This is an archive of past discussions about Marc Chagall. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Curious that Virginia Haggard was not mentioned in the article. She was his companion and had a child with him. Source: "My Life with Chagall: Seven Years of Plenty" by Virginia Haggard.
(The above unsigned comment was posted by User:24.84.169.31 at 02:50, 29 November 2005).
Is there a Chagall Foundation a group which owns the rights andso forth?
-jrj
Don't know if they "own the rights" however the Comité Marc Chagall in Paris is the only authenticator of his works.
ITFish15:10, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
--Chagallgolem (talk) 09:02, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Le comité Marc Chagall
35, quai de l'horloge
75001 Paris
The commitee deliver certificat of authenticity only for paintings, gouaches and drawings, not for identification for lithographs, etchings and posters (graphic works).
For the graphic work of Chagall, veru useful site : http://www.chagall.fr
on line complete catalogue of the printed graphic work (2000 images) and expert advices for Chagall's lithographs, etchingsa nd woodcuts —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chagallgolem (talk • contribs) 09:14, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
La Mariée
Does anyone have a confirmed source for the year of origin of La Mariée? Its article, image and the List of Chagall's artwork have it at 1950, but an editor recently tried to change the year to 1927. I did a Google search, and while some entries came up for 1950, others (including many on eBay) came up with 1927. I haven't found a source I feel is reliable or "official" and I've even tried "looking inside" some Marc Chagall books on Amazon.com. Whatever the correct answer, we should provide a reliable and verifiable source to prevent future inquiries. — TAnthonyTalk22:47, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Symbolism in Chagall's work
Chagall himself denies intended symbolism in his works, why post a list of his supposed meanings? That should be left purely to each viewer to interpret as it's not the artist's original intent.
"If a symbol should be discovered in a painting of mine, it was not my intention. It is a result I did not seek. It is something that may be found afterwards, and which can be interpreted according to taste." --Marc Chagall
Perhaps this article should be locked given the apparent persistent vandalism. How does one report such incidents? (Article was locked as I was writing this :) Moretz (talk) 07:20, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm sure it won't be as big of a deal tomorrow, after Google changes back their logo. Those articles always seem to be a target for vandals. Hpfreak26 (talk) 13:17, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Image:MarcChagallGoogleLogo.gif
Today, in honor of Marc Chagall's birthday, the nice people at Google have changed their logo for a day. I was about to make a change in the article relating to this honor, only to find out it had already been done. So, I have uploaded the logo and placed it in the article, I hope this will brighten up the article and this very special day that honors a very special artist. I, for one, think that having your own Google logo is something to be proud of, and, if he were still alive today, I am sure Marc would have been happy.
WebberTakito 15:46, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Name
The are some inconsitencies with his name.
The Russian name given in the introduction in Cyrillic and transliterated is "Mark Shagal". But the Belarusian is "Moisha Shagalow". Later in the Biography section it says he was born "Moishe Shagal", which was rendered as "Mark Shagalov" in the Russian language. Clearly there are some mix-ups here.
Basically Moishe and Moisha are the Russian and Belarusian variants respectively of the name Moses.
Shagalov is the Russian spelling of his surname
Shagalow is the Belarusian spelling of his surname.
Shagal was the Yiddish variant.
Now, as far as I'm aware, he would have been known as Shagalov / Shagalow officially in the Russian Empire, but as Shagal among the Jewish community there. I assume he used the Yiddish variant upon leaving the Russian Empire. The problem then is after he became famous in France, his name re-entered the Russian language as Shagal (without the -ov suffix). I am just making educated guesses here, does anyone know for sure if this is correct and correct the article as appropriate. 86.15.31.62 (talk) 18:21, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
I work for a Jewish university and it was recently brought to my attention (as webmaster, probably to get us to post a news article or something) that Chagall converted to Christianity and is now buried in a Christian cometary. Here's the email I received for reference:
"I would like hereby to bring your attention to the fact that Chagall converted to Christianity and is buried in a Christian cemetery. It is strange that he is being touted in several places right now. His later work was saccharine and he traded in on a sentimentality of the lost world of east European Jews from which he came but for which religious tenets he seems to have had little respect. He has been recognized as a Jewish artist and his work in in places like the Lincoln Center as though this honors Judaism, but it just put money into Chagall's pocket."
Kind-of biased, but the simple fact that he converted should be looked into and added to this Wiki.
