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. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 10:21, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

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)

• "presently too drunk". Can we end this discussion right here for the time being? Because that is quite possibly one of the worst things one wants to hear about an editor on this site. GamerPro64 00:30, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

• It's the terrible pain of living G. Honestly I can handle it. I also used to do a shit load of dope until the bastards closed down Silk Road (email me anyone if you know an alternative site). Meanwhile I took a deep breath, counted to 10 without inhaling, and found this one I uploaded. I will defend the right of this image not to be featured on Wikipedia to my dying breath. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 01:05, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
• What right is that? Chillum Need help? Type {{ping|Chillum}} 01:34, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

• No idea. Pissed, sorry. If it comes back to me, I'll let you know.Coat of Many Colours (talk) 09:40, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Although I agree with Gamer's comment, I just want to note that the reason it's not on view is not necessarily owing to the model's age. Indeed, when it was first put into storage in 1971, the Milwaukee Journal gave "banality" as the reason. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:56, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

That too. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 01:05, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Eleven years old in this discourse: "Current child-abuse studies reveal that in the lack of an object, paedophiles may gratify themselves with fantasies triggered by an illustration, and then may be spurred on to seek real equivalents to the image. This connection drawn between child imagery and paedophilia is not new. French physicians were documenting it as early as 1860. Amid comparable moral panic ignited by French natalists over the 'white slave trade' and girl-child pornography before the First World War, picturing the body before the age of sexual consent became the subject of vehement protest, extensive legislation, and vigorous prosecution. Yet, unlike the fate of Henson and Mapplethorpe's photography, art by 'official artists' that fetishised the child's body, as epitomised by Chabas, was, and arguably remains, untouchable. Why this happened and continues to happen is the subject of this paper ...".

I have to attend to some other matters now. Probably I shan't be back, even if sober (well frankly, especially if sober). Coat of Many Colours (talk) 01:31, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Oh well, sober again. I'm glad to see I wasn't offensive. The Brauer article (peer reviewed) looks well researched to me. I'll try and look it up in JStor and write it up for the painting's article. Presumably you didn't notice it? Brauer's estimation of thirteen years old (apparently painted over 3 years - goodness, that's a long time ... ) looks about right to me. I'll look for his sources. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 09:40, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

I've added a description of Brauer's paper to the article. I do think this nomination should now be withdrawn. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 10:18, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't think it will be withdrawn. It is likely to pass. Chillum Need help? Type {{ping|Chillum}} 14:42, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

• I'll have to see Bauer's article when I've got the time. Most sources, however, give 16. Perhaps a young-looking 16 (one of the newspapers I'm looking over quotes a New York Times article as saying she looks 14), but when even her identity is not known, there's not much that can be done to confirm. Either way, 13 or 16, the legality of this image does not change, and it's not being withdrawn. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:37, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

• It's very good of you to try to find the time to review the Fae Brauer article. It's not available on JStor and I'm not prepared to order a photocopy from the British Library through my little local village library (stuff travels these parts ...) I have emailed Fae Brauer herself to ask what her sources are for the age, but as I expect you know academia in general doesn't pay much attention to requests from Wikipedia editors. I see you've been editing at September Morn extensively since, inter alia noting the subject's age as sixteen. I made a small copy edit to indicate that was on Chabas' account (by implication). I can add here it's not clear whether that was her age when she began to pose or at the end of the rather long three year period the painting was executed. I notice that you uncritically repeat the story (ultimately sourced to Chabas I suppose) about the recoiling pose in the freezing waters of Lake Annecy. A more plausible version I should think is that of Suzanne Delve, who claimed to be Chabas' subject at the age of fifteen http://hoaxes.org/archive/permalink/the_september_morn_hoax and said she posed in his studio and that the pose arose from her instinctive attempt to protect her modesty. I'm surprised you don't mention this in your considerable expansion (no doubt we can expect a "Did you know" in the fullness of time). I don't doubt that this is the real appeal of the painting to many, the suggestion of voyeurism. I do find this account more plausible because it's absolutely unnecessary to have your model pose in plein air with all its attendant difficulties, of which not least one would be spectators and possible interest from the local gendarmerie . I shall be away again soon, but I shall follow the developments here with interest. My view is that legality in not an issue here. Rather common-sense and good taste. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 17:35, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

• The article is a work in progress (which should be obvious; if it was anywhere near finalized, that uncited sentence in "reception" would have been nixed already). I refuse to cite Museum of Hoaxes, for what I would hope are obvious reasons (lack of editorial control, little evidence its an RS); the only reason its still there is because I haven't edited it out. Anyways, the content of the article is not germane to this FPC discussion. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:22, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

