Talk:Gustav Klimt

The Kiss

Do we have free photographs of The Kiss? David.Monniaux 09:24, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

speculation

"There is speculation that Klimt painted female figures decaptiated and in gross sexual detail prior to painting his signature necklaces and robes. It has been suggested that the high angle of the head almost universally present in Klimt's paintings is an indication of the dismembered forms painted beneath."

needs to be sourced (I am not even sure what it means -- decapitated? Like in a horror movie?) Sdedeo 08:20, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

What does this do cos i am board out of ma skull "gross sexual detail" mean? Sure, there are several Klimt works which could almost be considered pornographic, by the way. (Sorry, never mind the second sentence, I was thinking about Egon Schiele. Excuse me.) 85.226.122.205 02:03, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

"Gross sexual detail" is phrase meaning that is was very detailed anatomy and pornographic. I can see how that would be speculated as the girls heads are often tilted as though they were orgasming. This phrase was saying that he painted the girls full bodies and then went over it with his robes. There should be a source from something more reliably than our own speculation--99.153.39.85 (talk) 02:18, 22 June 2008 (UTC)s.

I know a painting unfinished due to Klimt's death (for example: The Bride (Unfinished 1918), which is presently on display in the Belvedere) is example of covering previously painted nudity with clothes, but for a unique reason. The painting was viewed by the Censors of Vienna and deemed inappropriate, hence the subsequent covering with clothes which is only known to have occurred because he died before he finished. Other than this case of outside pressure, I see not why he would ever paint nudity and cover it afterward. (KJG) June 16 2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.246.154.47 (talk) 14:23, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Klimt and J.D. Rockefeller

The staff of the Special Collections Research Center at the University of Chicago cannot find evidence linking Klimt to the seal of the university. The design of the U of C Seal was a reworking in different form of the slightly earlier design of the U of C Coat of Arms. The Coat of Arms was designed by Pierre de Chaignon la Rose, a heraldic specialist in Boston working under contract to the Board of Trustees. The information in the University Archives is that the Seal was designed in 1912 by the Boston firm of John Evans & Co., architectural sculptors for Shepley, Rutan & Coolidge of Boston, the firm then serving as the architects for the University of Chicago.

See "The Phoenix and the Book" in The University of Chicago Magazine 6:7 (June 1912): 243-248.

I removed the following section about a Klimt painting lawsuit

...because it is extremely biased and does not have much to do with Gustav Klimt:

"On June 7, 2004, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that 88-year-old Maria Altmann, the niece of Klimt model Adele Bloch-Bauer, could sue Austria in a U.S. court for the return of six Klimt paintings stolen from her uncle by the occupying Nazis in 1938. Kept by Austria after the war, the paintings are currently displayed in Vienna's Belvedere Palace. The paintings include the celebrated Adele Bloch-Bauer I and have a market value estimated at more than $150,000,000." and he is a wanka of an aritst Just one example: Adele Bloch-Bauer wanted Austria to inherit these paintings. This is clearly stated in her will [1]. The Nazis stealing the paintings however prevented this wish to be carried out. All in all this is a very complicated juristical case, which can definitely not be summed up in several lines. Wikipedia should be a place for facts, not to express views of one side of warring factions.

While the will did bequeath the paintings to the gallery, it was determined that Adele's husband, Ferdinand Bloch-Bauer, was in fact the owner of the paintings, not Adele herself. He had had paintings for over ten years before they were stolen, and it was determined that they had never been in Adele's posession. [2] This information probably really belongs at the article about the suit, but it's good to clear up any misinformation anyway lest people be misled. Theshibboleth 21:43, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

main image

The main image on the top right should be the one of klimt, should it not?

otherwise its out of sync with almost allother wiki pages...

Removed the "gay" remark at the references...--RexNecros 01:04, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Removing the "gay" remark

--RexNecros 01:10, 16 June 2006 (UTC)Hey, if anyone knows that Mr. Klimt was gay please don’t put it in the notes section without an explanation in the notes. I removed the “gay” word from the notes, I personally don’t know if was either intended to be informative or just pure vandalizing.

