Talk:Paris Street; Rainy Day

==Is this absolutely his best known painting? Not sure the claim in footnote 1 is sufficient to establish that this is Caillebotte's most famous painting. Maybe in the US, but The Floor Scrapers is equally famous, I'd say.

LeVeillé (talk) 02:34, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Deleted text

This was removed from the article; probably WP:OR or a school essay. Reproduced here as its astute in places, and may be of use as a guide.

Art Critique:

The year Rainy Day: Paris Street was completed, 1877, the world was in a flurry of activity over wars and new technology, as always. All of these, particularly the major events of France and Napoleon Bonaparte, have had an great influence on this painting. Since he created this painting reflecting his own time period, the events and people of the day could directly affect him and make a noticeable impression on his work. The Russo-Turkish War began the same year as this painting, where Russia declared war on the Ottoman Empire. This war would eventually lead to the formation of Bulgaria in 1878. This affected Caillebotte and his depiction of the subject and other people in the painting. Photography was the most influential aspect of the time period on Caillebotte, at least from a technological standpoint. The perspective is impossible and distorted because he was trying to capture a moment in time, similar to a photograph, however he also reproduced the effect of a camera lens in the way that it makes things bulge in the center, of course depending on the curvature of the lens. He also recreated the focusing effect of the camera in the way that it sharpens certain subjects of an image, but not others. This is seen in the overall clarity of the image as it applies to the foreground, middle ground, and background. The foreground is in focus, but slightly smudged, while the middle ground has sharp, clear edges and well defined subjects, and the background fades into the distance and becomes more and more blurry the farther back the eye travels. The artist makes the middle ground section more clear because that is how a camera would behave. He did this to increase the realism and enhance the viewer’s perception of the scene. The painting gives the impression that it is a mere snapshot, with the man looking to the left as though something has caught his eye, and the woman following his gaze, but the distraction is only momentary and they will walk on in the next second and the whole painting will change. This is the essence of its connection with photography. This scene is a record of only a second time. The evidence of the time period is clear and abundant, not only in tangible things such as clothing and buildings, but also in the attitude and style with which he paints. The subjects are displaying the popular formal fashion of the era and also the aristocratic attitude. they are out for a walk in the rain in their best clothes, or close to them. It must have been raining when they went out because they brought their umbrella with them, but the went out anyway. Fashion is not the only indicator of the time period, however. Architecture, particularly that of the road, suggests a year in which Napoleon reigned. During his great reconstruction of Paris, he and his city designer, Baron Haussmann, made the streets a great deal broader to allow better control of the people. He also standardized the buildings of Paris to make them all uniform (the buildings shown in this painting are apartment buildings at an intersection near the Saint-Lazare train station). In this masterpiece, the artist utilizes the impressionist style, however it is not impressionism as it is usually thought of, and he tends to lean more toward realism than impressionism. this is shown by the realistic and clear figures against a sharp and well defined backdrop. The artist used all the elements of art in this painting to great effect however there are three which garnered him considerable praise. He used subject in order to focus the viewers attention in the right place and to highlight the photographic qualities of the painting. He uses color to show the mood of the work and also to improve on perspective with the colors becoming more and more faded and blurry the farther back in the background. And lastly he used perspective to its greatest length and used photographic relationships to help heighten the sense of the depth and complexity of the subject and the entire image.

There are two subjects in this painting, though they are not of the same importance. the first and most important is the couple walking on the sidewalk on the right of the painting, while the second is the building in the background that shows the extreme and distorting perspective. The subject of the people is an unavoidably common subject, but it never gets tired. This is because the range of human expression and emotion is so varied and has so many rarely explored facets that it is difficult for an artist to run out of possibilities for a subject. The artist chose this subject because, for a painting of a city street, no other would be appropriate. This particular artist’s usual style is realism, so to have a city street in his city of birth would be unnatural and unacceptable to him. With respect to the building as a subject, it is not as commonly used subject because of the purpose to the composition that is serves, but the idea of having a building be the subject of a painting is not terribly original. The artist used this as a subject because it was necessary to help establish the photography-style perspective he was trying to achieve and it also helps to balance the painting between the right and left sides. Though it is not a subject, the lamppost is important to both subjects. This is because it divides the whole work into two halves of unequal size, but equal importance. Caillebotte put this in to give vertical stability to the painting and to help the viewer more clearly and quickly define both of the other, more important subjects.