There is no record of him having converted. The very idea is absurd. He spent his last years living in a small artist colony near Nice, and there were no Jewish cemetaries around. His wife arranged to have him burried there for convenience. His gravestone does not show a cross.
On the web site of the German city of Mainz, they state, "St. Stephen’s is the only German church for which the Jewish artist Marc Chagall (1887 - 1985) created windows." [1]
If you actually work for a "Jewish university," they would have a library and could easily verify the question. Your email "...but it just put money into Chagall's pocket," sounds fake. Please back it up.
Sorry if this is actually incorrect (or at least, sounds incorrect), I have no in-depth knowledge regarding this matter, which is why I simply posted this for discussion. I'm sure they DO have many many records regarding matters as such, however. I do not have the time or energy to research this in-depth. Particularly since I'm not Jewish, but happen to receive many emails from random people (being the webmaster and all).
Here's a link hinting he created art for christian establishments, but still retained his Jewish faith:
[2]
"[xvii] The production of Christian art does not necessarily involve a belief in Christianity. Marc Chagall, of Jewish background, created stained glass art with biblical scenes for European churches."
Section moved. An earlier editor stated that Chagall did not declare that he used symbols intentionally. If there are citations for this topic they should be included.
The Fiddler, 1912-1913
Cow: life par excellence: milk, meat, leather, horn, power.
Tree: another life symbol.
Cock (rooster): fertility, often painted together with lovers.
Bosom (often naked): eroticism and fertility of life (Chagall loved and respected women).
Fiddler: in Chagall's town Vitebsk the fiddler made music at crosspoints of life (birth, wedding, death).
Herring (often also painted as a flying fish): commemorates Chagall's father working in a fish factory.
Pendulum Clock: time, and modest life (in the time of prosecution at the Loire River the pendulum seems being driven with force into the wooden box of the pendulum clock).
Candlestick: two candles symbolize the Shabbat or the Menorah (candlestick with seven candles) or the Hanukkah-candlestick, and therefore the life of pious Jews (Chassidim).
Windows: Chagall's Love of Freedom, and Paris through the window.
Houses of Vitebsk (often in paintings of his time in Paris): feelings for his homeland.
Scenes of the Circus: Harmony of Man and Animal, which induces Creativity in Man.
Crucifixion: an unusual subject for a Jewish painter, and likely a response to the rise of anti-Semitism in Germany in the late 1930s.[1]
The foreign spellings below were removed from the article for discussion purposes. Being on the English Wiki site these spellings seem to add a barrier to easy reading of this article by looking uninviting to readers and totally out of place. If a reader cannot read English he wouldn't be here. If anyone can show the special necessity of having this anywhere in the article they can discuss it here.
(Yiddish: מאַרק שאַגאַל; Belarusian: Мойша Захаравіч Шагалаў Mojša Zaharavič Šagałaŭ; Russian: Марк Захарович Шага́л Mark Zakharovich Shagal)
Well for the foreign people we usually have the spelling in their own script. It is quite a useful piece of info, it simplifies search and if English spelling is not well established it helps to prevent ambiguity. For Chagall the positives are weaker than usual: all the spellings are already in interwikis and his English spelling is quite well established. On the other hand, the negatives are stronger than usual as the three spellings create clutter. I would not object in removing the native spellings for Chagall as case of an exception 04:49, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
"Quote" cited twice, each citation from a different source
This quote appears twice:
However, "Chagall was considered a non-person by the Soviets because he was Jewish and a painter whose work did not celebrate the heroics of the Soviet people." As a result, he soon moved to Paris with his wife, never to return.
First it is cited as being from Lewis, Michael J. “Whatever Happened to Marc Chagall?” Commentary, October, 2008 pgs. 36-37 and, after it is repeated, is cited from a different source, Slater, Elinor and Robert. Great Jewish Men, (1996) Jonathan David Publ. Inc. pgs. 84-87
Barring the polemics of this quote (the Soviet Union at the time was perhaps the only country to officially denounce antisemitism; Leon Trotsky, head of the Red Army as well as one of two or three most politically influential people at the time, was Jewish), this is needless repetition enclosed with potentially invented citation, and I am revising the sentences to express what needs to be communicated with more neutral language. Undeniably (talk) 08:54, 29 August 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Undeniably (talk • contribs) 08:26, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
The debate is covered with some degree of depth in the articles on Russian avant-garde and Socialist Realism (and in other places as well) and certainly included Chagall. Personally speaking, I am fine with leaving the contextual information out and only included it to replace the less-than-neutral quote without stripping the information of its potentially political context (in this case being possible reasons for his leaving). I agree with it sounding like OR in this case, and welcome anyone to edit it. Undeniably (talk) 05:33, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
Revisions
I've gone ahead and revised the article which I've posted here for review: Revised version of Marc Chagall article This is only for the text without the pictures, which would be added back in. The original material was mostly incorporated into this revision except where it was redundant and unsourced. Besides the new sources added, there were many sections added to help break up the body and allow for quick TOC searching.