In all likelihood, vandalism. Jobjörn (Talk | contribs) 20:49, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

With Wikipedia biographical articles, everyone is assumed to be inverted unless proven otherwise.Lestrade (talk) 02:16, 31 March 2010 (UTC)Lestrade The language and aggressively-hostile tone of this comment is unsettling and rude; using a long-dated term, 'invert', as well as suggesting an unfair and intentionally dishonest and deceptive, pro-lgbt prejudice is crude and coming from a place of hate. No one 'assumes' such things, and no one hopes to engage in the clear and biased editorializing you yourself are supposedly criticizing in others. I doubt even Pat Robertson's great grandmother would have used the term, 'invert', and it fails here as well. Gay men, and i'll just speak for them here, are not willing nor allowing part of their lives be silenced, denied nor hidden, by their choice or anyone's. It DOES matter if Mr. Klimt was gay- I came here to check up to see if he was Jewish, as THAT part of who he was, his faith background matters as well. What IS clear, is that there still remains a wish, demonstrated by you, Lestrade, to not want to nor allow the sexuality of a person's identity be factored into who that person is or was. It DOES matter, and your attempt to deceptively misdirect readers from such, reads as just that. I am not sure if the term, "vandalism" is a commonly-used sort of nomenclature on wikipedia, but the idea of someone saying or suggesting that Klimt or anyone might be gay, lgbt, seems like yet another offensive- weighted and loaded term. If I WERE to suggest or wonder if Klimt or Van Gogh was gay, is, in no way me 'vandalizing' the page nor being slanderous and detracting from their value. To assume and frame any suggestion of someone being gay, lgbt, as some sort of slander, 'vandalism' or bias, is to engage in a hetero-normative, homophobic thinking. It is NOT a negative nor a positive, to wonder about a person's sexuality, any more than it is to wonder about their faith, their racial background, class or politics. It IS homophobic to fear being perceived as gay, or taking offense by having someone you admire be approached in that way. Dinodogstar (talk) 02:15, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Henry Scott Tuke was a gay artist. Take a look at his subject matter. Why would Klimt mostly paint women if he weren't heterosexual? It doesn't add up. Van Gogh was irrefutably heterosexual. He even caused a family scandal with his aggressive pursuit of a woman who completely rejected him. 107.77.192.92 (talk) 01:26, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

legacy

just after his influence on egon schiele this article notes that on of his paintings inspired a danielle steel novel. come on. i take that off, if trashy romance novel need to have a place in this article too, maybe there can be a section trivia or something trueblood 12:50, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Catalogue of his work?

Does anybody know what book (or website) would be the most comprehensive guide to his work? This article doesn't indicate how prolific he was. A good friend likes his work very much and such a book would be a nice gift. Thanks. 193.1.172.163 22:36, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

liberace's piano

Upon a moment of exhausted rambling about my favorite artist- Klimt, today at work in the University art department, I made a remark about a piano I have seen photos of which was decorated by the artist. I mentioned that it was created for Liberace, and after thinking, realized that is impossible. Klimt died in 1919, the year Liberace was born. I am sure though, that I have read that Liberace owned a piano of the sort however. Is anyone familiar with this? If so, are there any photos available?

Restructuring biography

I'm going to try and restructure his biography so it has different sections fo each of the eras in his life. It's a little hard to read with everything jumbled together. --76.179.69.188 20:05, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Elfen Lied

Only the opening sequence features his work, not the end, I believe,

edit: yup it's verified, i'll take the initiative to change it

Ending theme "Be your girl" by Chieko Kawabe

66.75.229.195 18:45, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

The ending does reference of "Danaë". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.27.16.94 (talk) 17:08, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Picture of Klimt

From which year is this picture of Klimt? The file name (and the article) says 1902. The description however says 1912. - Face 13:46, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Stop removing legitimate links

JNW, please stop removing legitimate links. Using the rollback feature is for obvious vandalism ONLY. The way you are using it is considered edit warring, and is not tolerated on Wikipedia. If you have a legitimate concern, please bring it up here on the Talk page instead of trying to force your particular views on everyone else without any sort of discussion. According to the sourced interview linked from the Kevin Wasden article, Wasden considers Klimt and Degas to be influences. That is what the "influenced" field in the infobox is for, and there is nothing anywhere that says those listed there have to be considered "masters" in order to be listed there. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 21:14, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Will reply later, but to argue that there is no distinction regarding an artist's notability does not seem very encyclopedic. JNW 21:17, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

