Jump to content

Talk:Amedeo Modigliani

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled

[edit]

The title of one of Modiglian's most well known paintings was removed by ZOE. I have reinstated this important factual information. Too, Modigliani's nationality was determined by ZOE alone to be Italian. This was done by her without facts, and obviously no knowledge of him, his life, or his works. I removed it, leaving FACTS which is what an enclclopedia is supposed to be. Too, she arbitrarily removed my reference to this important painting. Go figure, but then, ignorance is bliss...DW

My removal of the painting's name was unintentional. When I reverted the arbitrary changes you made, I left in the change that you made when you put the title back in. I don't even know why I'm responding to this, because I told you I wasn't going to be talking to you any more unless you learn how to be civil. So consider this my last message. -- Zoe

Not only are you destructive to this sight, you try to cover it up by lies. This is not an "isolated" accident. It is you playing God after I pointed out your ignorance and lack of knowledge YESTERDAY. PLEASE explain to everyone your reason for removing the title. I'm sure people would like to know before they expend energy doing hard work that you will "unintentionally" destroy....DW ESQ

A little more proof of your conduct: YOU SAID ABOVE:I left in the change that you made. Right, so what about the next change when I reinstated the reference to the portrait in the text, text that took me hours to prepare but seconds for you to wilfully destroy? Nice play on words to cover up your destruction. I don't object to any improvements and certainly recognize my dedicated work can always stand imporovement. But why do you choose to destroy important facts, then lie and manipulate your words to deceive readers? I'm sorry, I just don't understand this kind of thinking, nor do I understand why you would even touch a subject on WHICH YOU KNOW ABSOLUTELY NOTHING...DW

How on earth did it take you "hours" to write "including "Madame Pompadour" shown here"?Tokerboy
Please don't feed the trolls. --Brion 05:28 Jan 27, 2003 (UTC)

I reinstated the following important reference that was deleted by ZOE: --- including "Madame Pompadour" shown here,--- I would like her to explain how this is either Wikifying an article or adding to it, or improving it?

DW, if you explained why you don't think he should be described as Italian, others may very well agree with you. Is he known to have objected to being called Italian? Did he self-identify as something else? Is there a debate over his nationality? For example, my grandmother could be correctly called Italian because she moved to the US from Italy, and was born there. She would self-identify as Sicilian, though, and would not like to be called Italian as she considers the nationalities distinct, and actually doesn't like Italians too much. If, for some bizarre reason, she warranted a wikipedia article, she should be called Sicilian and not Italian. I, on the other hand, am nearly 100% Sicilian in ancestry, but self-identify as Italian (in the US; elsewhere, I would say American). I wouldn't object to my nationality being referred to as Sicilian, but, if asked, I say Italian (and would do so even if being Sicilian did not lead to Mafia-related questions most of the time). Hence, if I had a wikipedia article, I should be called Italian-American with maybe a mention that I'm descended from Sicilian immigrants. Tokerboy

You've called this an "arbitrary" distinction and the like. While all nationalities are arbitrary, they are also real things that deserve to be mentioned where appropriate. What makes you think that it is inappropriate in this case? (Or do you not think biography articles should never mention a person's nationality?) Tokerboy

I don't *know* what DW's point was, but I can guess. Since Modigliani was racially Jewish, DW was probably upset that Modigliani was classified as an Italian. DW could either have been offended due to a sense of credit for Modigliani being "stolen" from the Jews, or due to a desire to "protect" Italian racial purity, although I have no idea which. In Tokerboy's hypothetical wikipedia entry, he would call himself an Italian-American. Perhaps similarly we could classify Modigliani as a "Jewish-Italian", but that phrase would never have been used by the man himself. As far as how Modigliani identified himself, I know little beyond the fact that he occasionally introduced himself as "a painter and a jew". Still - calling him an "Italian Artist" reflects only one vision of the facts.

DW, you have given no-one any reason why this page should not follow standard style. If there is a reason why Italian should not be used here, say it. If not, stop tampering with this page. And stop making childish threats to vandalise pages of people who touch 'your' pages. JTD 03:31 Jan 30, 2003 (UTC)

The content below was posted at Modigliani, now a redirect. Charles Matthews 11:25, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Jeanne Hebuterne in Red Shawl

Amadeo Modigliani (1884-1920) was an Italian painter and sculptor who was concerned with simplicity of line and form in the human figure. He is popularly known for his oval-faced portraits of friends and acquaintances.

Modigliani's style was unique among his contemporaries in Paris, surrounded as he was by artists experimenting with impressionism, surrealism, and cubism.

Ill health, in particular pneumonia and tuberculosis, affected him throughout his life. He died of tubercular meningitis at the age of 36. His fame rocketed after his death, and he is now considered the leading artist of the Paris School.

Recent sale

[edit]

I added fact about the recent sale of a Modigliani painting of his then lover, Jeanne. I site the following link : http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/4118496.stm .

I am somewhat bothered by the statement "...and the few paintings that change hands can sell for more than $15.6 million." Exactly where does the figure $15.6 million come from ?