Shape is used in this painting to intensify the already dramatic perspective of the scene. The artist uses them in such a way that the viewer knows and recognizes the shapes present, but allows their eye to fit them together into the painting to create the final image. The artists use of triangles in this work is found almost exclusively in the buildings themselves and the umbrellas being carried by the pedestrians. The umbrellas are divided into trigonal sections by the wires underneath keeping the cloth taut, which help contribute to the elements of perspective in the foreground, because they are rounded and shaded at the top. Also, the whole umbrellas themselves are triangles, which act as bench marks for the distance in the scene away from the viewer. This helps to stabilize the areas of more sparse composition farther back in the painting. The triangles in the buildings are the primary source of this paintings incredible perspective. The building in the back and on the left of the scene is what gives the viewer the clue that there is something somewhat unusual about the perspective in this painting. That entire building is a triangle, and if the entire rest of the painting was completely flat, the viewer would know what the artist was trying to say with the perspective of this scene. Rectangles are, by far, the most widely used shape in this painting. They make up the majority of the background in the buildings, excepting the triangles that help to establish perspective. Rectangles are not as important to this piece as the triangles are, however, regardless of their greater frequency. The cobble stone, to be discussed in greater detail in the next two paragraphs, are rectangles that help to establish the implied line that runs from the curb next to the main subject to the back of the painting by the building on the right. Rectangles are also found in all of the windows of the buildings, which helps to achieve perspective for the buildings Circles, or any curved lines for that matter, in this piece are not used very liberally. The only places they can be found, excepting in the subjects, is in the umbrellas found throughout and in the carriage wheels, of which we see only 3. These serve little or no purpose to the actual composition as a whole, but rather are present only because he could not have a carriage without wheels. These shapes are formed through use of contour lines and color. There are few shapes with darkly outlined figures; most of them are formed with use of varying color from the background, or contrasting color with the objects around it, however the ones that are outlined are very important to the composition of the painting. This painting has a fairly large scale, so the objects are made to look three-dimensional through perspective. This is most effective for the large components of the painting, such as the buildings in the back and the people and objects in the foreground, but for the smaller objects, such as the umbrellas in the middle ground are made three-dimensional through the use of shadow and the play of light. In addition, the nature of the shape itself contributes to its triple-dimensionality in this painting, the most prime example being the wet cobble-stones paving the streets. Their surface is raised off the level of the street, so water collects around the edges and forms it into a parallelogram, a shape that lends itself to perspective anyway

The texture in this painting is subtle in its nature, but vital to the overall impression on the viewer. He does not try much for texture on the canvas itself, only what is there is the product of the stylistic brushstrokes, dabs and longer straight strokes, which are natural to the painting style of the period. The implied texture of the painting is the more important element. It gives the painting scope and realism, without which it would appear flat, uninteresting, and certainly unrealistic. For example, the texture of the wet cobblestones, which, due to perspective, becomes less and less clear the farther back the viewer looks in the painting, is made by a series of blotting strokes with several dark colors. This texture adds a a whole new facet to the painting in which the viewer gets to see the realism Caillebotte was trying to convey. Looking past the cobblestones and seeing the road as a whole, the texture appears to be given by the cobblestones and their smooth edges. This would not be evident without the water collecting within those cracks. Also, the water within those cracks has texture as well. It shows the reflection of the man walking to the right and looking down. This is indicative of the artist’s painstaking attention to detail and dedication to realism. The same can be said for the wet pavement of the side walk below and next to the male subject. It shows the reflection of the lamppost. This also contributes to perspective because it shows the viewer how far back in the foreground the lamppost is and its size in proportion to the objects and shapes around it. The texture of the cloth in this painting is particularly important to the realism and depth of the overall piece. The woman’s dress, for example, based on the kind of strokes and color used to form it, is more than likely a velvet or satin type fabric, something that would be appropriate to the time period. There are also folds and creases in both of their clothes where they bend at the elbows or where buttons are sewn in. The other example of the texture of cloth in the painting is the umbrellas being carried by the pedestrians. The cloth of the umbrella soaking wet and shining with the little bit of sunshine coming from off the painting in the upper left. The cloth is held tight by the wires underneath, and as the wire comes to a point, there is more evidence of texture in the cloth when it wrinkles under the stress of the wire pressing out on it. The texture of the sky is also considerable in this painting, mostly, but not entirely, because the title of the piece describes the weather. It is not a dark and billowing stormy sky as one might perhaps expect, but rather it looks flat and without real definition. This would lead the viewer to believe that the rain is ending, and was perhaps not all that intense to begin with, maybe only a sun shower. Like all elements to this painting, the texture is greatly affected by aerial perspective. Objects in and around the foreground have greatly defined texture, while objects in the middle ground have less clear and exact texture. Finally, objects in the background have little or no definition to their texture. They seem to fade into each other without clear boundaries. This is in support of the artists use of perspective to show the scale of the painting and how the subject and definition changes the farther back you travel in the background.