You are the one who indicated that an artist had to be a master to be listed there (at least that's how I interpreted your comment). If you go to the {{Infobox Artist}} template, the field description says only "artists who have been influenced by the artist". It says nothing about them having to be considered a master. Your abuse of the rollback tool to force your opinion onto these two articles is completely unacceptable. Whether or not Wasden is considered a master has no bearing on this discussion and only serves as a distraction from the real focus here: what the "influenced" field is for. As the template itself states that it is for listing "artists who have been influenced by the artist", your removal of the link to Kevin Wasden is not acceptable. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 21:23, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

For more on why your use of rollback is not acceptable, please see Help:Reverting. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 21:31, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Honest, I'm headed out the door. I will check the link as you advise. If I have acted inappropriately, please accept my apologies. There is no intent here to abuse any tool for editing, nor to force my opinion. While you are correct that the template does not make such a distinction, it seems to be in the nature of an encyclopedia that it is best served in doing so. Thanks again, JNW 21:36, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure how only listing "masters" in the "influenced" field is the best thing for the encyclopedia. That would exclude almost any contemporary artist from being listed (as very few would likely be considered "masters" yet). That's a very narrow view, and detrimental to the encyclopedia, IMHO. One of the largest benefits of having an online encyclopedia is that you can easily link related articles to each other, allowing those using the article to follow links which interest them. This can be used in a very positive way to link to articles which may not have as much exposure otherwise, as long as that lesser-known article is related. In this case, as the sourced interview in the Wasden article includes a statement from Wasden that these artists influenced him, linking to the Kevin Wasden article in the "influenced" field in these two articles is a completely legitimate use of the field. If you want, I can even include a source on both the Klimt and Degas articles showing the legitimacy of the link and claim. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 21:57, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with JNW. The "key facts" nature of the infoboxes implies a certain notability that is not met in this case. Otherwise you could jam these infoboxes with lists of hundreds of artists who have been influenced by Klimt, Degas et al.Twirling 22:34, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

So do I. Maestro Kevin would not come in the top 10 of artists who have been influenced by either Degas or Klimt. I see "influenced by Klimt" has 553 ghits, btw! No 1 is this from here:" Many artist have been influenced by Klimt's electic and decorative style, notably Chris Ofili and Will Teather" which I have to say I find equally strange. Egon Schiele anyone? Johnbod 22:42, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Also in agreement with JNW. Obviously the infobox cannot and should not list every artist who has ever declared Klimt an influence. Johnbod is right, the obvious 1st choice is Schiele. The rules and suggestions in Help:Reverting do not prohibit this revert; here are relevant passages (bolding is mine, italics are my comments):

• Reverting is used primarily for fighting vandalism, or anything very similar to the effects of vandalism. (such as an outstandingly inappropriate but good faith edit more suggestive (with respect) of a fan's enthusiasm than of encyclopedic judgement: Whom should the article name as Klimt's most important followers? The goal is to inform the reader.)

How do you get off calling my edit "outstandingly inappropriate"? I'm not a fan as I'm actually fairly unfamiliar with Wasden's work. Before I added the link to the Wasden article, there wasn't even anything in that field. Your comment makes me feel like I'm in a room of art snobs who are sneering at something they consider far beneath them. Adding the link was hardly inappropriate, let alone outstandingly inappropriate, especially given that fact that the field was completely empty before that. Please try to assume good faith without backhanding me in the same sentence. Looking at the works displayed on Wasden's official site, as well as other galleries around the web, the quality of Wasden's work is at least as good as most others out there, IMHO. We likely disagree on that point, though. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 07:48, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

• If you are not sure whether a revert is appropriate, discuss it first rather than immediately reverting or deleting it. (This seems an easy call.)
• If you feel the edit is unsatisfactory, improve it rather than simply reverting or deleting it. (Not applicable in this case, there's nothing to do but remove it or replace with a more appropriate name.)
• Do not revert good faith edits. In other words, try to consider the editor "on the other end." If what one is attempting is a positive contribution to Wikipedia, a revert of those contributions is inappropriate unless, and only unless, you as an editor possess firm, substantive, and objective proof to the contrary. Mere disagreement is not such proof. (It can be substantively proven that several more notable artists than Wasden are widely recognized as important Klimt disciples; pick up any book on Klimt.) Ewulp 02:30, 2 June 2007 (UTC) Addendum: As Twirling has noted, the infobox is useful as a quick guide to the key facts, not indiscriminate facts or trivia. Even if a reliable source can be found that proves that Edward G. Robinson (a very famous Sunday painter) was influenced by Klimt, it sure doesn't belong in the infobox. Ewulp 03:15, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Okay, as it appears that everyone else was reading more into the instructions on the template than is actually there, I'll just drop it. I still, however, strongly object to JNW's blatant abuse of the rollback tool and completely unrepentant attitude about his abuse. The rollback tool is there to be used only for obvious vandalism, not to revert good faith edits you disagree with. If nothing else, I disagree with his methods in this case. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 07:31, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