Thanks to everybody who has contributed to this article !

- KLestes

Maybe it was one of the multitude of fakes created by Elmyr de Hory? The Clifford Irving book, Fake!, of 1969 has 35 pages mentioning the times de Hory created Modigliani drawings (which he would knock out by the dozens) & paintings as well as the ease he had selling them to galleries and Algur Meadows (either personally or thru his "sales agent", Fernand Legros). Clifford Irving was de Hory's next door neighbor on the Spanish island of Ibiza. Irving of course is famous in his own right for the Howard Hughes diary hoax.

Fake! -- LoC #72-86087. A good read. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dbryant 94560 (talk • contribs) 01:07, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Overemphasis on personal life

[edit]

I was quite surprised to see what a small proportion of this page was devoted to Modigliani's art. No doubt his personal life is relevant, but at the moment the page reads like tabloid character assassination (e.g. philanderer in the first paragraph), virtually ignoring his significance as a portrait painter. Furthermore a lot of the details about his personal life, particularly his sexual exploits, are unsourced and fail to make the distinction between legend and events which are actually known to have happened. I don't have the knowledge to fix this myself, so am adding a standards tag. Zargulon 12:26, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've made a start at this, trimming some of the more tabloid-like material and POV, citing a couple of facts, and adding citation requests to some others. The amount of work needed on this article is certainly daunting, and I ran out of steam by the Personal Life section, which I think would benefit from heavy pruning. More information about the significance of his painting would be even more beneficial. —Celithemis 02:49, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am not intending to edit this entry, because art history is peripheral to my areas of knowledge. But I think it's worth considering the following anecdote, taken from the book 'Lenin on the Train', by Catherine Merridale, 2017, Metropolitan Books, New York, pp 73-74. I quote:
"As a refuge from conscription and the privations of war, the city [Paris in 1916] had become a magnet for artists and writers. To the west of Lenin's district, on the Limmatquai, the patrons of the Cafe Odeon included Stefan Zweig and James Joyce, Albert Einstein, Erich Maria Remarque and the infamous Mata Hari. Lenin was not averse to a glass or two of tea himself, but he never forgot that his life was devoted to causes higher than mere talk. No merriment had ever distracted him; on occasion in the past, in a cafe in Paris, he had been so engrossed in a newspaper that Amadeo Modigliani had managed to set fire to it while he was reading."
I expect that art historians may be more interested in the aesthetics of Modigliani's work than his being as a prankster, but it's important to me (as a member of the "I may not know much about art, but I know what I like' school) to know that detail of Modigliani's life. Whether or not he drank tea with Einstein and Mata Hari is secondary to me. I was relieved to discover that he'd died of tuberculosis rather than being stabbed with a poisoned umbrella.
I expect his prank wouldn't have gone down so well 10 years later.
The author credits the story to her earlier book 'Conspirator'(2012). I can't chase the provenance of the tale any further at this time. Rrands (talk) 21:01, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed! I did some editing for coherence, but really the entire entry is devoted to his personal life.

JNW 23:59, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's hard to talk about Modigliani without getting caught up in his life, don't you think?

This is a good point, though, so I'm trying to trace his development as an artist; hopefully that strategy will address matters. It will still be necessary to talk about how his life influenced his development as an artist, though.

I'm working my way slowly through the tomes that my local libraries have on Modigliani, so hopefully the details that I am adding from these sources are 'facts', rather than conjecture, gossip, and rumour.

Oh, and I'll try to work the word 'hashish' in as often as possible, as it seems to be someone's mission in life to show the world that Modigliani smoked marijuana.

Personally, I think he preferred absinthe; if only the green fairy hadn't been made illegal...

Trenavin 04:50, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Personal life

[edit]

Of course it's hard not to get drawn into his life story (so satisfyingly tawdry), and, as with any artist, not easy to separate it from his work. It's a matter of finding the right balance for an encyclopedic entry, which you, Trenavin, and previously Celithemis, are working to provide. JNW 02:01, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • While it is wrong to blank a large part of an entry, the recent deletion of the 'personal life' section might go a long way to striking just that right balance. JNW 19:51, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bohemian myths

[edit]

I wish people would refrain from spouting the usual bohemian myths surrounding people like Modigliani. A common one with him is that he was some sort of extravagant hedonist, but the fact is he was just to destitute to afford to be drunk or high on narcotics all the time as he is all to oft portrayed.

One need look no further than his Tuberculosis and apalling poverty, and so poor living conditions, to explain his untimly death.