Anyone interested can review this and feel free to make any typo changes, grammar errors, etc. directly on my sandbox page. Any other comments or suggestions would be welcome. Unless there are any major problems I'll plan to post the revision in place of the current article after a while, since I'm still adding material and editing. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 22:27, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
Here is a vast collection of Chagall's work: Chagall fine art gallery
I personally find it valuable and appropriate to be added to the external links. Thoughts on this?
I say that any link providing a vast gallery full of pictures drawn by a specific person always helps, and maybe even not in the links section, but somewhere inside the article. Oh, and sorry if the Google logo crossed the line for this section of the talk page. WebberTakito 15:51, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Czuttel (talk) 16:20, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
Could a responsible party please add to Marc Chagall's information that a most favored one of his works includes the three stained glass windows in the Fraumuster in Zurich, Switzerland, a highlight for visitors to the city. The oral history I was given was that many Swiss citizens objected to a Jew contributing to a Christian cathedral. I was there in the mid-80s, and a bank of chairs was set before the windows to accommodate the many visitors coming to experience how the images seem to take on movement and rise upward. I belive the Cathedral might also have posted special hours just to visit the windows.
16:20, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
I’m trying to establish whether 7 July 1887 is a Julian or Gregorian date, or something else, but there’s very little I can find about it.
This appears to discuss the issue, but it’s corrupted and not very readable. The google summary quotes ”According to the official family birth certificate, MovshaShagal was born on June 24, 1887. 3S He added thirteen days to June 24, and got the magic figures …”
If he was really born 24 June 1887 (Julian), the correct conversion to Gregorian would be to add 12 days (19th century) and arrive at 6 July 1887.
This is a horoscope based on what they claim is the Gregorian date 7 July, and at 3 pm (how the heck they know this is beyond me). They use our article for their text, so that seems to be their source for the date.
The above link is now fine and is very revealing. It says he was born 24 June 1887 (Julian), which corresponds to 6 July 1887 Gregorian, not 7 July. Making this basic sort of error in converting dates between calendars was common enough. However, virtually all other sources now quote the apparently wrong "7 July" date, but virtually none of them say which calendar it's from, which says something about their sense of forensic inquiry. Is this sole source enough to supplant the weight of other "reliable" sources? -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 12:04, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
Well, since the other "reliable" sources just repeat whatever the other "reliable" sources say, they're not reliable after all. I've changed the dates and explained the story. -- Jack of Oz[your turn]02:31, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
Hi,
The photography With his wife Bella is not true. The woman with Chagall is Virginia Haggard, with whom he has a son, David, but he was not married to her. Thanks to change the photography or the title of the photography.
Have a nice day! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.94.141.178 (talk) 15:14, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
That was the caption under the photo which was published in a biographical book. If you can show this is not correct, please give us a source to check. Thanks. Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 17:54, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
The description of the photo was changed to "with Virginia McNeill" on Jan. 18, 2009 (oldid=264824210), no explanation provided. It's strange because there're inconsistencies in the description of of the file itself. Chimin 07 (talk) 07:06, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
His relationship with his Jewish identity was "unresolved and tragic", Davies states.
Is there any evidence for this view? It does not tally with anything I have read. Indeed I'm not entirely sure what it means.
This article does not have a single note of criticism of or doubt about the artist.
I find that difficult.
Is there really no aesthetic critical opinion finding deep problems with Chagall's line for example, the recurrent claustrophobic curve in the bodies of his figures?
I have just modified 2 external links on Marc Chagall. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
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.
I have just modified 5 external links on Marc Chagall. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
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.