Line is used extensively in this painting, encompassing all of the types of line and incorporating them with all the elements of the painting. Horizontal lines are used at the edges of the sidewalks and streets. This is done to give stability to the center and middle left of the painting. Vertical lines are used more prevalently than horizontal. They can be seen in the sides of the buildings in the foreground and background, but not anywhere as important as in the green lamppost behind the subjects. This lamppost gives vertical stability and balance to the painting. Were it not for this lamppost, the subject would not be as clear. The subject would also be frameless, as the frame for the subject is composed partly of that lamppost, and also of the umbrella and the side of the building. The lamppost also divides the painting in half, much like the tops of the umbrellas divide it in half horizontally. It separates the subject from the rest of the painting and forces the viewer to give both sides the same consideration. In many ways, what is going on in the The long handles of the umbrellas are also important vertical lines as they serve to balance out the horizontal and curved lines of the umbrellas themselves. Diagonal lines are also very important in this work, though they do not show movement or action as they normally would. These lines make up the incredible perspective of the scene. They make up the top and bottom edges of the buildings and highlight them shrinking into the distance. They are also found along the sides of the buildings themselves and let the viewer know the degree of the angle at which the buildings (particularly the one on the right across the street from the subject) stand to the street and the rest of the painting. Curved lines are not used very liberally in this painting, but where they are used the most (the tops of the numerous umbrellas carried by the pedestrians. These umbrellas break up the otherwise empty space in between the right-most building, the other side of the street, and all the way through to the back of the scene. Most of these umbrellas are pretty much at the same level to the viewer, so they divide the upper and lower sections of the painting, almost giving the painting a dual subject, where on top it would be the building fading into the distance, and on bottom it would be the primary subject of the man and woman. There is also a curved element to the carriage wheels in the middle ground and far background. These do little or nothing for the composition, but are necessary to help establish the time period in which the scene is set, and also to add to the realism of the scene. Implied lines are few in the piece, but those that are present are important to the composition. There is one running from the bottom center of the painting, starting on the curb and running to the very back of the scene where the building third from the right begins at ground level. This implied line draws the viewer’s eye to the back of the painting. The other begins on the right about midway up the height of the painting at the curb to the right of the woman’s head. It continues all the way across the street to the main background building’s left side and follows that line to the point where it disappears behind the building on the far left. This line calls the viewer’s attention to the perspective even further and accentuates the exaggeration of the building shrinking into the distance.