It isn't logical to complain about notability when the thing was empty. I agree with you on that. The time to complain about notability is when it has been overloaded with artists and some need to be culled. 107.77.192.92 (talk) 01:31, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Moreover, who determines who is notable in art? Van Gogh sold one painting during his lifetime and only received recognition from the press shortly before he died. A painter Van Gogh praised has been said to have been the person who painted the "worst painting in England" and was excoriated by that critic. A contemporary critic said Emily Dickinson could have become a second-rate lyric poet had she undergone 5 more years of formal education. The problem with art is that it's subjective. Not everything, either, can be determined via auction price history. However... from a practical standpoint there is a limit in terms of how many artists could be included in an influenced panel. Fame is often an echo chamber based on luck. I suppose one solution is to move the less famous artists to an article specifically about artists who have been influenced by Klimt, organizing it from the top down (most famous "notable" to least). This way, Wikipedia doesn't have to ban artists from such a list. Text files take very little space so it's not as if such an article would cause the server to run out of storage. 107.77.192.92 (talk) 01:36, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Much said here already. I do want to add a thought or two, if only because I left last night promising to return. And I do so hoping to strike a conciliatory note which will honor what we each try to do here.

I understand that Nihonjoe's edits were made in good faith, and were not vandalism, and my reversions were not intended to signify otherwise. The reasons for the objection are appreciated. As I wrote here yesterday, if I have acted inappropriately, please accept my apologies.

The points made by Twirling, Johnbod, and Ewulp speak eloquently for my rationale (all three have been invaluable contributors, as has been Nihonjoe). I don't think that the distinctions regarding artists are esoteric, though they could be interpreted that way by scholars in other disciplines. To writers on art, and artists themselves, the distinctions are important. Rather than maintain that only 'masters' can be cited, it is better to say that we are relying on the judgments of established art historians (here I smile, because, of course, the whole business will always be subjective, but hopefully time, good sourcing, and a system of editorial checks and balances attains something approaching solid scholarship). For Klimt a strong example would be Egon Schiele, for Degas it would be Walter Sickert.

Finally, under the heading of It's a Small World: Upon further reading, it turns out that Mr. Wasden studied with a friend of mine from student days in New York City. So, my very best regards to Mr. Wasden, and to his teacher, my old pal Andy Reiss. Respectfully, JNW 18:49, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

death

How did Gustav Klimt die?--xgmx (T | C | D | R | DR)

Good question. This article says Stroke and pneumonia. The article on the 1918 flu pandemic (aka the Spanish flu) lists Klimt as one of the prominent victims, but gives no reference. Does anyone have a reference? —MiguelMunoz (talk) 02:39, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I have a doubt

Does "Schloss" refers to "castel"? I supose it is german, so it can be a lock or a castle... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.27.16.94 (talk) 17:25, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Klimt "purely sexually interested as women as objects" ????

I am concerned that a general emphasis in the article might appear suggesting that a high level of sexual explicitness in Klimt's work automatically means that a) it is less valuable as artwork, b) it is exploiting women or in some way derogatory to women, and c) it uses a veil of artistic value to disguise ordinary pornography.

It seems to me a very opinionated, narrow assumption that something sexually explicit is, per se, less artistic or in some other way tarnished.

For example, in the section titled "Golden phase and critical success," phrases like "his drawings often reveal purely sexual interest in women as objects" seem to be quite subjective... that is to say, is it really plain to everyone, from his paintings alone, that he was "purely" interested in "women as objects"? I don't think so – indeed I'd say quite the contrary. If these statements can't be sourced from some well-recognised, expert analysis they should be removed from the article. I've put "citation needed" after those I'm most concerned with, and I'll remove the statements sooner or later if no citation is available because as I've explained they are out of place. I'm not an expert on Klimt so I'd be interested to know if this is in fact what the authorities say.