Amedeo Felix 14:49, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In Modigliani's case, tis not a myth. The literature is pretty clear re: his abuse of substances. JNW 04:19, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To quote directly from Encyclopaedia Britannica: "... (in 1914) his already delicate health was deteriorating because of his poverty, feverish work, and the abuse of alcohol and drugs". These are not romanticized fantasies, but the circumstances of his life. JNW 04:32, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, but frankly could, until I find a solid reference which refutes the "indulgence" issue, be happy if the passage included his poverty and overworking as the Britannica entry you chose to quote does. So if you ammend that back again you really are being biased and unfair to him. Amedeo Felix 14:57, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I said I still refute the "indulgance" slant. My father has read up on Modi all his life, he went to the length of naming his only son (me) after the man, and taught me that it was his poverty above all things which was his undoing - that he could not afford to indulge as he is purported to have. I shall check with him on possible sources to back this up. Amedeo Felix 15:03, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, one more thing I thought may be useful to point out is the fact that "biographical" information is almost always based upon hearsay rather than any kind of seriously verifiable source. People telling their “stories” of another human being are by nature biased, which affects their recollections. So the image of Modi as a lush may well be one borne of prejudice in the eyes of people who knew him or worse based on what someone told someone who told someone etc. Amedeo Felix 13:45, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Editors, writers, and contributors have a responsibility to do the best research they can, based upon the most reliable sources, not what they wish to believe. That is the essence of the principles referred to in wikiland as verifiability, no original research, and neutral point of view. If one is claiming that encyclopedic information is untrue, then the refuting evidence must be offered to substantiate the claim. All else is rationalization, and not suitable for contribution. JNW 04:13, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What a snooty reply. How's about keeping your sarcasm to yourself, eh? Pathetic, especially given that in the example you chose of "evidence" to refute my claim of poverty being the factor in Modi's demise it says that very thing! It listed poverty FIRST. I maintain, right now without the ability to give a "big nose" pleasing reference, that his "abuses" were more myth than fact - I have heard, again no quoted or references are lodged in my brain but would take research, from more than one source that he gained a reputation for being an inebriate from his love of pretending to be high when he was not. Amedeo Felix 08:26, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I also said "OK" let the drug bit stay until I can give a reference. This section is just talk however, and needs no references etc as far as I can see, so once again keep your this kind of thing to yourself: "Editors, writers, and contributors have a responsibility to do the best research they can, based upon the most reliable sources, not what they wish to believe. That is the essence of the principles referred to in wikiland as verifiability, no original research, and neutral point of view. If one is claiming that encyclopedic information is untrue, then the refuting evidence must be offered to substantiate the claim. All else is rationalization, and not suitable for contribution." Amedeo Felix 08:30, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Point taken re: tone; have deleted my previous opening sentence as too provocative. The irony here is that some months ago, as is evident in previous entries on this page, I found the article heavily weighted toward the subject's personal dissolution. As for this discussion, I recommend also reviewing policy regarding talk pages [1], which states in boldface: "Article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views", and "Research and debate should meet the same standards of verification, neutral point of view and no original research. There is reasonable allowance for speculation, suggestion and personal knowledge with a view to prompting further investigation, but it is a serious misuse of a talk page to continue to argue any point that has not met policy requirements". In the past week you have twice added non-encyclopedic speculation on this particular matter to the article; when reverted the second time, you took the issue to the talk page, seeking to make a case, still without supporting scholarship. Your initial contention here is contradicted by an encyclopedic (I have not heard the term 'big nose' before--what does this mean?) source. Documentation which could provide evidence that Modigliani did not suffer from drug and alcohol abuse would be welcome, and would merit inclusion in the article. In the end, it is the beauty of his art for which he is remembered. JNW 19:18, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You do acknowledge though that the citation from Britannica makes poverty it's first item in contributory factors? Is that mere coincidence with my assertion that it is poverty which was the paramount factor. I took exception to the stereotypical reference to "abuse" as a cause of his death. What I have stated here is from personal knowledge gained from a lifetime of listening to my father talk of Modigliani, and from having researched the man myself for University. I can, and will, have a look at the paper I wrote and check the sources I used then (it may be found easily enough for any interested by using my name and the appropriate reference in a web search - I put all my Uni papers on-line for others to make use of)... Amedeo Felix 18:31, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, the "big nose" thing, well I guess you gotta be a fan of The Smiths to know that one, sorry... "there's always someone with a big nose who knows..." I was just being silly in an quotish sort of way. Amedeo Felix 18:34, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I fear we've gone back and forth on this enough already. But what the heck--my impression is that tuberculosis and poverty were the primary factors in his death, the ill effects of which were hastened by his lifestyle. Personally, I don't much care for the romantic stereotypes either, but rather, to get as close to the truth about his circumstances as possible. And I suspect he really did push his luck. My concern was that you were editing out of a very personal connection (I can't imagine how I would be if my parents had named me Rembrandt), and were not being neutral. But any contradictory information would actually be fascinating, all the better to paint a more complex picture of the man. Maybe there are credible biographies with which you or your father are familiar, which would shed new light on his life...as for the Smiths: I haven't heard their music in years, but when I was younger I liked them. JNW 22:34, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Most like we got off on the wrong foot so to speak. I thought the reference only to the drink & drugs misleading. Which is why I wanted the original passage deleted. That's all... Amedeo Felix 23:22, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Giving up sculpture.