Israel was formed in 1948, therefore "he used the assignment as an excuse to travel to Israel to experience for himself the Holy Land. He arrived there in February 1931" cannot be correct. Today's territory of Israel was part of Mandatory Palestine from 1927-1948. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.12.211.40 (talk) 21:25, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Belarusian nationality of Marc Chagall (correction needed please)
"Born in the former Grand Duchy of Lithuania, modern-day Belarus". The nationality of Marc Chagall needs to be changed to "belarusian", as the territory was under occupation by Russia for many years and therefore, if it is not corrected, all the belarusian artists and writers, etc. person composing its cultural legacy would disappear by assimilation to Russian. The same happened with Ukraine. Nowadays, a number of online sources are correcting this inaccurate reference to the Russian nationality. Moreover, he was not allowed to go to "central" Russia (including Saint Petersburg where he has to hide he was jew). "The Tsarist Empire had strong laws against Jews that prevented them from living in central Russia and so they were forced to the borders". For example, on Britannica website you can read "Marc Chagall, (born July 7, 1887, Vitebsk, Belorussia, Russian Empire [now in Belarus]—died March 28, 1985, Saint-Paul, Alpes-Maritimes, France), Belorussian-born French painter, " https://www.britannica.com/biography/Marc-Chagall This seems a more accurate approach. Thank you for taking your time. Anastasiya Homchenko (talk) 13:33, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
His Nationality
Since Belarus was a part of Russia and Soviet Union during all his lifetime, and he was also a jew not an ethnic belarrusian, I think his first nationality must appear as russian.85.243.69.53 (talk) 15:51, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Ok, but then why russian? And not kazahk, lithuanian, estonian or any other nationality from any other country which was a part of USSR? Soviet is not equal to russian. It's just a common "speaking" opinion of non-intellegent people with poor aducation which is, i beleive, unacceptable in wikipedia. All people living in the republics of USSR kept their nationalities. If you do not want to recognize a jew born in Belarussian Republic of USSR as a Belarusian you should say that he was a jewish person born in the USSR (namely BSSR) and not Russian anyhow. Istvan Gyulai (talk) 20:27, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
Similarly, "of Jewish origin" seems to suggest he was not Jewish (i.e. denounced it), I don't believe this is the case or indeed intended. Perhaps "a Russian Jew from Belarus" would be most accurate? Oboler (talk) 20:28, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Jewish under nationality should definitely be changed. Because there is no nation named Jew. That may be marked as his religion or even his ethnicity, but for purposes of accuracy it should not be listed under nationality. Oh, and his nationality should be listed as russian because the area he was born was under the Russian Empire at the time of birth. Daoriginoograpebeer (talk) 05:46, 2 May 2009 (UTC) DaOriginooGrapeBeer
Hi everyone,
The nationality was incorrectly coming as "Russian" and this have been corrected to "Belarusian-Jewish", which reflects both facts- where the Master was born and his heritage.
The fact that Belarus at the time was under Russian Empire occupation does not make everyone in that territory Russian. Similarly to other cultural ethnics like Chechnya, Korelia etc. And likewise to USSR which kept its territories with loads of civil victims.
No offence to the Russians, but let's be cool about our bleeding history.