• So what's the problem with this http://www.newspapers.com/newspage/26000710/ which is the source for the Suzanne Delve story? It would seem you are applying a degree of editorial discretion as to the quality of the sources cited. A peer-reviewed (whether axe-grinding or not on the question of indecent images of children - erm ... thank god for the axe grinders I and pretty well everyone else, so I would suggest, in the UK trying to protect their children from internet porn and kiddie fiddlers say) paper appearing in a well-known and respected art journal would seem to me to come pretty well high up on the list. This paper cites 11-13 as to the age of the subject. On our community's WP:VERIFY policy that's acceptable to cite. Yet you don't. You say it's something you will look into when you have time. Why is that? I mean, I don't know; I think it's not unlikely that Fay Brauer has gilded the lily somewhat to suit the cut of her axe concerning the subject's age, yes that goes on in axe-grinding academia, but her paper is nevertheless by far the best quality source we have here. Above all, why are you investing so much in this piss poor (yet again the colour of piss as it happens) painting? And why aren't you addressing any of the issues I raise. Balthus? Ovenden? Coat of Many Colours (talk) 01:46, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

• I see you've added Delve now. Thank you for that. I made a small expansion to say she would have been 13 years old when she first posed for Chabas and to add the significant detail that she struck her pose "instinctively". I noticed that you appear to identify her as wonder if in fact she is the Parisian actress Suzanne Delvé. However there's nothing in the newspaper piece supporting that, which describes her a "hostess". If she really was the actress then she would have been four years older than the 37 given by the piece, making her 17 when she first posed for Chabas. If you would like to OR it, that would be fine by me so long as there's RS at the end of it. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 10:59, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

• Two things: First, and again, the article's content is not germane to the FPC nomination and only serves to take up space. Second, I did not say she was that Suzanne Delvé. I simply went with the source, in which she describes herself as a former stage and film actress. I recommend that you redact your ABF accusation immediately. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:20, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

• Missed on the fine print, sorry. The article said "hostess" and didn't accent her name. It's you who is gripped by the issue of her age and legality (not me, I know chicken when I see it), so I would say it is germane. But we can continue on that article's Talk page if embarrasses you to discuss it here. I think it's very likely this is the actress Suzanne Delvé. I can't be arsed myself, but presumably there are images of her out there that can be compared with the one in the newspaper article. That would make the subject 17 - 20 and you could then tell Fay to take a hike on her axe-grinding 11 - 13 pedo band wagon jumping on of and feel vindicated. You could even say something nice about me by way of thanks for helping clear up this very pressing issue in art history (oh, all right, I'll let you off that and your sentiments returned). ABF? Can only find Associated British Foods, but I have made an edit above which I trust soothes you. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 12:46, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

• If we are to go by common sense I will point out that you are the only one who sees this as inappropriate and that the common sense is that there is nothing sexual about the image. It is you who have the uncommon opinion. Chillum Need help? Type {{ping|Chillum}} 18:35, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

• You misunderstand me. I also think you misunderstand the general public. I am speaking for the general public who don't interest themselves in the deliberations of a small group of art critics and aesthetes here, but who I believe would nevertheless rather not see this image valorised by Wikipedia, possibly appearing on its front page as "featured image of the day" and directing their adolescent children to the Commons collection of images by Chabas for more of the same. As for Chabas he is a very minor artist, picking up a few low thousands at Christie's from time to time. Xanthomelanoussprog may well be right below in his appraisal of the EV of this artist, but whatever it is it certainly isn't in Artwork/Paintings as the nomination claims. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 21:04, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

• I must say, the one thing I agree with you about is that he wasn't a particularly talented artist, based on the rest of the images in the gallery of the article. I quite like September Morn though, it's significantly better than the others. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 21:37, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

I like it too. Call it kitsch or banal if you will, but the subject looking off camera, so to speak, evokes a questioning ambiance. Sca (talk) 00:14, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

• Support Painting appears to have supported and continues to support a whole industry of impostors, yellow journalism, concerned citizens and axe-grinding academics, and therefore has EV. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 18:46, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Wordage Log: Preceding discussion comprises 4,000+ words. Sca (talk) 16:25, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Wordage Log: In other words, almost twice as long as the article as it currently stands, and twenty times the length of the article as it was when this image was nominated. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:38, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

• I did say that I didn't want to debate it, but Crisco made a puerile and infantile intervention. Of course I responded and as the conversation degenerated further I contributed more. The sum of my contributions in the end was to provide the only peer-reviewed source for this painting as well as come up with a fairly plausible hypothesis as to the real identity of the subject. This is a painting that no gallery in the EU or the US would be prepared to exhibit today. What this nomination effectively does is allow Wikipedia its equivalent of exhibiting that painting. That there is just one of me against many here signifies nothing as relatively few people interest themselves in the deliberations at WP Featured Pictures. There are no space constraints in Wikipedia and I am entitled to argue my opposition. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 02:09, 19 September 2014 (UTC) >