Talk:Britomart Redeems Faire Amoret

Girls in armour

You mentioned on your talk today "this is on the—very unusual for the time—subject of a woman in full military kit fighting and defeating a man." Sources permitting, you might mention the quite extensive tradition of battling babes in armour in depictions of Gerusalemme liberata, and some similar works - eg Bradamante in Ariosto. Clorinda (Jerusalem Delivered) is the top gal here. If it wasn't for the wholly unacceptable treatment of Islam, Tasso would be ripe for a Hollywood franchise, full of super-powers, magic, sex and warrior girls. GL was the dominant source of such imagery from the 16th to 18th centuries in Europe, before mostly being replaced by scenes from Byron and Scott. But we show a Delacroix of Clorinda doing her stuff. Johnbod (talk) 13:27, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

​By this time the western canon already had a steady stream of Joans of Arc (Joan of Arcs?), Nikes and Minervas, and the occasional Bodicea, Teuta and Zenobia as well (and in the Germanic/Scandi schools, a steady supply of shieldmaidens). The notion of warrior women wasn't unheard of, but it was still certainly unusual in the English School. As per the below comment, there's a danger of including so much context that it overwhelms the content. ‑ Iridescent 14:27, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Article should just be about this painting

There's a lot of stuff about Etty himself, who has own Wikipedia page, as well as other works of his, most of which also have their own pages. I think 80%+ of that material should go, leaving only what is directly relevant to this painting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChengduTeacher (talk • contribs) 01:59, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

That is called context, and I'm glad we have it. This painting is not one isolated image: it sits as one example in the artist's career and the history of art. 213.205.198.132 (talk) 06:56, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Overkill?

This is by my count the third painting by William Etty that has (relatively) recently made it to both Featured Article and TFA status. The William Etty article itself is also a featured article, from which a fact appeared in the "Did You Know?" column in 2015. As far as I can tell, Etty, of whom I had literally never heard before I read my first Wiki article about him, has received more Wiki attention than Leonardo, Rembrandt and Goya combined! (Moreover, all the articles themselves stress that Etty, far from being universally regarded as a master in his day, was often dismissed and even reviled by his contemporaries.)

Isn't this a bit of overkill, guys? His work may be *historically* of interest, but why not highlight the works of painters who have both artistic and historical import? Don't you think more celebrated painters should get a chance at a TFA more often? Dylanexpert (talk) 11:00, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

There just aren't the FAs not yet seen on the main page. People write about what they want to. We have of course had many other paintings in the past, but in recent years Etty's and Early Netherlandish ones have been the most numerous, because that's what gets taken to FA. You can see the available articles here. Some of these turn out to be a tad stale when looked at, and I'm not sure we'll be seeing September Morn on the main page, for the same reason the Met hides it away. There is a Goya though. Johnbod (talk) 14:25, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

What he said; I actually share your concerns that we're overdoing Etty (see my response to the original notification), but the choice isn't "Etty or another artist", it's in practice "Etty or no visual arts at all", since we have so few other painting articles. (The Goya I assume is being held back for Halloween; most of the other visual arts articles at WP:FANMP are buildings.) It needs to be pointed out that, notwithstanding concerns about saturation, these articles are consistently popular among readers; this was the third most-viewed TFA of 2018 and the most viewed TFA of 2018 was also an Etty painting. This does appear to be what the readers want to see. (There are only four artworks at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/Most viewed; guess who three of them are by.) ‑ Iridescent 15:14, 10 July 2018 (UTC)