[edit]

This is a question really to anyone who may be able to help in clearing this matter up. Something I have been told by my father as to why Modi gave up sculpting was his TB, combined with poverty - that is to say he could not continue due to his health, stone requires preparation (i.e. a great deal of carving before getting down to the precise work which produces the finished sculpture) and the dust produced by this simply played havoc with his condition, and of course, unlike a monetarily successful artist, he could not afford to hire an artist's assistant to do this work for him, and so he was forced to give it up. So of course what I am asking is has anyone else ever come across this explanation and still further what was the source? Amedeo Felix 09:47, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

two changes,

[edit]

i added micheli's first name, and added "Micheli's Art School" instead of "studied under micheli".

The purpose of a Wikipedia talk page is to provide space for editors to discuss changes to its associated article or project page. Article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views.

It amazes me that all of you are wasting time self engrandizing and attacking each other... rather than discussing the facts about Modigliani..71.172.192.57 03:05, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I wanted too. I think facts need to be verified, which is always a problem with biographical information as most of it is anecdotal in nature – hearsay given by people who oft have an exe to grind. I have my doubts on the drug issue for twofold reasoning – one his crashing poverty and two the stories I have read, told by friends of his like Soutine, on how he loved to play up on any inebriation, thus any who did not know him well may well have thought him a useless drunk/druggie – meanwhile he was then perfectly placed to observe everyone who thus thought him incapable.


Nobody seems to want to engage in any debate on why he gave up sculpture either. I just don’t have the time right now to re-read on his life and works, but invited anyone who has an interest and recalls references to engage me on that subject – no takers though… --Amedeo Felix 11:54, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

His Name?

[edit]

What about the most important thing to begin with: the name of the man?!? I haven't seen any discussion or any proof anywhere that would lead to the idea that his name was Amedeo. He was italian, so his name must have been Amadeo. Are you all from the united states or what?? 88.157.68.219 (talk) 16:09, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pardon??? It's Amedeo in Italy. Look it up. There have been numerous famous Italian footballers bearing the name for a start...--Amedeo Felix (talk) 07:33, 24 July 2008 (UTC) See my newly attached photo of his grave...--Amedeo Felix (talk) 08:23, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I confirm, the italian form is Amedeo. The same is written evrywhere about him. Ciao. --Simoneschiaffino (talk) 19:09, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jewish

[edit]

I object to calling him Jewish. I think that ought only be applied to people who observe Judaism. Modi was NOT religious, he just happened to be born into a family that had a heritage of observing Judaism. Is someone a Catholic who does not believe? No.--Amedeo Felix (talk) 07:35, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notwithstanding personal standards for application of the term, his religious heritage is readily accepted in the literature. From 'Modigliani: Beyond the Myth' (2004):
(Modigliani) referred to himself as "un juif du patriciat," a Jew of the patrician class...
But the fact that he was Jewish and frequently made a point of it is a surprise to many.
What kept Modigliani from being a full-fledged Cubist was most likely his interest in Old Master painting, specifically Italian Renaissance portraiture, and his interest in being a Jewish artist.
As noted in my previous edit summary, religious observance is not the sole factor in ascribing heritage. I am re-introducing the reference to the lead. If this is still a subject of disagreement, I recommend administrative input, rather than edit-warring. JNW (talk) 13:21, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I notice, above, that the article "falls within the scope of WikiProject Jewish culture, a project to improve all articles related to Jewish culture". This suggests that the biography could include more information regarding this aspect of the artist's heritage. JNW (talk) 13:26, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
IMO it is both historical and interesting to learn that Modigliani is a Jewish artist. Clearly the information should remain..per User:JNW..Modernist (talk) 14:12, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
IMO Modi used his Jewish heritage as a foil the same way he used his poverty, and his illness. Think in "punk" terms - e.g. "I'm a Jew f**k you!" The world he inhabited was a hostile one to artists, more so to foreign artists, and exponentially so to Jewish foreign artists. So he took the "contrary" position. This is my impression of the man as gained from absorbing accounts from many sources, and I state it here not for any kind of academic "proof", but just as open debate material. If I come across quotable accounts to illustrate my impression I shall attach them here... I just want you all to know where I am coming from, OK?--Amedeo Felix (talk) 22:46, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds right on, consistent with what is written about his personality, and probably supported by the scholarship. What I have come across is the observation that his Judaism, while not the subject of formal observance, nonetheless informed his life and his work. Even if he referred to it merely to be contrary, it was, as you correctly note, a rather big fact in his life in France. He even said that it was not an issue in Italy, but in Paris...JNW (talk) 22:58, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Second thoughts on this: I have just read WP:MOSBIO, which suggests that "Ethnicity should generally not be emphasized in the opening unless it is relevant to the subject's notability." So the issue is not so much whether he was practicing the religion, but rather, whether it was important to his notability. On that basis, I am more ambivalent about the mention in the lead paragraph. As to the mention of his friends: I don't know yet about Soutine, but the sources are pretty unanimous in referring to Utrillo as an alcoholic. JNW (talk) 20:51, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jeanne Hebuterne's Place in Modigliani's Life

