Talk:Dance (Matisse)

	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
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

Visual arts

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

France Low‑importance

	France portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject France, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of France 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.FranceWikipedia:WikiProject FranceTemplate:WikiProject FranceFrance articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Comment[edit]

This link says Picasso 's The Dance was stolen from Chacara do Ceu: [2] Which is it? -- THE GREAT GAVINI {T|C|#} 15:53, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Picasso's "Dance" was stolen in the Rio robbery, along with the Matisse work "Luxembourg Gardens". The two main versions of Matisse's "La Danse" have not been stolen and are in the Hermitage and the NY MOMA.

A picture is sorely needed on this painting.Xnano 20:10, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Dance II[edit]

This page is correctly titled Dance II for two reasons - It is the painting in the image, and to avoid confusion it is correctly titled. Secondly - it was the historically more important of the two. Matisse's first version which is now at MoMA was the sketch that led to the commissioned version bought by Sergei Shchukin. The MoMA version languished for 30 years rolled up in Matisse's studio. Modernist (talk) 17:28, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Images[edit]

The preliminary version MoMA is ok color-wise, although I'd prefer the frame cropped out...Modernist (talk) 20:37, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done! Fentener van Vlissingen (talk) 21:02, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well done and thank you...Modernist (talk) 21:04, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

NB with a photo of non-copyright 2D artwork, the frame must be cropped out, as it is a 3D element (unless the photo itself is out of the copyright period). Ty 01:44, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, the picture itself was CC-BY-SA-NC by the way (Flickr), so I guess the author would not have minded it (though it is not entirely compatible with Wikipedia of course). Fentener van Vlissingen (talk) 02:06, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is entirely incompatible with wikipedia being NC. Therefore it can only be used by asserting the photographer cannot claim copyright for a photo of a non-copyright 2D artwork per Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp.. This does not apply to a 3D object, which a frame is. Ty 02:10, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I know, it is now cropped, so the problem is solved I hope? Fentener van Vlissingen (talk) 02:14, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that solves the problem. I was just clarifying the necessities. Ty 02:16, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Article title and painting titles[edit]

Despite the reason for the article title being given above as "The Dance II" the article has been moved without any discussion. One painting is now titled The Dance (preliminary version): the title given by MoMa is Dance I.[3] The other is titled The Dance (second version): the title given by the Hermitage is Dance. We also have another article on the different work, the mural The Dance II, which appears to be the correct name.[4][5] Ty 02:07, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I guess the move from The Dance (second version) to The Dance (Matisse) is consistent with articles about paintings with different versions from other artists (e.g. Van Gogh's Daubigny's Garden, Portrait of Dr. Gachet, Bedroom in Arles etc.). The correct title of the individual paintings I leave to you, as I don't know anything about it. I didn't come up with "second version" and "preliminary version", it was already in the article. You have my permission to change it to whatever you like. Fentener van Vlissingen (talk) 02:17, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Titles from MoMA and Hermitage are Dance I and Dance. If these are accepted as correct, then the article needs to be moved again to one or other, as The Dance is incorrect. Dance I might be a good option as we have The Dance II. Ty 02:26, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The correct name for the Barnes mural needs to be established, as the Barnes Foundation calls it The Dance.[6] Ty 02:31, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see what you're getting at. The French titles of the works are usually La Danse and La Danse (I) respectively, and The Music is usually called La Musique. ~~As it doesn't say De la Danse, I guess the correct translation into English is The Dance and not Dance.~~ Fentener van Vlissingen (talk) 02:35, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's all too much for me at this point. The Hermitage painting and the MoMA painting should be Dance I and Dance in separate articles; and the Barnes Mural is clearly an unrelated third and separate painting, that we should probably call The Dance (mural)...Modernist (talk) 02:37, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On the other hand, la musique and la danse mean "music" and "dance" in general. "Music" and "Dance" may be better after all... Fentener van Vlissingen (talk) 02:40, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We follow sources. The titles used by the museums owning the works are shown in the gallery below. Ty 02:49, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why should the Hermitage painting and the MoMA one have separate articles? After all they're clearly related, the MoMA one being a study for the Hermitage one. The different versions of Van Gogh paintings don't have articles for themselves either. And it would result in very short articles that would look so much better when combined. Fentener van Vlissingen (talk) 02:42, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They are two major, important works that have separate identities although they are both related...Modernist (talk) 02:51, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Painting A (preliminary). MoMa title = Dance (I)
Painting B, Hermitage title = Dance
Mural, Barnes Foundaton title = The Dance [1]

MoMA calls it "Dance (I)" and not "Dance I", so I guess the former should be the title (seems also more logical to me). They obviously have separate identities but that goes for the different versions of Bedroom in Arles as well. I don't see why you cannot discuss these different identities in one article... Fentener van Vlissingen (talk) 02:55, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dance (I) corrected in gallery. MoMa also calls the Hermitage version Dance, as does the Hermitage. Ty 03:00, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One or two articles?[edit]

Please continue that topic here and leave preceding section for titles. Ty 03:01, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A single article can be expanded - both are major works with separate historical identity and impact. Two articles can probably work with each having both paintings included. The MoMA painting lingered unsold for nearly 30 years, until it was finally sold by Matisse's son Pierre in NYC. While the Hermitage painting remained nearly unknown in the west during the cold war, until the two countries opened to cultural exchange...Modernist (talk) 03:06, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So keep one article for the time being and when/if it grows excessive in length, then split into two with each painting being a section in the other article with the {{main}} template link to the other article? Ty 03:14, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That would seem the best solution to me as well. Fentener van Vlissingen (talk) 03:21, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Its actually good to see them together; I'm trying to remember if they have ever been shown together, - only once - in the major Matisse retrospective at MoMA that was in 1992...Modernist (talk) 03:47, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, so I guess we have consensus here? I'm moving this page to "Dance (Matisse)" and rename the paintings in the article. Fentener van Vlissingen (talk) 14:47, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't the earliest painting be described first? the leads explains the basics, the contents better follow chronological order. East of Borschov (talk) 14:56, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so, as the so-called "second version" is the only version intended for publication. The first version is only a compositional study (which Matisse liked nevertheless very much though). Another reason for the fame of the preliminary version is I guess the fact that the "second version" was more or less unknown to the Western world until 1991. Fentener van Vlissingen (talk) 15:01, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rio 2016[edit]

The painting was also plagiarized for the Rio 2016 logo [7]. 195.169.141.54 (talk) 12:30, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]