This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Flaming June article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
|
The painting was honored in song by Paul Weller on his "Stanley Road" album - Anyone have any more information about this, i.e. which song or lyric is in reference to the painting? I can't find any info about it online. Esk ( talk) 05:43, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
Isn't Paul Weller a really obscure person? Gingermint ( talk) 04:35, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
In all the years the painting has been exhibited and enthused about, has no reviewer taken note of the fact that the poor woman's left thighbone is not only half again as long as the right, but crooked as well? If anyone can trace a respectable source commenting on that fact (it's overwhelmingly likely that there must have been some), please refer to it in the article. Freederick ( talk) 12:01, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
"Please allow me to relate a topical anecdote. In 1960 the British Cartoonist “Giles” published a cartoon entitled “Flaming June” It was a satirical piece, aimed at a philistine society that failed to appreciate ‘Fine Art’ A recent Auction Sale had an item of singular note, that failed to reach it’s reserve of $140, regrettably my internet search has been unable so far, to locate the Lot number of the sale, but I was in luck with the Giles Cartoon:- http://www.cartoons.ac.uk/record/GAA141747
We believe it was a London Auction, but need confirmation of this, In any case the story goes that Sir Fredrick Lord Leighton P.R.A. ‘s magnificent painting “Flaming June” exquisitely framed by Arnold Wiggins & Sons, was the inspiration for Giles’s satire! It was picked up by an interior decorator/dealer just for the frame. He had a standing order with the Auction House to let him have good frames from Lots that failed to reach reserve. His clients, mostly American, used to convert them to barroom mirrors. The painting itself was thrown in the trash. where art students often rummaged for old canvases. They would sand them down with a Black & Decker, reprime them and paint some abstract monstrocity. Fortunately this canvas was spotted, and found it’s way to Ampsterdam…Wikipedia pick up the story:- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flaming_June Art Historians will confirm that about 75% of all the Old Master paintings are lost forever, most of them put on bonfires, in a clear-out. When Leighton’s “Flaming June” became ‘fashionable’ once again, the Gallery that owned it, tried to negotiate the re-purchase of the frame…No dice!…so they asked Arnold Wiggins and Sons if they could find a suitable frame. “No problem! we have the original drawings to work from, Sir Frederick was after all The President of The Roayal Academy!” ….PHILISTINES! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alastair Carnegie ( talk • contribs) 16:44, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
"The transparent material worn by the sleeping woman – through which her right nipple can be seen clearly – is typical of Leighton's artistic predilections"
Right nipple? Really?! Is this another example of USofA prurience? Yes, parts of human bodies can, indeed, be seen in pictures of humans. And you're surprised? Consider it worthy of comment? Perhaps you would care to point out that a nose, leg, eye, etc., etc., can "be seen clearly". This adolescent POV is a joke to most of the civilised, educated world.
And as for "artistic predilections", (i) in what possible sense is this a predilection? (ii) in what sense would it be (were it to be a predilection) an "artistic" one?
It is comments such this that so clearly distinguish between the anyone-can-have-a-go "editorship" of Wikipedia and the educated, literate editorship of a real encyclopaedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.118.19.182 ( talk) 22:31, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
"The transparent material worn by the sleeping woman – through which her right nipple can be seen clearly – is typical of Leighton's artistic predilections"
Leaving aside "artistic predilections", whatever that is supposed to convey, being such a general term in the absence of clarification, what can be seen in this sentence, "clearly", is the US-ian predilection to focus on a normal part of the human anatomy in a schoolboy-like, guilty-but-naughty, tittering way. You didn't choose to mention fingers, toes, knees, ears, hair or any other standard part of a standard human being as a focus for "artistic predilections", though you might equally have done so. What you are commenting upon is not "artistic predilections" but your own predilections moulded by your upbringing and society.
For goodness sake grow up and learn to keep your own suppressed childishness to yourself rather than presuming to have an insight into the thoughts of an adult artist, neither of which you seem to be. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.130.99.194 ( talk) 07:29, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Flaming June, by Frederic Lord Leighton (1830-1896).jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on September 15, 2016. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2016-09-15. 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) 04:28, 31 August 2016 (UTC)