[edit]

It seems too dismissive of Hebuterne to refer to her as "the current love of Modigliani's life." As biographers have pointed out, Modigliani's friends considered her the love of his life, period. Modigliani had many, many love affairs before he met Hebuterne, but few or none after her. Significantly, she was the only woman he ever referred to as "ma femme"--my wife. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Younggoldchip (talk • contribs) 13:11, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're right. The "Jeanne" section should be expanded. - Josette (talk) 16:05, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Woman with a Necklace

[edit]

Is there any reason why Woman with a Necklace is not listed anywhere as a work of Modigliani?

http://www.artic.edu/aic/collections/artwork/59923

208.116.214.226 (talk) 18:52, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia doesn't necessarily list artists complete works; or even incomplete lists of artist works; there are only a few artists who have lists so far...Modernist (talk) 20:31, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

I trimmed this a bit, but it's growing again. Please see Wikipedia is not an image repository. The bulk of this gallery would make a good Commons gallery page, with just the "best of the best" here. --Pete Tillman (talk) 22:44, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I added some important portraits that belong in this article as well as his painting included here: List of most expensive paintings, the gallery is long but not overlong...Modernist (talk) 22:51, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Family's relationship with Dutch philosopher Baruch Spinoza.

[edit]

How can the lineage be traced to the 17th-century Dutch philosopher Baruch Spinoza when Spinoza is known never to have married nor to have fathered any children? At the most the lineage can be traced to his siblings but certainly not to himself. Marklinklaters (talk) 11:16, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Guglielmo Micheli and Domenico Morelli

[edit]

I removed the sentence that said that Modigliani in the studio of Micheli was steeped in "19th century Italian art". Mainly, I do not think it is possible to characterize Italian 19th century painting as one style or even styles to "steep in". Nor do I think Micheli studio functioned in that manner, nor was Micheli a good representative of any one academic style. Clearly Micheli had a greater attachment to Realism, and the discombobulating experiments of Picasso and Cezanne came too late in his career to lead him to drift in the range of Modigliani. It was however revolutionary in the first decades of the 19th century to start to paint outdoors and the real landscape. It was revolutionary for Florentines to splash color. I do not think that the paragraph understands the nature of Machiaioli. I would not have make Morelli its precursor. Also while I can find his early work such as the Sicilian Vespers, melodramatic; I am not sure it was viewed in that light under the autocratic Bourbon monarchy. Nor do I find later Morelli to be melodramatic: dramatic? yes, but melodrama is pejorative.

Ultimately Modigliani's triumph is rooted in Italian love of art, but sparked by the Parisian revolutionary spirit. I am not aiming to rewrite the Modigliani entry. Only mild additions.Rococo1700 (talk) 16:52, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I re-added the omitted sentence even before reading your explanation here. Your essay above seems to indicate you study the period's art yourself and you seem to have your own views on the art and on the history of art developments of the period. But on Wikipedia, all the views you express above would be called "Original Research," unless there are other secondary reliable sources that you can point out to that would express these same views. Feel free to re-write the entry section, but point to sources that would express the views you are adding per Wikipedia policy, please. Regards, warshy (¥¥) 20:24, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, actually, warshy, it's the content currently in the article that reads like original research – a whole mass of fanciful speculation with little or no support from reliable sources. We read that "Among his colleagues in that studio would have been Llewelyn Lloyd, Giulio Cesare Vinzio, Manlio Martinelli, Gino Romiti, Renato Natali, and Oscar Ghiglia". Why do we care who they would have been? What we want to know is who they actually were, with a citation of a reliable source to back the statement up (the Treccani page on Micheli does indeed list those people as having passed through his studio, but does not give dates). And the same goes for the rest of it: "In his earliest Parisian work, traces of this influence, and that of his studies of Renaissance art, can still be seen. His nascent work was shaped as much by such artists as Giovanni Boldini as by Toulouse-Lautrec." Says who? And where? And is there any reason to believe that they are right? It's a pity Rococo1700 is not planning to rewrite this page, because I believe it would benefit from a major overhaul. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 15:36, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I did not write the page, except for some sentences in it, and from my memory nothing related to the sentences you mention. Feel free to rewrite whatever you wish. warshy (¥¥) 19:05, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

IPA

[edit]

@Warshy: You can check here (look for "Modigliani" – notice it gives phonemes, but Italian phonetic transciptions as per MoS require vowel lenght in stressed open syllables. Your *[modiˈʎaːni] is a nonstandard (rather Northern-like) pronunciation.--Carnby (talk) 19:14, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's all mostly Chinese to me. But according to that dictionary I guess you have made your case. Thank you very much for putting my doubts to rest finally. warshy (¥¥) 19:26, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reclining Nude with Blue Cushion

[edit]

I've redirected Reclining Nude with Blue Cushion to this article for now. Feel free to expand! ---Another Believer (Talk) 01:10, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled

[edit]

Tried to add this, but it got blocked.

