A fact from Portrait of Mary Adeline Williams appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 30 September 2010 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
Did you know... that critics debate whether the differences between Thomas Eakins' two portraits of Mary Adeleine Williams(second portrait pictured) are the result of an affair between the pair?
This 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.Visual artsWikipedia:WikiProject Visual artsTemplate:WikiProject Visual artsvisual arts articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chicago, which aims to improve all articles or pages related to Chicago or the Chicago metropolitan area.ChicagoWikipedia:WikiProject ChicagoTemplate:WikiProject ChicagoChicago articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
Is this: as far as I've seen none of the biographers have mentioned the change in vantage point. In the first painting Eakins is looking down slightly on Addie, in the second looking slightly up. Painters know that this change of perspective has an implicit emotional and psychological effect on the image, and it's just what you'd expect: the first tending to diminish the persona, the latter rendering her more glorified or dominant. Also, the composition of the second image follows to the letter the template of Eakins' earlier portrait of Maud Cook, with the differences explained by age and personality. JNW (talk) 00:45, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I've reverted the template which brought the two images together [1]; I find the images are more organically integrated into the text without the template. It's not my intention to take ownership of the article, and no offense is intended--further comment welcome. JNW (talk) 02:43, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
