Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/September Morn

September Morn

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 26 Sep 2014 at 06:00:42 (UTC)

Original – September Morn is a painting by the French artist Paul Émile Chabas (1869–1937) which caused controversy after it was displayed in Chicago. The city's mayor, Carter Harrison, Jr., charged the gallery with indecency, and later anti "vice" crusader Anthony Comstock targeted it.

Reason

High resolution of a notable painting, perhaps the artist's best known. A scandal, 'twas.

Articles in which this image appears

September Morn, Paul Émile Chabas, Harry Reichenbach, Succès de scandale

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Artwork/Paintings

Creator

Paul Émile Chabas

• Support as nominator –  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:00, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
• Support, though, honestly? It's actually pretty tasteful. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 06:06, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose, the subject is too young for the image to be decent by modern standards. Some common-sense discretion surely advisable here. Are we also to feature the more provocative of Balthus' paintings for example? In making this oppose I exercise my right to make an oppose clearly stating a reason. I'm not prepared to debate it. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 07:36, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

• "the subject is too young for the image to be decent by modern standards" - You better not watch any diaper commercials, then. About the same degree of nudity. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:00, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

• When I said I wouldn't debate the issue, I didn't mean I wouldn't respond to pointed criticism. The issue here is that this is nominated as a "featured" image. I'm not familiar with nappy advertisements, but if an image of such an advertisement was nominated here which inappropriately eroticized its subject (which I do think is unlikely, but I defer to your expertise), then I would oppose it too while at the same time supporting its appearance in, say, an encyclopaedic article about nappy advertisements. You know very well I'm not a prude, as I took time to annotate a series of Japanese erotic prints you uploaded to Commons at my suggestion. I resent that you don't respect my right to take a discreet position on a matter of principle as I seek to without mocking me. It's doubly surprising because as you know I vehemently objected to your digital restoration of an image of Manet's Olympia, where you warmed the flesh tone in a way that Manet absolutely did not intend or would have countenanced and whose only aesthetic purpose can have been to eroticize the image. Unspoken there regarding my distaste, was the age of the subject. It's well known that Manet's subject was deliberately more girl like than adult. That was a significant element in the uproar his painting caused. In those days the age of menarche of working class girls was about fifteen and a half. Street girls starting a life of prostitution typically around the age of fourteen had barely, if at all, entered puberty, and that is deliberately reflected in Manet's painting. Your clearly inappropriate image found its way to Wikipedia's front page. I would prefer not see this one too. Not on my account. Standards do change you know. You're an ex-pat Brit I take it, who no doubt has heard of Samantha Fox. Directly she had turned sixteen years old, she appeared topless as a page 3 model for the Sun newspaper in 1983 (the by-line was "Sam gives up 'A' levels for 'Ooh' levels", which was certainly amusing to say nothing of her enormous tits of course). The point is that following later amendments to the 1976 Protection of Children Act, that publication would now be illegal, indeed merely to purchase a copy of it also illegal, as the bright line for nudity was set at eighteen years of age.

I don't believe I can have anything more to contribute here. I trust I have satisfied your circle here that my opposition is neither frivolous nor a troll. Mock on. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 13:34, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

You're not thinking. The article is about the painting so there's no alternative image we can use. We're here to evaluate the EV and quality of an image in relation to FP standards - not those of your decency and morals. We're not in the business of painting fig leaves. As it stands, I hope you reconsider your vote in light of the purpose of the project (whether or not it has to appear on the main page is an issue for POTD not one to be settled in the FPC queue. To be sure there are some featured images which are considered distasteful and won't end up on the main page). I think it would be reasonable for the closer to ignore this vote as it has nothing to do with the criteria or standards used here. 24.222.214.125 (talk) 15:56, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

