Talk:Wheatfield with Crows

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
WikiProject iconVisual arts C‑class
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Visual arts, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of visual arts on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
CThis article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.


The width of the picture needs to be cut down. It's wider than the normal article space. RickK 07:05, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)

Reformated the article and I think it looks pretty good.

Yeah, it looks good now. RickK 19:30, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)

I removed Image:F_0779.jpg from Wheat Field with Crows and listed it on Wikipedia:Images_and_media_for_deletion with this entry:

Image:F 0779.jpg - obsoleted by Image:Vincent van Gogh (1853-1890) - Wheat Field with Crows (1890).jpg, both PD-Old. User:Bodhi395 uploaded original 35Kb version, and I uploaded better 258 KB version. I removed it from Wheat Field with Crows and informed both uploader, and Image talk:F 0779.jpg page. -Wikibob | Talk 23:36, 2005 Mar 30 (UTC)

I should mention I replaced it with the Commons image, same displayed size. -Wikibob | Talk 23:51, 2005 Mar 30 (UTC)


Lower or upper case 'v' for Van Gogh when it is printed without Vincent in front of it? See Talk:Vincent van Gogh (capitalization). I have consulted four books: 2 have van Gogh and 2 have Van Gogh. However, the Van Gogh Museum uses Van Gogh, and presumably they should get it right[1].

Tyrenius 16:19, 22 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

See article Tussenvoegsels for the correct Dutch rules. Bascially you use "Van Gogh" on its own and only write "van Gogh" when preced by his name "Vincent" or initial "V" as in "Vincent van Gogh" or "V. van Gogh" FightingMac (talk) 10:19, 17 July 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
(added)Though many anglophone authors prefer 'van Gogh'. Dutch rule no doubt because of the infelicity of writing 'of van Gogh' as 'van van Gogh' (they don't really have a possessive consruction "van Gogh's", or at any rate one they use often). FightingMac (talk) 15:32, 18 July 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I have removed a long personal interpretation from the article under Wikipedia:No original research, as there are no references given for it. It can be found in the history.

Tyrenius 15:42, 25 April 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Most of the text in this article is identical with an essay here. Since the text on that page includes additional formatting, hyperlinks, and footnotes (which have been dumped, all on one line, in the Conclusion section), I am inclined to believe that Wikipedia's article is just a cut-and-paste job. Strad 23:49, 29 July 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Have you ever got that right - the copyright page for the website is here. I'm familiar with the site from some work back in college, and it's a reasonably good resource, but quite copyrighted. I have reverted to the last good version prior to the copy and paste. With that site as a reference, however, and the essay's sources (unattributed, I might add, in the copy over, so we'll need to get those), we can probably put together a better article.Cool moe dee 345 13:23, 9 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
User:Grenba just reintroduced the copyvio material (well, on October 23), and I removed it again and reverted to the last non-plagiarised version. I suggest someone watches this article to make sure it's not introduced again. In the meantime, I will post a warning on Grenba's talk page. Terraxos 20:07, 2 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"signs of foreboding and death"[edit]

Just a naive editorialism this. I've added a {{Failed verification}} template. The original "forebodings and even death" (a translation from the uncited French article) was perhaps just about acceptable but when an editor confidently deletes the "even" with the remark "no doubt about it" then you know you have to act.

Comical really. I also enjoyed the black crows overhead of the original editor :-) FightingMac (talk) 02:19, 17 July 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Try this source: [2] Erickson, Kathleen Powers. At Eternity's Gate: The Spiritual Vision of Vincent van Gogh, 1998. ISBN 0-8028-4978-4....Modernist (talk) 03:15, 17 July 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes I saw that. Isn't KE the famous art critic who saw the trumpet calls of the Last Judgement in Vincent's brush work :-)? At any rate it's WP:VERIFY and I've no complaints. "The crows, used by Van Gogh as symbol of death and rebirth or resurrection, visually draw the spectator into the painting" needs a cite I think. Didn't know Vincent had any sort thing about crows and I would be curious to know how a flock of crows deliberately represented as flying towards an ambiguous point in the forgound is supposed to "pull" me into the painting. The whole point about the painting is that you're not pulled into it. FightingMac (talk) 03:50, 17 July 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Here's a head-up from an internet essay site for people challenged by what they're looking at here :-). The 'Armstrong' reference is a mangled version of his July 10 letter and I edited out the corresponding remark in Modernist's edit. Note that most emphatically the road does not "pull" you into the picture. Wish I had pulled a trick for every time an art critic told me that such and such a feature of a painting pulled me into it :-)
The above college paper is not a reliable source see WP:RS, Erickson and Rosenblum are by the way although everybody doesn't necessarily agree with every source...Modernist (talk) 13:39, 17 July 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Writing of this picture shortly before his suicide, van Gogh conveyed something of its tragic mood. "Returning there, I set to work. The brush almost fell from my hands . . . I had not difficulty in expressing sadness and extreme solitude" (Armstrong 58). The format of the canvas is matched by the vista itself, a field opening out from the foreground by way of three diverging paths. It is quite the disquieting situation for the spectator, who is held in doubt before the great horizon and cannot reach it on any of the roads before him. These roads end blindly in the field or run out of the picture. The familiar perspective of the openfield is now inverted; the lines converge towards the foreground from the horizon, as if space had suddenly lost its focus and all things turned aggressively upon the beholder, there is no vanishing point. The as seen in the diagram at right. There is no linear perspective, the only consolation the painter gives to the viewer is the horizontal line in the middle of the painting separating the sky from the ground. blue sky and the yellow fields pull away from each other with disturbing violence; across their boundary, a flock of black crows advance steadily toward the foreground. In regards to symmetry, the painting is equally heavy. You have the same amount of field on both sides, as you do have the same mass of the heavens and earthly colors.
Yes, well of course. I wasn't suggesting that its content be put in the article. But it does point out the very basic compositional features of the painting which appear lost on KE (a Ph.D. in Christianity with a 'training in art history', a single book on VG which you must know diid not attract critical acclaim). I mean I accept KE is WP:VERIFY compliant but she is very far indeed from the kind of source I would want to quote in a short article about this painting. As for "Armstrong" quoted above, it's a very bad translation indeed of a section of VG's July 10 letter I've cited in the article. FightingMac (talk) 15:51, 18 July 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Lust for Life[edit]

Should the film be mentioned here? Anyone who has seen it won't forget the painting's place in VG's death scene, and I'm sure it did much to further the notion the painting was his last...--Chimino (talk) 14:32, 13 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]