There may be other similarly inclined emphases in the article, so I'll look for those too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Et Amiti Gel (talk • contribs) 05:52, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Redirect from "Die Hoffnung"

If you put a redirect to this article here, you should at least mention the keyword in the article, otherwise remove the redirect ASAP! - Joe King —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.159.108.188 (talk) 12:42, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Incorrect statement in first paragraph

The first paragraph contains the following incorrect (or at least misleading) statement, "His major works include paintings, murals, sketches, and other art objects, many of which are on display in the Vienna Secession gallery." I have just returned from Vienna, where I spent a morning in the Secessionist Gallery in addition to visiting as many museums as I could find containing Klimt pieces. The only work by Klimt now in the Secessionist building is his famous Beethoven Frieze, which is on permanent display there. The rest of that museum is now devoted to exhibits by contemporary artists. The museum in Vienna that has the largest collection of Klimt works appears to be the Leopold Museum. The Belvedere also has many works by Klimt, including "The Kiss."

Fhjern (talk) 01:35, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Descent

Was Klimt part Cherokee or Choctaw?Lestrade (talk) 02:19, 31 March 2010 (UTC)Lestrade

Copyright violation?

Nearly all of the article has been directly copied from this website: http://www.klimtgallery.org/ This material is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial No-Derivatives License. Because it is not licensed for use in derivative works, it may not suitable for it to be used on wikipedia other than as a reference source. Thedeepestblue (talk) 19:37, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh really? If you check their "full biography", you will see "(from wikipedia)" at the end. Doh! Johnbod (talk) 01:19, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Famous?

How is Klimt famous? Was Klimt famous when he was alive? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.70.164.86 (talk • contribs) at 14:15, 26 April 2005

yes he was actually very famous when he was alive, being one of Vienna's most prominent painters during his era. -- 76.179.69.188 20:05, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

...*more sausage*... Johnfloyd6675 (talk) 05:20, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Symbolist?

I know that he is usually associated with symbolism, but his later works look expressionistic to me (Girlfriends, The Maiden, his late portraits and so on) but in a beautiful way, thus it would be incorrect to call him only a symbolist painter. I'm proposing that we remove this symbolist and put only painter for this alone is what he was. 5.43.163.116 (talk) 10:56, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

He wasn't an expressionist he was a Symbolist see - Metropoltan Museum of Art, Neuegalerie, Art History Archive among others...Modernist (talk) 11:33, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Gustav Klimt. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060504024626/http://dks.thing.net:80/NS-KlimtSetsRecord.html to http://dks.thing.net/NS-KlimtSetsRecord.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:10, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Nazi plunder

That article begins thus:

"Nazi plunder refers to art theft and other items stolen as a result of the organized looting of European countries during the time of the Third Reich by agents acting on behalf of the ruling Nazi Party of Germany."

So how can one justify changing a source which says "... art stolen by the Nazis" to "... art confiscated by the Nazis", on the basis that "states do only confiscate, not "steal""? Martinevans123 (talk) 17:22, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

I agree. One should not change the phrasing of the reliable sources to fit one's original ideas. Dr. K. 17:36, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Why is "Lady with a Fan" missing?

Why is "Lady with a Fan" missing? Is there some discrepancy on its origin? I think the model used for the painting is the same woman shown in "Girl Friends" Its dtd aft that work, I believe 1917 1918 and may have been the last painting he completed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.154.1.227 (talk) 04:57, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

File:Gustav Klimt - Beech Grove I - Google Art Project.jpg to appear as POTD soon

Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Gustav Klimt - Beech Grove I - Google Art Project.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on December 31, 2019. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2019-12-31. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :) Thanks! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:26, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Picture of the day

Beech Grove I, by the Austrian artist Gustav Klimt (1862–1918), is an oil-on-canvas painting dated 1902. It is part of a collection of about 300 paintings held by the Galerie Neue Meister in Dresden, Germany.

Klimt, one of the most prominent members of the Vienna Secession movement, is best known for his opulent, symbol-laden portraits of the Viennese bourgeoisie, but his landscapes represent an important aspect of his career. For many years he travelled each summer through the Austrian and Italian countryside, painting and sketching as he went. In this work, he captures shafts of light illuminating the bare trunks of young beech trees above a litter of leaves on the forest floor.Painting credit: Gustav Klimt

Source Edits

I added a source for the 150th birthday celebrations in Vienna. Mettsis (talk) 00:26, 27 February 2021 (UTC)