The artist achieved perspective in this painting by distorting the buildings in the back of the painting to make them appear as though they shrink into the distance in the back of the painting. He also achieved it by placing people throughout the foreground, middle ground, and background (decreasing in size respectively) to help the viewer establish more clearly the degree of the perspective of the painting, or rather, how far away from the subjects the background objects are placed. Aerial perspective is thick in this painting. In the far reaches of the background, the buildings and people become almost unrecognizable; mostly blobs of gray and blue. This happens in every direction of the painting, and its effects can be seen as near to the foreground as the man walking next to the lamppost, whose face is not nearly as distinct and clear as those of the subjects. The degree to which the aerial perspective effects the objects in the background is most likely intensified by the weather of the scene. With the rain, cloud, and fog surrounding the streets and buildings, the people and objects at the back would become less and less clear even if there were no such thing as aerial perspective. Linear perspective finds itself at the heart of this painting. It is by far its most noticeable attribute and its defining characteristic. The eye is drawn to the back of the painting through the use of parallel lines. These parallel lines appear on the sides of the building in the center of the background, primarily. This is where they are most visibly accomplishing the task for which they were placed there, which is drawing the eye back down the street the building sits on. Once the viewer looks back there, their are drawn back forward by the lamppost again, which interrupts the view they get of the far back of the painting and forces them to focus once again on the foreground and the subjects. There are also these same parallel lines on the side of the building third from the right. Once again the eye is drawn down the side of the building into the background, however the eye never makes it to the back as there is a building in front of it. It is important to note that the lines that do all this, particularly those found on the side of the main building in the background, are slanted at an unrealistic angle. They give the building a sort of “fish-eye” look because of how it distorts the perspective in that way. The lines on the ground, such as those formed by the cobblestones and walkways, give the impression that the ground slopes downward, when in reality it most likely does not. This follows the same theme of plunging, unrealistic perspective as in the buildings in the background. There is little foreshortening in this painting, except to say that the subjects appear to be superimposed on the place on the sidewalk on which they stand. Were they really standing there, they would likely be larger than they appear to be, but are not because of the linear perspective. There would not be such a great difference in their height and the height of the man walking the opposite direction on the sidewalk next to him if they were really the size that they were. by the looks of it, they are perhaps one or two feet in front of him, but their size would indicate a larger distance, four or five feet perhaps. The element of perspective does not stand by itself. It is made up of all the other elements, and each uses perspective to stand out: predominantly line, texture, and shape. The use of Line to create perspective in this painting is extensive and very influential to the overall effect of the image. The lines in this painting, whether they be vertical, horizontal, or diagonal, all show the artists dramatic perspective. The most notable use of line to show perspective is the placing of diagonal parallel lines on the building in the center of the background. This creates the effect of the building shrinking into the distance and becoming more blurry and distorted the farther back it draws the viewer’s eye. This is also accomplished, though not as dramatically, by the balconies and windows of all the buildings, which add vertical and horizontal elements to the scene. Texture is extremely important to establishing this work’s perspective. The artists painstaking attention to detail of texture in the foreground has a sharp contrast to the vague and hazy feel of the texture in the background. For example, on the cobblestones in the street, water has collected around the edges due to the round shape of the stones. The spaces between these stones are not all uniform either, however travel even 5 or six yards back on that same street, and the road turns to a jumbled mass of gray and light brown, unrecognizable from the image in the front of the painting. The same can be said for the texture of the building, where it clearer at its front face than it is towards the far rear of the background. Shape makes the perspective in this painting take on life and real form. It is the reason the painting has its striking depth and the subjects are portrayed with such intensity. The building in the background is once again the main topic of discussion as it showcases perspective and depth in this painting like no other object. In it’s most basic sense, that building is a triangle or trapezoid. A trapezoid is a shape that lends itself to being drawn as a rectangle in perspective, so that is what the artist did in this work to show how far back the building stretched and how distorted the effect made the building appear.

The organizational plan used by Caillebotte in this painting is an Asymmetrical one. This is evident by the subject being separated from the rest of the painting by the lamppost, and also by the lack of activity in the foreground on the entire left half of the painting. This particular plan is created by a combination of many elements including line, perspective, and shape. With respect to line, the plan is created mostly by the lamppost. This lamppost separates the two people walking on the sidewalk from the rest of the people and objects of the painting. This shows that they are far more important than anything else. They are also framed by this lamppost, the bottom of the painting, the side of the building next to which they are walking, and the triangle made by the umbrella they are carrying. This helps to strengthen the plan by providing it with its focus center on the right side of the painting. In terms of shape, the artist creates this organizational plan by creating contrast between the two sides of the painting with their two subjects. On the one side, he places the subjects, simple and non-pretentious, and on the other, an imposing building that dominates the perspective in this scene. However, the shapes in the buildings alone would not serve to balance out the importance of the subjects on the opposite side, no matter how much they contribute to the effect of perspective. Texture does not do much to contribute to the creation of the organizational plan, however what it contributes in perspective somewhat makes up for its lacking. The texture helps to achieve perspective by becoming gradually less distinct and making the whole feeling of the painting change with the shift towards the background, so its contribution to the organizational plan by itself if negligible, but coupling it with perspective and shape it becomes a vital component. The artist chose this plan in order to accentuate the two different halves of the painting, one which contains the subject, and the other which contains its counterbalance. This gives the reader much to study and analyze when looking at the painting and also serves to communicate the purpose and humanity of the subject more clearly.