Standing nude (c.1912) by Amedeo Modigliani, Australian National Gallary

--Look I Forget My youknowwhat (talk) 12:31, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find any image additions in your total of four Wikipedia edits, so not sure what you may have tried to do. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:09, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Italian Jewish"

[edit]

I edited the opening which referred to Modigliani as "Italian Jewish". There is no reason why the ethnicity/religion of a historical figure/artist should be mentioned in the opening. As a matter of fact, it's usually avoided in Wikipedia articles, unless there are specific reasons which makes such an indication relevant to whatever the circumstances that made the figure historically renown. Anyone can easily verify that this is the case by having a look at the articles of other prominent Jewish figures in this enciclopedia: they are never defined as "Jewish" in the opening, their origins/family background/religion being discussed in the biographical section. The versions of this article in other languages (the French and German ones more specifically) also don't mention Modigliani being Jewish in the opening.

Another user (User:Modernist) has engaged in an edit war to reinstate the "Italian Jewish" phrasing. They have never offered a reason for doing so except a extremely vague "it's better", "it's useful". I hope other users will discuss their reasons for reverting my edit in this talk page, or abstain from undoing the edit. -- Sansgloire (talk) 21:38, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Stop edit warring Sansgloire. Modigliani was referred to as "Le bon petit Juif de Livourne" (little Jew from Livorno) by his contemporaries. He formed part of a community of Jewish artists in Paris at the time, with Marc Chagall and many other. It is relevant to the artists notability. His religion was an important element of his life and work. See for example Des peintres maudits by Gustave Coquiot (1924).Coldcreation (talk) 10:44, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • What is that source supposed to prove? It doesn't show in any way that his religion was "an important element of his life and work". I tried to search "Le bon petit Juif de Livourne" on a browser and no results about Modigliani came out - not that it would have made any difference even if they did. Modigliani's religion doesn't have any special prominence in the artistic works he is renown for. He wasn't even a religious person. His origins are discussed in the biographical section, as it is usually done on Wikipedia. You didn't address the point I was making: ethnicity/religion is never stated in such terms (that is, to define the figure's nationality, as it is the case with "Italian Jewish") on articles about other prominent Jewish figures, and it is generally considered inappropriate to do so. Albert Einstein is not referred to as a "German-born Jewish physicist" in the opening of his article for example - this is one of countless other examples I could make of course. Wikipedia articles in other languages follow the same criteria. You reverted my edits without even caring for explaining why you were doing so. You are also reverting my edit in the infobox about Modigliani's place of birth - that edit should be uncontroversial, since Tuscany didn't exist as an administrative entity at that time and thus it is anachronistic to mention it. It looks like you are refusing to allow any edit to this page no matter what. -- Sansgloire (talk) 11:15, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note, this has already been discussed above (back in 2008). Coldcreation (talk) 11:00, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per the exhibition at the Jewish Museum in NYC:[2] it is important information to convey regarding this particular and unique artist...the quote - Italian Sephardic Jew as pivotal to understanding his artistic output; matters...Modernist (talk) 12:03, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
            • I don't see why we leave out Anne Frank's Jewishness from the lead section just because "most people know who she was". But that's a topic for over there. How did Modigliani's Jewishness affect his paintings and sculptures? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:30, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is also interesting: How Jewish was Modigliani? Houston Chronicle...Modernist (talk) 12:31, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • But before he's described as Jewish in the very first sentence of the article, would we not expect one or more of these scholarly/newspaper articles to be presented/discussed in the article main body somewhere? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:43, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Of course we should. Moreover, the articles that are being linked in this discussion all seem to came from Jewish cultural outlets, which emphasise Modigliani's Jewishness for obvious reasons. They also seem to state their case rather vaguely. Take this one: https://www.houstonchronicle.com/life/article/Religion-and-art-So-how-Jewish-was-Modigliani-12383386.php I don't want to be dismissive, but a one point the case is made that the Jewish-ness of Modigliani's art is evident in the way he sculpted... noses. Yes, for real. On the other hand, from the same article: [quote]"Samantha Baskind, co-author with Larry Silver of "Jewish Art: A Modern History," also has thought about Modigliani's Jewishness quite a bit."We just couldn't find very much evidence in the end, so we talked about him as a modern artist who was Jewish," she said.[/unquote]--Sansgloire (talk) 13:00, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • Modigliani introduced himself as such: "My name is Modigliani. I am Jewish"... "The first painting he exhibited in Paris was The Jewess". Source, and here. And here. And here. And again here: 'Je suis Juif et je vous emmerde' [I am Jewish, and to hell with you]. And here. Coldcreation (talk) 13:07, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • Sorry, this is not the way to debate the issue. These half-sentences and misquoted sources of yours are not in any way useful in settling the matter. 1) The source you provided doesn't say that Modigliani used to introduce himself as a Jew (not that it would be too relevant even if that was the case). It is simply the quote of a conversation in which he informed a fellow artist of being Jewish, and by his own words Modigliani doesn't seem to give too much importance to the fact. 2) ""The first painting he exhibited in Paris was The Jewess]" This is completely irrelevant. Artist who are not Jewish made portraits of Jewish persons, what's even your point? 3) You are still failing to provide any evidence of how Modigliani being Jewish was so central to his art to the point that an encyclopedia should identify him as "Italian Jewish" in the opening of the article. The article itself doesn't mention anywhere how the Jewish identity of Modigliani was relevant to his work as an artist. Sansgloire (talk) 13:22, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • Also, stop editing your posts after you have already published them. It gets impossible to have a debate if you keep adding sentences to your replies, and it is a lack of etiquette. Sansgloire (talk) 13:27, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • (e/c) That's how he always introduced himself, to everyone? I wonder who was able to check that. And his first painting hardly equates to his entire artistic output? Would we look at the titles other painter's first works to define them? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:23, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Continued from above... And here: "Je vous emmerde. Je suis juif." (F--- off. I'm a Jew.). Coldcreation (talk) 13:27, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • This is just an anecdote, irrelevant in establishing how Modigliani being Jewish was pivotal to his artistic production. For example, the book you quoted also states: "He was not a "Jewish" Jew at all, which is way most who knew him, themselves ordinarily north and central Europeans, said he had nothing Jewish about him"; "He had never thought of himself as a Jew in Italy", in the context of arguing that his affirmation of Jewish-ness was done in the face of anti-semitic attitudes he found in French.Sansgloire (talk) 13:35, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is from Modigliani et son œuvre: Étude critique et catalogue raisonné, 1956, page 10. "Brusquement, Modigliani se leva, et, campé devant les deux antisémites, il leur jeta : Je suis Juif... et je vous emmerde. [I am Jewish... and F--- off.]. Coldcreation (talk) 13:37, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Ok, so how about: "Amedeo Clemente Modigliani ... was an Italian painter and sculptor who worked mainly in France and told people to fuck off"? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:44, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Now that looks good...Modernist (talk) 13:58, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In my view, there may be here some new material to add on a subsection of the article, about M.'s attitudes toward the rampant Anti-Semitism he found, to his surprise, in Paris. But, in general, except for Jewish cultural sites trying to squeeze something specifically "Jewish" about M.'s art, there is not much anywhere that shows how his Jewishness was relevant to his original art. As such, the mention of his ethnic origins are more than enough as given in the biographical sections, as argued by Sansgloire, and the specific ethnic mention does not have to be on the opening sentence, in my view. Thank you, warshy (¥¥) 13:48, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I tend to agree. When did "Jewish" first appear in this opening sentence of this article? Has it always been there? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:57, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, it wasn't always there. I had found the edit which introduced it but I can't retrieve it right now. Anyway, it was added at some point and any successive attempt at removing it was reverted (with no explanation given). Sansgloire (talk) 14:05, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I know there is even a little WP app/piece of code that can find when a specific change was introduced to a page and by whom, but I've never tried to use it. But a little work on the history of the page should be able to locate it. warshy (¥¥) 14:10, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Coldcreation tells us this is the "stable" version. So perhaps he could tell us? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:14, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Being an old 'aficionado' of this page, as are both Coldcreation and Modernist, I went and found it. I was suprised to find how old (relatively) it is. It was introduced by an IP in 2016, in this diff. Again, it is much older that I'd have imagined, and it really has not bothered any of us up to this point... warshy (¥¥) 14:31, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, not really. It appears that a couple of times someone happened to be bothered by it, but their edits were always promptly reverted in order to upheld the "stable version", as it is currently being called (by the same user that was involved in maintaining the "Italian Jewish" phrasing in the past). It almost look like that this page has become the personal fief of a few users who don't feel like they have to explain why they undo edits. Sansgloire (talk) 14:47, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ooops, sorry. Actually it is the very next edit to the above. It is this diff. Hope I got it right now... warshy (¥¥) 14:34, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yep. So, oddly enough, the date of the diff is 2/29/2016... warshy (¥¥) 14:38, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I found that yesterday, that is why I called the current version a stable version, but I suspect it was present circa 2008 in light of the discussion above. Coldcreation (talk) 14:40, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sure enough. Diff. Coldcreation (talk) 14:43, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Again, let me state clearly, for the record. His Jewish Livornese ethnic origins are definitely important and relevant to his personality and his amazingly original work. And they are appropriately covered in the biographical section, I believe. But the ethnic mention does not "make" his original art, and it does not need to be mentioned in the opening sentence. Thank you, warshy (¥¥) 14:51, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It was edited in September 2009, the edit was motivated with "no ethnicity in the lead section": https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Amedeo_Modigliani&direction=next&oldid=314386014 Then that "stable version" was edited in 2016 to add the "Jewish" qualifier. Anyway, I saw you have reinstated the new "stable version" pending consensus in the talk page - how do you propose we move toward a consensus? Sansgloire (talk) 15:01, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Modigliani was a well-known personality in Paris (Montmartre and Montparnasse). There is no need to reduce the lead to references of his artwork alone. Coldcreation (talk) 15:06, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am not following. What are you talking about now? Sansgloire (talk) 15:10, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I assume you are not going to follow your own advice. Sansgloire (talk) 15:21, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That was is response to warshy's: "But the ethnic mention does not "make" his original art." Warshy correctly point out however: "His Jewish Livornese ethnic origins are definitely important and relevant to his personality and his amazingly original work." This is all that is needed as far as notability (and it is reflected by multiple reliable sources) to be mentioned in the lead. Coldcreation (talk) 15:22, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(My response was to Modernist, suggesting *I* shouldn't beat the dead horse) No, it isn't. warshy explicitly argues for the opposite of what you are saying (it shouldn't be mentioned in the lead according to him). Very bizarre of you, taking his opinion to buttress yours when the two don't agree. As I stated previously, you failed to provide sources that were relevant to what we are discussing - a couple of Jewish cultural outlets going out of their way to find something "Jewish" about Modigliani's art (which is what makes Modigliani notable) won't do. Sansgloire (talk) 15:33, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Yes, but I also wrote that it does not "need" to be in the opening sentence. And apparently, according to WP guidelines and established traditions it shouldn't. It never bothered me there, but if it bothers someone else, it can definitely be removed from the opening sentence. Thank you, warshy (¥¥) 15:39, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Maybe we need an RfC? I don't see any compromise emerging or likely. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:41, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The point is: Ethnicity is perfectly acceptable in the lead when it is relevant to the subject's notability (per MOS:CONTEXTBIO). Clearly, this is the case; not particularly in relation to his style as an artist (as opposed to that of Chagall, Soutine or Kisling), but in relation to his life in Paris, his social milieu and that of his entourage of the School of Paris and at places such as La Ruche. Coldcreation (talk) 15:47, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify: you're not saying: "even if he had never produced any paintings or sculptures, he would have been notable for being Jewish", are you? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:51, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No. I'm saying he was notable for being Jewish in addition to being an artist. He could very well have been a poet, a philosopher or anything else. He did not have to represent Jews in his sculpture or painting (or poetry, or philosophy) to be a notable Jew. Coldcreation (talk) 15:59, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There's a lack of logic in your argument. Being a notable Jew has nothing to do with whether his ethnicity should be mentioned in the lead section. Again, Albert Einstein is no doubt a notable Jew, he is not introduced as such in the opening of his article. Sansgloire (talk) 16:09, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It certainly should be mentioned in the lead of the Einstein article, and it certainly was mentioned in the lead of the Einstein article until this edit on 2 March 2021. Coldcreation (talk) 16:44, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, it was only mentioned in a paragraph further down (which would have been ok, because that referred to a specific circumstance of his life in which Einstein's ethnicity/religion was certainly relevant). It wasn't included in the opening statement that introduces the figure (it didn't say "a German-born Jewish physicist"), which is what I am talking about. You are free to think that it should be mentioned in Einstein's case too, but Wikipedia guidelines explicitly take the opposite stance (i.e., ethnicity shouldn't be mentioned unless relevant for some reason). Sansgloire (talk) 16:59, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's hardly comparable. It's certainly not in the very first sentence and is by way of explanation for a another fact. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:49, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Then I think the article is currently sadly lacking the academic sources to support this view. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:01, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