I changed it back to "Russian-French". As explained, Belarus was part of the Russian Empire. Even if he would born in Alaska, he would be still Russian, and not American, as it was part of the Russian Empire. Chechnya, Korelia, etc also belongs to Russia, that means his nationality would be still Russian. Regards.--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫Heyit's me21:40, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
Every Russian has a citizenship and a nationality. If Chagall was ethnically Jewish in Russia, his nationality would be Jewish and his citizenship would be Russian. It doesn't matter what his religion is. Religion doesn't come into it. Santamoly (talk) 05:59, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
Hi, I have just posted regarding his nationality but see there was already a similar post. You say it was corrected to "Belarusian-Jewish", although it does not appear... In the first phrase of the article it still says Russian. Thank you. Anastasiya Homchenko (talk) 13:37, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
I have removed the ethnic label altogether. It is to controversial - should be something like Jewish-Lithuanian-Belarusian-Russian-French-American. It is just too long and controversial. Does not worth the edit warring. Alex Bakharev (talk) 02:14, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
Please see the more accurate way of referring to his nationality at Britannica website, which seems to lift all the doubts and leave legacy to belarusian culture : https://www.britannica.com/biography/Marc-Chagall
"Marc Chagall, (born July 7, 1887, Vitebsk, Belorussia, Russian Empire [now in Belarus]—died March 28, 1985, Saint-Paul, Alpes-Maritimes, France), Belorussian-born French painter, printmaker..." Anastasiya Homchenko (talk) 13:39, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
By this logic, Adam Mickiewicz should also be listed as "Russian Poet". Belarus did not fall under Russian Empire in a peaceful manner. Claiming Marc Chagall as Russian is promotion of Colonialism! Seizing land with an army and then poaching all cultural value and claiming it as yours is WRONG! Citizenship is one thing, Nationality is completely different! The way some of you are suggesting to post his birthplace - insinuates zero difference between Russia and BelarusTrill ille (talk) 14:56, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
Well, if you can demonstrate that Chagall is normally described as Belarusian (rather than Russian) in most reliable sources. Mind you, a Belarusian website doesn't count as it's bound to have a nationalist bias, and websites like this aren't generally reliable to begin with. – Uanfala (talk)01:02, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
The only reason why other sources publish his nationality as Russian, is because Russia controlled Belarus for over 200 years. Anything published from Russia or lands controlled by Russia at the time were with RUSSIAN biased! This is the reason why so much national significance was looted from other states. We took it for face value – just because! This is the same reason why for so long Belarus was called Byelorussia and not BELARUS… Because that is what name was given to it by RUSSIA! Now, please give me a logical explanation why we consider Wayne Gretzky and Justin Bieber Canadian (while Canada is still technically under British Crown) and not British, we consider Adam Mickiewicz Polish (while unlike Belarus, Poland was never an independent state in his lifetime) yet Marc Chagall is Russian… Do you see a double standard there? Trill ille (talk) 01:16, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
Again, this is a clear promotion of Russian Colonialism, it is not Nationalist to consider Chagall Russian (although he was not born there, and had to escape their controlled lands because of archaic laws that promoted discrimination of Ashkenazi Jews) and yet Belarus claiming Chagall as Belarusian is nationalism? I am sorry, but we cannot continue to make errors just because those errors were made by people in the past. I ask you to use your critical thinking and best judgment, and explain to me why it is okay to call Chagall Russian, just because he was born in a country forcefully occupied by Russian Empire.Trill ille (talk) 01:25, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
I can provide hundreds of notable Belarusians that were historically incorrectly identified as Russian, but for most of them things have changed. Its time we fix a historic error in regards to Chagall. Trill ille (talk) 01:34, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
Here is a website of Ministry of Culture of the Russian Federation that lists Chagall's country of origin as Belarus.[1] Sorry its in Russian, but I am sure google translate can help.Trill ille (talk) 19:57, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
That Russian website only gives his birth place as Belarus, it doesn't say anything about nationality. We can't give the place of birth just as Belarus: when he was born the entity didn't exist. What we should do – and that's what's done everywhere on wikipedia (yes, even on Adam Mickiewicz), is give the place, then comma, then the country this as part of at the time of his birth, then in brackets what present-day country this is part of. I think we should all agree on that. What is contentious, is how we should describe his nationality and ethnicity. We can't use the Belarusian website as a source, no doubt about that; but we don't need to as there are neutral sources that do describe him as Belarusian (Encyclopedia Britannica being one of them). But we also do have good sources that have him as Russian (as was the one used in the article before your edits). I don't have a strong opinion here and I'm not interested in taking part in this discussion: let others decide. I'm just sharing some further thoughts. The analogy with the Polish is not helpful in this case: if we can say Mickiewicz was Polish (ethnically), we can't say Chagall was Belarusian, because his ethnicity was Jewish. Just Jewish? Belarusian Jewish? Sounds good. But just Belarusian?, no. – Uanfala (talk)01:26, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for your feedback. Respectfully, I don't think we view nationality/citizenship/ethnicity similarly. The way I am proposing to post the article is: Belarusian-French artist of Jewish origin. There are lots of points in the article that tie Chagall to Russia (country with the weakest claim). Belarus was and is a multi ethnic nation. With your argument, I am confused why a Jewish person, born and raised in Belarus (occupied by Russia at the time) should be considered Russian? I provided sources from The official website of Ministry of Culture of the Russian Federation, where he is listed as Belarusian. I have provided source from official website of Republic of Belarus where he is listed as Belarusian. I have now even added source from Britanica (although I also disagree with how it is worded). Yet, with no published sources, the automatic default is back to Russian? My case is: During the Russian occupation of other states, all information that got out to the world was in Russian language, and consisted of Russian biased. This allowed Russia to unjustly colonize culture of other countries and claim it as their own. This did not just end there... Russia also went above and beyond to wipe Belarusian cultural elite from the face of the earth. Soviet repressions in Belarus, [2] The fact that such major portion of people in the West consider Marc Chagall Russian, with no logical explanation, only confirms the success of Russification of other nation's culture. The overall consensus I am seeing here is "Chagall was always considered Russian (from the time of Russian Empire and Soviet Union), and we should continue to do so, without looking into whether it was correct in the first place". My argument is, if we ignore the mistakes made by others in the past, and use our critical thinking we can instantly see a major error... In case of Adam Mickiewicz and all other notable Poles who lived their entire life under Russian Empire, they got the benefit of the doubt (even who were jewish). Belarus? well that's Russia... Right? Trill ille (talk) 14:50, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
@Trill ille: You are to find consensus here, which means you need to have a discussion and find enough editors that agree with you. You can't just unilaterally make changes that several editors disagree with. The existing text is sourced. That means we leave it as is until consensus is reached here. You should also start a new section at the bottom of the page so more editors will see it. You've joined a thread that is 11 years old and few people will be reading this. freshacconci (✉)15:47, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
Hi @Freshacconci:@Uanfala:@Alex Bakharev: I have stated my reasoning and logic, yet my sourced contribution continues to be reverted with accusation of vandalism. Not a single explanation has been provided. This is absolutely not how things are done here! If you are so entrenched in considering Marc Chagall Russian just because he was born on Russian occupied land, then here is a list of other painters who's Wiki page should be changed to Russian... Mikalojus Konstantinas ČiurlionisBen ShahnWilliam Zorach. It took time for Poles and Fins to correct this historic error, and I am 100% positive time will come when Belarusians are no longer considered to be Russian strictly by default. Russification happened over generations, it will take generations to reverse the damage done, and to change entrenched minds. Good Day!Trill ille (talk) 18:55, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
Joseph Stalin was alive around the same time period, unlike Belarus, Georgia never held independence in his lifetime. He was a negative historic figure and for that reason, he is listed as Georgian and Soviet... Marc Chagall, positive figure, therefore he will be considered Russian with no questions asked. Do you see a double standard? Trill ille (talk) 20:54, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
Guys, I think the French wiki has the best way to resolve this issue. It says: "est un peintre et graveur né le 7 juillet 1887 à Liozna près de Vitebsk en Biélorussie (alors intégrée à l'Empire russe), naturalisé français en 1937 et mort le 28 mars 1985 à Saint-Paul-de-Vence où il est enterré". Which means "is a painter (etc) born in Belarus (at that time integrated into Russian empire) and naturalised French". I think this is the most neutral way, still saying where he was born (mentioning both Belarus and Russian empire) and also specifying that he was naturalised French (so it is clear that he was not born half-French). I would then suggest the following text "is a painter and engraver born July 7, 1887 in Liozna near Vitebsk in Belarus (then part of the Russian Empire), naturalized French in 1937 and died March 28, 1985 in Saint-Paul-de-Vence where he is buried". If no any better suggestions from your side within a week, I will update to this. Have a great day! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anastasiya Homchenko (talk • contribs) 14:11, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
Trivia
Section and contents moved here seeming more like trivia than anything worthy of being called "culture."
References in popular culture
In the movie Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country, a print of Chagall's Adam and Eve Expelled from Paradise is displayed on one of the walls of Spock's Enterprise ship quarters. When asked, he explains that the image is a philosophical reminder to him that all things must eventually end.
Also, in the song "Painting by Chagall" by The Weepies.
Chegal is also a character in Dara Horn's novel "The World to Come," featuring as an art teacher to young orphans in The Soviet Union. The theft of a Chegal painting from The Museum of Hebraic Art concludes the opening chapter of the novel. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Light show (talk • contribs) 17:00, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
_-_Google_Art_Project.jpg)
_Mus%C3%A9e_d%27art_et_d%27histoire_du_Juda%C3%AFsme.jpg){kind=link}
_Mus%C3%A9e_d%27art_et_d%27histoire_du_Juda%C3%AFsme.jpg){kind=link}