Talk:Portrait of Adele Bloch-Bauer I/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Poster "announcing" the painting's departure from Austria

While the caption of the photographed poster says that it "announces" the painting's departure from Austria, it is in fact a clever advert for the Gewista outdoor media company. A rough English colloquialization of the poster's text would be, "Adele may come and go, but advertising stays forever, because it works: [Get seen] around town with Gewista." Hipgnostic (talk) 14:40, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Unbalanced criticism of Maria Altmann?

The Ownership of the painting portion of the article ends with this paragraph:

"Some in the art world criticized the heirs' decision to sell all of the restituted paintings: specifically, New York Times chief art critic Michael Kimmelman described the heirs as "cashing in", and thus transforming a "story about justice and redemption after the Holocaust" into "yet another tale of the crazy, intoxicating art market". Kimmelman wrote: "Wouldn't it have been remarkable (I'm just dreaming here) if the heirs had decided instead to donate one or more of the paintings to a public institution?"[13]"

I just saw Woman in Gold, and according to the written historical explanation text before the credits, this is an incredibly biased statement to end the section on. The movie claims that Maria Altmann continued working at her previous job, continued living in her modest house, and donated the bulk of the money to charity after selling the painting. This is the opposite of cashing in IMHO; it is an expression of extreme generosity. It seems vaguely antisemitic (in effect, not intention; I'm not guessing at anyone's motives) to end the section of an article dealing with restitution for the holocaust with an accusation of a Jew being greedy if in fact the opposite is true. Could someone with more expertise and/or a reliable source please add balance to this article by adding an account of Maria Altmann's generosity after the Kimmelman's criticism? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theanonomous (talk • contribs) 05:19, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't think theyre criticising a jew for being greedy as much as accusing an individual of being greedy (wether right or wrongly). Is there a term for accusing anyone for antisemitism over anything (as long as a jew is involved)? 130.243.214.100 (talk) 16:20, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm glad to see someone else disappointed with this quote in the article. Regardless of whether the quote comes from a respected critic, not everything a critic says is relevant; It is clearly an odd opinion that could be directed may people, including himself. It is awkward and inappropriate. It doesn't fit with the standards I come to expect in Wikipedia articles. 70.67.8.203 (talk) 20:16, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

This criticism leveled at Ms Altmann and family in this article is unfortunately placed. It comes as a sort of period! to their place in the saga. It would have been far more neutral to have left out Michael Kimmelman's comments altogether due to their minor nature, or to have at least placed them elsewhere within the body of the article to mitigate their impact. Besides which, the Kimmelman criticism overlooks several points.

• How was the family, with their fairly modest means, supposed to safely transport, store, or display in their homes, away from the public gaze, these extremely valuable paintings? What insurance company in their right minds would offer coverage at any price under such circumstances?

• And it was not about the family receiving back these valuable paintings onto their fireplace breasts, but allowing them, the rightful owners, to decide whether to retain the paintings; to sell them to another entity who could ensure their security and allow public access; or even to burn them in a giant football rally bonfire if they so desired. Once again, for a strong woman and her family, it comes down to having the choice to deal with her property as she sees fit, not whether she makes an art critic happy with her choice.

Thank you for your time & Happy Spring in the Northern Hemisphere, Wordreader (talk) 05:43, 27 March 2019 (UTC)