The mood communicated by this painting is one of normalcy and instantaneousness. This is due to the way in which he depicts the faces of all of the people on the sidewalk and on the street. They are not formally posed or even looking in the direction of the painter, but rather they are going about their business paying no heed to him. This gives it sort of a fleeting feeling, like this moment means nothing to these people. In my personal opinion, this painting is his masterpiece. I have looked at most of his work prior to and following this, and none of it really comes close to the depth and imagination in this work. Although he is not as well known as he should be, there are several of his paintings that I would gladly have picked to do had this one not existed, such as The Floor Scrapers and L'homme au balcon, boulevard Haussmann. These painting, particularly the former, show much more mastery of painting the human body than Rainy Day: Paris Street does, but I still prefer this one. When I started I did not like it as much as I do now, and I picked it mostly for the opportunities it provided with its perspective and shape elements, but I have found that now that I have gone through all the elements and analyzed it to death, I understand it more and understand why it looks it way it does. Ceoil (talk) 21:36, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Deleted Link

The essay linked to "Bourgeoisie and Proletariat" is basically an essay from a self-published book (if you can call posting a manuscript on Google Books "publishing"). The author has no background in art or art criticism and as far as I can tell from a search of his name has no publications in anything. Really, it has all the credibility of a blog entry. Kevin Corbett (talk) 00:06, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

May 2014 return to gallery after extensive conservation work

I'm posting this link here as a source for recent information about the painting; I don't have time to add text to the article at present, but will check back when I do. If no one else has added the information, I'll take a stab at it then. I've created the reference; all that's needed is to add the <ref> and </ref> tags to use it in the article:
"Caillebotte 'Paris Street; Rainy Day' Returns". Exhibitions. Art Institute Chicago. Archived from the original on May 7, 2014. Retrieved May 7, 2014.
—D'Ranged 1 ^talk 12:04, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

File:Gustave Caillebotte - Paris Street; Rainy Day - Google Art Project.jpg to appear as POTD soon

Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Gustave Caillebotte - Paris Street; Rainy Day - Google Art Project.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on December 24, 2015. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2015-12-24. 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) 02:47, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Picture of the day

Paris Street; Rainy Day (1877) is the best known painting by the French artist Gustave Caillebotte. This large oil painting shows a number of figures walking through the Carrefour de Moscou, a road intersection to the east of the Gare Saint-Lazare in north Paris. It was first shown at the Third Impressionist Exhibition of 1877, and is currently owned by the Art Institute of Chicago.Painting: Gustave Caillebotte

Water in art

I'd added the category 'Water in art', which had been reverted. The portrayal of water is obvious, is part of the title, and certainly is included in any adequate description made of the painting. I'd also added 'Cats in art' as the Art Institute itself points out on tours that the outline of a cat is the white space in-between the two most prominent figures (once you see it you don't unsee it) but I will not ask that it be added back until sourced. Randy Kryn (talk) 19:43, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi Randy; I took it back out before I noticed you had posted here. I'm afraid I agree with Theramin in that I see at is over categorisation, and and neither "cats" nor "water" are really applicable here. The outline of a cat thing is clever (!), but not really the basis for categorisation. Ceoil (talk) 19:57, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

True about the cat, and pretty cool, but why isn't rain considered water? Maybe I'd draw my line at tears, but would argue that the depiction of wet cobblestones here is masterful painting and well deserves the term 'water' (it's in the title!). One of my considerations in categorizing is that someday (maybe) reporters, researchers, or other writers and students will use Wikipedia's comprehensive category lists in their work. And when 'water in painting' is discussed, this one probably should be included. Randy Kryn (talk) 20:04, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

And there are puddles! Puddles I tells ya. (lol) Randy Kryn (talk) 20:08, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Reflections in the water too. Randy Kryn (talk) 20:16, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

There is also oxygen, space, a sky, shoes, fingernails and it takes place within the milky way :) I dont want to get into a meta discussion, and dont care all that much, but I think you are stretching it here, puddles and hidden cats indeed :) Ceoil (talk) 20:25, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

