Diskussion:Der Bücherwurm

Bilddimension?

In der commons-quelle [[1]] heißt es: keine höhere Auflösung vorhanden. Man sollte es demnach so bescheiden wie dort dimensioniert belassen und auch nicht auf dieser Seite bis zur Unkenntlichkeit auseinanderzerren --Helehne 15:46, 4. Sep. 2007 (CEST)

Sammlung

Eine Sache, die mich bei Gemaeldeartikeln interessiert, ist, wo das Bild sich derzeit befindet. Ich habe das mal in der Einleitung ergaenzt (steht natuerlich auch unter der Abbildung, aber klein und unverlinkt). Das mag nicht der ideale Ort sein, bitte gegebenenfalls umordnen. --Wrongfilter ... 14:17, 1. Nov. 2012 (CET)

Correct Whereabouts of "The Bookworm"

Please not that "The Bookworm" has never been part of the Museum Georg Schäfer collection. It was donated to the Library of Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA many, many years ago and has been housed in the Central Library ever since. For further information, please see [2]. Danke! --Iryna Harpy (Diskussion) 08:33, 4. Mai 2013 (CEST)

Thank you for the information, that is true, nice weekend. Greetings --Tomás (Diskussion) 08:46, 4. Mai 2013 (CEST)

Unsinn. Spitzweg malte drei sehr ähnliche Variationen des Bücherwurm. Eine befindet sich in Schweinfurt, eine anderes in der Staatsgemäldegalerie München, ein weiteres in Milwaukee. Hier ist vermutlich die Schweinfurter Variation abgebildet. Das bitte erst klären. Dank. --Artmax (Diskussion) 12:10, 4. Mai 2013 (CEST)

Glaubt man dem Unsinn hier Datei:Carl Spitzweg 021.jpg siehe Bildbeschreibung des Fotografen? Nun sollte erstmal der Unsinn geklärt werden. Danke --Tomás (Diskussion) 13:19, 4. Mai 2013 (CEST)

Schau mal, wer das 2005 erstmals hochgeladen hat (Dateiversion) und was der zum Standort schrieb. --Artmax (Diskussion) 14:15, 4. Mai 2013 (CEST)

Ich hatte die jetzige Version für richtig gehalten, stand ja auch so dort, wurde ja nun entfernt. Belegen kann es sicher nur der Fotograf wo er das Bild aufgenommen hatte. Nun behauten wir einfach in Scheinfurt und damit erledigt. Ist eigentlich auch so was von unwichtig. Schönes Wochenende --Tomás (Diskussion) 15:20, 4. Mai 2013 (CEST)

Ich hab mal auf die schnelle versucht, einen Internetbeleg zu finden. Da ist er, erkennbar an der identischen Krakelüre. --Artmax (Diskussion) 16:44, 4. Mai 2013 (CEST)

Ich habe mir mal erlaubt, die zuhehörige Diskussion von der EN WP hierher zu übertragen :

FACTS before FICTION

I've noted that the subject of where the original is housed was broached in 2008 and no one has bothered to investigate further. Debates about objectivity and subjectivity of the content aside, how about starting an article with correct facts about the subject in place? If I wanted to see the original and consulted Wikipedia in order to book my flight, I'd be extremely peeved when I turned up in Bayern only to discover that I should have gone to Milwaukee!

I'm currently awaiting confirmation from both Museum Georg Schäfer and the Milwaukee Public Library that it is, in fact, housed in Milwaukee. Small wonder that Wikipedia has such a bad reputation. Using it as a forum to express personal opinions is seriously irritating. Using it to disseminate misinformation is unforgivable. Why has no one asked for citations as to the most fundamental, tangible facts surrounding the piece? This has resulted in misrepresentation of the Museum Georg Schäfer - using this piece as being representative of its collection - in translations and references all over the web. Utterly irresponsible! Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:09, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

There are three paintings of Spitzweg which are titeled "Bücherwurm". The first one was painted ca 1850 and Spitzweg called it in his sales list "Der Bibliothekar" (# 102). It was sold 1852 to Ignaz Kuranda of Vienna and this painting is owned by Museum Georg Schäfer in Schweinfurt. A very close piece in the very same size was painted by Spitzweg one year later and was sold to his New York based art-dealer H. W. Schaus (sales list #156). This exemplar has the Milwaukee Public Library, donated by art collector René von Schleinitz. A third and final version was painted 1884. The images shows the Schweinfurt-version. See also german article -Artmax (talk) 09:32, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying this for me, Artmax! When I started trying to research this, it occurred to me that there was more than one version. It is not uncommon for artists (as artisans rather than the current romantic vision of artists as being impoverished bohemians) to create prototypes or create more than a single version of a piece, but I had no response from Museum Georg Schäfer, whereas the Milwaukee Library contacted me immediately. I can can cancel the further inquiry I made regarding their version's provenance. Thank you, also for pointing to the German article. I will update the English version of the page (as well as the Russian and Ukrainian versions) to reflect the fact of there being three versions. I'll also contact the Milwaukee Public Library in order that they reference the fact that theirs is the second version. Perhaps they'd be prepared to release an image of their version for use in Wikimedia. It would be excellent to have another example of the piece. I certainly find the German entry to be far more comprehensive and less emotionally leading in its analysis of the piece. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 10:41, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

What I said to you is no secret. I have it mainly from a source which is mentioned in the article: Jensen, Jens Christian (2007). Carl Spitzweg. Munich: Prestel Verlag. ISBN 3791337475. Mr Jensen is a very comprehensive Spitzweg-expert. But obviously nobody did a look in this book. . --Artmax (talk) 11:32, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately, English Wikipedia reflects English speaking academia in that it views any sources in languages other than English with extreme prejudice. I'll try to get a translation through but, at some point, it is bound to be questioned as being unreliable under the pretext that English speakers can't read it! Ironic, don't you think? Most of our sources for ancient civilisations and history are translations based on transcripts of medieval transcripts of ancient translations of original sources which no longer exist. I've encountered this problem trying to use Soviet documents recently released which can be read by anyone who knows Russian, yet they are not accepted because they have not as yet been formally 'recognised' in any English language conference papers, dissertations or even badly written internet blogs! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:04, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

--Artmax (Diskussion) 15:35, 6. Mär. 2019 (CET)

@Artmax: I've only just stumbled on this ping/copy-paste of our discussion on English Wikipedia years ago, so assume that you've had some more recent problems with trying to make changes to this article. I hope you didn't end up being obstructed. As it stands, the German language sourcing you'd provided was accepted for English language Wikipedia without any arguments. Translations aren't a problem. If you need any form of assistance, please feel free to leave me a message on my English language talk page just to ensure that I'm made aware of it. Thank you, again, for your assistance with the English version of Der Bücherwurm, and happy editing! Iryna Harpy (Diskussion) 06:57, 7. Aug. 2019 (CEST)