as Dog or Two Figures. As far as I can see, no source calls this work Painting (Bacon). Is there another work entitled Painting 1946 or Painting (1946) by a different artist from which this work needs to be disambiguated? Does Bacon have any other works entitled simply Painting? If the answer to both of these questions is "no" then using both "Bacon" and "1946" would be surplussage. In that case, what is wrong with using the parenthetical date as a disambiguator in this case?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.205.198.122 (talk) 07:52, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- To answer my own questions, the Tate has Bacon's Painting from 1929-30 on long-term loan from a private collection,[9], so Painting (Bacon) without a date is not good enough (and the Tate also has Bacon's 1952 work Dog which it calls Study of a Dog - [10] - so that is not a good comparison; also Hepworth's Two Figures should probably be moved back to Two Figures (Hepworth) where it started). And there is at least one other 1946 work called simply Painting, a rather osbcure and undistinguished work by Frank Hinder;[11] It is in the collection of the Art Gallery of New South Wales, but I'd argue that that it is not particularly notable, certainly not as notable as the Bacon, which would be the primary topic if one were needed, and anyway until an article on the Hindler exists there is no need to disambiguate this one with "Bacon". Snippets of Ronald Alley's 1964 Bacon catalogue raisonné available online appear to favour Painting 1946 without the parenthesis. Unsurprisingly the Tate's online biography of Bacon does the same.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.205.198.122 (talk) 10:09, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As the nominator, I would Support Painting 1946 to be this article's main header. As the sole work bearing such exact title, this form would obviate the need for inclusion of the artist's surname as well as eliminate the need for the misleading [in the context of Wikipedia's disambiguation form] use of what appears to be an italicized parenthetical qualifier, (1946), rather than a parenthetical date which had been meant to represent the suffix of the title. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 14:57, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Painting 1946 per Roman Spinner if the painting's title is found to be correct. Randy Kryn (talk) 16:19, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Painting 1946: The most usual title, as per David Sylvester, Michael Peppiatt, Ernst van Alphen and other writers. The year is significant, both in subject matter (immediately post war) and as marking a break from earlier works. Ceoil (talk) 17:45, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Painting 1946. The 2016 catalogue raisonné (v. 2, p. 170) does call it Painting 1946 and that does seem to solve all issues, as mentioned above. Station1 (talk) 03:32, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.