RfC about how Amedeo Modigliani is introduced

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Although the RfC proponent asks whether the subject should be described as Jewish in the lede or the body, survey participants were mostly split on whether the subject's ethnicity should appear in the opening sentence or later in the lede. MOS:ETHNICITY is mentioned both by those in favor and against having it in the opening sentence, with one editor noting very little is said about the subject's ethnicity throughout the body when compared to other content. There was some discussion about whether his ethnicity was relevant to his notability or not, with a rough consensus that Modigliani's ethnicity is not relevant enough to appear in the opening sentence, but enough to be featured later in the lede, with many participants favoring this edition of the article. Isabelle 🔔 21:56, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Should the lead section of the article states Modigliani ethnicity/religion, and thus introduce him as a "Italian Jewish painter and sculptor", or should that be discussed in the biographical section, and only his nationality mentioned in the opening ("Italian painter and sculptor")? Sansgloire (talk) 16:05, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Jewish ethnicity and nationality - partly as that seems externally the norm, and partly to respect how he introduced himself as said in the article - as a Jewish artist (without nationality). Cheers Markbassett (talk) 23:57, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There is significant dissent, so the RfC should run at least 30 days, which is standard. Let someone uninvolved close it after that. Softlavender (talk) 00:39, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Vast amounts of this article are completely uncited

[edit]

This is a Level 5 vital article, but vast amounts of it are completely uncited. I have therefore placed a template at the top of the article until such time as this is completely remedied. Thank you. Softlavender (talk) 00:37, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Amedeo_Modigliani&oldid=1263821122"