• Support Good resolution and directly sourced to Metmuseum. The oppose vote above is amusing: how do you know she's "too young"? That's OR, unless a reliable source would say she's under 18 or something like that, but even then such an argument hardly substantiates an oppose in my view. Brandmeister^talk 08:52, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
• Support, I also think it is a tasteful depiction and was interested to read about the controversy it caused; it's an attractive piece of artwork and I have no problem supporting the nomination. SagaciousPhil - Chat 09:07, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
• Support — Iconic, and certainly not prurient. Sca (talk) 15:05, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
• Support. I don't think it's overtly sexual, personally. Like a lot of good art, it leaves the artist's intention and message to the imagination of the viewer. And I also don't think it's obvious that the girl is 'too young'. It's of course hard to judge the age of a fictitious girl though. I mean, there are strong arguments that the Statue of David depicts an underage boy too. Let's not be puritanical about art - it's very different to the abuse of a real child. Unless it could be demonstrated that viewing the image could be illegal, I don't think we really have any moral arguments for prohibiting the featuring of it. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 15:08, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
• Question Going by the article, does that mean this was painted when the girl was 15 and thus underage? --Muhammad(talk) 16:01, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
  • One of the sources I'm compiling on the talk page (forget which) says sixteen. However, as already mentioned above, this is a far cry from pornography (for some reason I can't find the criteria the US uses to define "underage" or "child pornography", though I remember one of them is sexual suggestiveness). Although some might consider the image questionable owing to the model's age, others (such as The New York Times, quoted here) called it "as delicate and innocent as it is beautiful", looking at the nudity as more artistic than pornographic. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:08, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Here it is: Layperson's guide, The actual legal definitions) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:19, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
• Comment — The model Chabas used more than a century ago may have been 16, but this is not a photograph. The subject in the painting is of indeterminate age and looks to me like she might pass for a female in her early 20s. Further, no genitalia are pictured, and the breasts are depicted rather indistinctly, i.e. with discretion. Again, not prurient by current Western standards. Sca (talk) 16:27, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
• Support High encyclopedic value and high image quality. Chillum Need help? Type {{ping|Chillum}} 18:41, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
• Comment I think a number of you are being rather precious in discussing whether this image satisfies or not this or that other criteria for indecency. It's a question that after all has been debated with respect to nude images of young people on Wikipedia rather a lot in the past. In the end Mr. Wales himself had to step in and make a common sense ruling about the matter and delete the images. The common sense question about this image you should ask yourself is whether the image would gratify a paedophile and the answer is of of course yes it would. We do all know that now. Go on to any beach in the UK and start taking pictures of children and you run the risk of being arrested. Take an unsolicited picture of a nude young girl skinny dipping as you see depicted here and you certainly will be, if not lynched first. Now that of course doesn't mean images of this painting should be deleted from their articles. But it does mean that we should be sensitive in the matter of featuring it. It's not for nothing that this painting is not available for viewing at the Met. Similarly the Tate has removed its Ovendens from public display. I should think there are similar examples in many other museums. This one likewise needs to stay in the reserve collection. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 20:22, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Oh come now. Its not like this is Child Bride. Hell, this doesn't even have to be on the main page. I personally do not know what the issue is you're raising. GamerPro64 20:39, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Plenty of normal clothed images of children would potentially gratify a paedophile too, just as clothed images of adult women may gratify straight men. That's not the point at all. It's rather irrelevant who might get turned on by what. And why even bring up taking a photo of a young girl skinny dipping when it's pretty obvious that this is a painting and not a photo of a real girl and therefore not a fair comparison. Nobody is being taken advantage of here - there is no abuse victim. Finally, I think you're wrong that you'd get arrested for taking photos of children at a beach. You'd probably attract unwanted attention but under what law could you be arrested? There is no such law, and any attempt by the police to stop you would be probably limited to questioning you and making you feel uncomfortable about what is fundamentally legal. This and this makes for enlightening reading. It sounds like a law that you'd welcome, but the same common sense you refer to suggests it's a ridiculous and dangerous idea to suggest that anyone taking photos of children must be a paedophile and therefore committing a crime. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 21:17, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

I said "run the risk of" and that's absolutely correct in the sense that police have indeed been called out for that sort of thing. I really don't know whether arrests have been made or not. I should think Public Order 1986 would suffice. As a photographer, whose efforts here incidentally I have often lauded, you must surely know that any image of a child nominated FP on Commons will quite likely be rejected if there's no evidence of parental permission.Coat of Many Colours (talk) 23:53, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Point of order here: Wales was deleting any art that contained nudity, mainly paintings of adults. And had to give up his powers on Commons because of this. Let's not act like Wales' actions were at all noble. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 22:42, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Pedophile — Let's see now, is that a lover of feet? Sca (talk) 21:29, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

American spelling. 'Paedophilia' a neologism by Kraft- Ebbing who saw just half a dozen or so cases in his practice but nevertheless was able to differentiate between benign and pathological presentations. 'Paedophile' itself not a construct that appears before 1951. HTH.

I see nudity, I don't see sexuality. There is a difference. Chillum Need help? Type {{ping|Chillum}} 22:33, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes. This is the famous US Supreme Court ruling "evil lies in the eyes of the beholder". It sucks. 2% of us *are* evil. One in every street. End of. This is an image that needs to stay under the bed. Get real. Ask any mum. Last from me.Coat of Many Colours (talk) 23:53, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

• (ec) Under US law this painting is also completely legal. The model's parents gave their consent, and were present when Chabas painted her (not in the article yet, but the... "Cold Shoulder", I believe... newspaper article on the talk page has this information). She is nude, but there is no "sexually explicit conduct" as defined by the US criminal code (linked above). For a more modern case, think Brooke Shields in Blue Lagoon. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:57, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

• Yes, but legality is not really the issue here as I stress. I'm not going to delve into the Graham Ovenden saga I quoted, his paintings are drop dead gorgeous but the fact is he's doing time for them, and he surely had parental permission. Egon Schiele, whose work I adore and upload to Commons (presently too drunk to locate mine amongst the hundreds uploaded, sorry) is another example. It's a question of taste. It's at the Met as you say, but it's not on view. Ask yourself why. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 00:26, 17 September 2014 (UTC)