I agree about the cat (and not sourced) but the title alone should qualify this for the water category. Categories don't exist for the others (although there is a 'Moon in art' category which needs more entries if you come across any, was happy to add it to The Starry Night recently). Randy Kryn (talk) 20:35, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Lets call it a draw. I've re-added "Water in art", but "cats" stays out! Re 'Moon in art', have you looked through the German Romantics? Ceoil (talk) 20:44, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

You folks sure have missed Caillebotte's ironic dig at the self-obsessed Parisian bourgeoisie here. See Realism in the Age of Impressionism: Painting and the Politics of Time by Marnin Young (2015): "the painter forgot to paint the rain". 86.187.166.98 (talk) 20:52, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes, absolutely. The article isn't in great condition and needs more work. Am hoping to get back to it in a few weeks. Help appreciated; and is there much coverage in that book? Ceoil (talk) 21:16, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. And I must tell this, because I realize it will reflect on me and my category runs, but adding the 'Cats in art' category to this page is the only categorizing edit that I've ever felt funny about adding, and I knew it was a total stretch. But I did it anyway because it is so cool (and admitting to an WP:ILIKEIT violation, and would accept some kind of ban, but glad someone eventually caught it). Once you see that cat you can't unsee it. The Art Institute tour includes it, and has another interesting optical illusion just steps away from this painting. So he forgot to put the rain in? I just assumed that the foggy section in back was active rain, and the rain on the cobblestones wasn't in the path of another round of the storm yet (that it was seconds away). Randy Kryn (talk) 22:55, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Check out this rainy one. Randy Kryn (talk) 22:57, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

You might just as well add Cat pareidolia in art. (Except there's no Cat). 86.187.172.245 (talk) 23:03, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

He said returning from ten minutes feeding and petting his two cats: we'll forgive you this one Kryn, cats rule the internet, go in peace. 86.187, thats not a great pun. Ceoil (talk) 23:05, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Admitted, I added it willfully. This is the only one of my total edits I can recall where I did that, except for joking around on talk pages. There is no cat. (and 86.187.172.245 "hike", might have been almost worth it for that not-bad pun). Randy Kryn (talk) 23:08, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, IP. Much the most sensible comments in this entire section, including this one. <snip> Please just do whatever you like and I will do my best not to care. Theramin (talk) 23:22, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Theramin, I also wrote chunks, but dont see "water" as worth fighting over. I'll vouch for Kryn as ok, and a million miles from infoboxes/authority control stuff. He conceded cats, I conceded water. Micro categorization like this on wiki is basically harmless if not part of a tree; on commons this is a serious problem. PS the Hassam article is lovely, as always your pages broaden my horizons. Ceoil (talk) 23:40, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks to your both, and my bad all around. I read and enjoyed your longer comment ('Water in art' existed before I played with it, and all except maybe a new 'Fingernails in art' would not be attempted). (joking). I seriously have no idea what 'authority control' even is, never attempted to find out, and nudge the whatever-it-is template to the bottom of the page when I work with templates (which I do like). Infoboxes are overdone, but to me the worse thing to come down the pike in infoboxes are those giant and mostly needless maps. I've played around the art pages but never really hung out, and find Wikipedia's art collection large, interesting to the nth degree, and societal important. Amazing how few people keep the best of it going, and you two add to its ongoing life. I've thoroughly enjoyed this conversation. Randy Kryn (talk) 02:35, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Replied on Kryn's talk, but to post this wonderful edit history, including a personal favourite van Dyck. We are all on the same side. Ceoil (talk) 06:28, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

I still don't see a cat. Well, I didn't yesterday, but now I see one (silhouette with ears from front?) and if that's it, I must say I am disappointed. I CAN unsee that! I can't imagine it being intentional. Outriggr (talk) 08:18, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

My better half think it looks more like a fox, if anything. But yes unintentional; the ear is manky and the snout far too long. Nice try Kryn, but cats in art indeed :) Ceoil (talk) 08:29, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Research, Writing, and the Production of Knowledge

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 12 June 2023 and 18 August 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Wpjanvi (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Ugee123 (talk) 14:47, 17 August 2023 (UTC)