Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Watermill at Onden
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 12 Dec 2011 at 16:29:17 (UTC)
- Reason
- High resolution and quality. High EV as it is part of a notable series by a notable artist. Visually appealing.
- Articles in which this image appears
- Thirty-six Views of Mount Fuji, Rice, Rice broker
- FP category for this image
- Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Artwork/East Asian art
- Creator
- Hokusai
- Support as nominator --Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:29, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
- Yes. And make them a set when promoted - even if not all 36 works are available as high-res scans. Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 17:47, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
- Support My only real concern is that I'm not sure how much has been chopped off at the edges. JJ Harrison (talk) 21:49, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
- My look at Google suggests that if anything has been cropped, it is extremely minor. For example, here, here, and here. Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:30, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
- Support Tomer T (talk) 14:21, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
Question: (more of a general question on featuring ukiyo-e prints) AFAIK, ukiyo-e aficionados value early prints that are made during the lifetime of the artist. Differences between early prints and later reprints can be substantial (see for instance this Hiroshige) Now, the image description says that this print here was made about 100 years after first publication. (perhaps from a new woodblock?) The quality (sharpness, colors) looks very good, and better than I remember from lifetime Hokusai prints I saw (but I don't have a direct comparison for this particular scene). So my question is, when nominating ukiyo-e prints should we aim for images of old/original prints, that are likely more faded or rough but where the print is of higher value for collectors/art experts? Or should we aim for a recent reprint/reproduction which probably has stronger colors and looks generally more fresh but is of low value for collectors/art experts? bamse (talk) 14:21, 10 December 2011 (UTC) What does "painstakingly" in the caption mean? bamse (talk) 14:24, 10 December 2011 (UTC)- I would not be able to speak for everyone, but personally I think an accurate representation (even via a newer print) would be acceptable. Regarding "painstakingly", that was my attempt to summarize this:
Woodblock made ca. 1930 exactly the same way as they were made by artisans ca. 1830. The skill and the care are the same. There is a drawing or a copy of it coming from the artist. Then the woodcutter and the printer take over. Their skill varies. Hokusai once wrote to one of his editors that he was not happy with one of the woodcutters. In the case of the new cuts of the 36 views of the Fuji, only experts can distinguish the many versions - mainly by differences of the frame around the script.
- Which is written at another featured picture from the series. Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:24, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
- Comment I get a feeling that it is not of great EV, since it does not have its own article and hence if his could be promoted, the other 35 should also be. Given that that is not an very important part of the series --Extra 999 (Contact me) 03:42, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
- Being one in a notable series gives it enough notability / EV; how would one describe a series of paintings without showing each and every one? As noted above by PLW2, there is no issue with having everything in a set featured. For example, all images at Extermination of Evil are featured (of course, they are a bit higher resolution than this one). Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:16, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 23:04, 12 December 2011 (UTC)