Talk:The Fighting Temeraire

was called fighting temeraire

[1] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 202.156.11.1 (talk) 14:37, August 21, 2007 (UTC)

Symbol of Industrial Revolution

Unfortunately I cannot source it, but I seem to recall hearing that the painting was a reflection of the triumph and success of the industrial revolution while remaining aware of the ironic destruction of that which Turner's contemporary society was most proud, and for what the contemporary society remained proud for. (20040302 (talk) 08:49, 21 October 2011 (UTC))

It is fascinating how Turner regreted the passing of the old, but was happy to celebrate the new (Steam and Speed). It's hard to imagine such a huge talent being applied to a painting of 20th century symbols such as the Shard or Thruist SSC!The Yowser (talk) 12:14, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Poor Image colour control

The image used here is striking, but the gaudy colour compared to the images of the painting in reality (or on the National Gallery's web site). Obviously online reproductions can never be 100% faithful to the original, but the example used looks like it has been heavily photoshopped with the saturation turned up to the max! A lot of the subtlety of what is indisputably a masterpiece is lost. The Yowser (talk) 12:14, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

I saw the painting 2 days ago, and it's an awful lot more orange than that. File:Fighting Temeraire.jpg is more accurate in terms of the colours, but is lower resolution. Modest Genius ^talk 21:29, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Artistic licence (or "license" as we spell it on this side of the pond)

In the painting the hulk is being towed away from the setting sun, which has been called historically inaccurate. In his article in Art Quarterly (cited in the "References" section), Louis Hawes states:

Also, the locale of the painting may possibly be "Lime House Reach," near Greenwich and Rotherhithe, which runs south for a brief stretch; this is the one area along the Thames where the setting September sun would appear, in actuality, to the right of the ship, albeit considerably farther to the right than in the painting.

In any event, the "historical inaccuracies" are beside the point. Turner created a symbolic work of art event. As Hawes states: "Turner, of course, would have felt free to place the sun wherever he did regardless of what he actually saw." Watts, fn 6 at p. 43. The painting is no more a realistic depiction of an actual event than is Rain, Steam and Speed – The Great Western Railway or The Burning of the Houses of Lords and Commons. Kablammo (talk) 01:18, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Er, yes. The article does in fact cover pretty much all that. Johnbod (talk) 03:20, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Scurries Across the Water?

I can't help thinking that it's not just the painter who enjoyed some artistic licence; the author of some of the text on this page did so as well.

While I have issue with a couple of small linguistic choices, the one that I find most difficult to swallow is: "The beauty of the old ship is in stark contrast to the dirty blackened tugboat with its tall smokestack, which scurries across the still surface of the river".

Even though the mass of a warship back in the 1800s would only be a small fraction those iron and steel ships that came later, there is no possibility that a vessel towing another, would "scurry" across a river. Not just because it probably couldn't "scurry" but, more importantly, if it "scurried" it wouldn't be able to slow down or stop. Particularly on a busy river. --621PWC (talk) 15:37, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Infobox

@Kablammo: Re: [2]. I'm happy to discuss this. I've been working on developing {{Infobox artwork/wikidata}}, and discussion has been on the talk page. You said it looks terrible - can you be more specific please? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 01:04, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Mike, I have started a discussion on the subject at the talk page for the arts project. Kablammo

(talk) 03:00, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Did Turner actually see this?

I edited the page's answer to the above question based on Moyle's 2016 book: "There remains doubt whether Turner actually saw this event, despite several accounts that place him at different locations on the river." Sullidav (talk) 02:44, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

I believe the Hawes article is to the same effect (I will check on that). Kablammo (talk) 02:55, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Same topic is addressed by Matthew Morgan in the National Gallery video linked at the bottom of the Wikipedia page, from about 17:10 to 20:00. He say, inter alia, Lots of reports of Turner witnessing it, one seems not credible and was denied, Turner never said he saw it ... it is possible that he saw this, ... but if he did, that is not what he saw. I like to think he saw it being broken up and imagined how it got there. Sullidav (talk) 03:05, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

An edit of 15 April 2020 by Stephencdickson changes the article's conclusion on the above point, with no explanation. After that April 2020 edit, the page states unequivocally that Turner DID witness the event that he depicted in the painting. For this assertion it cites Thornbury, a source from the 1800s. Modern scholarship questions this - see, e.g., the Franny Moyle book that I cited and quoted above, and the Matthew Morgan talk linked on the page that I note above, and possibly the Hawes article cited above by Kablammo. I admittedly have not yet tried to look up Thornbury, but it is likely one or more of the "accounts" and "reports" that are cited and doubted by Moyle and Morgan in the quotations above.

Compare quotes of three versions of the page's key sentence, below.

I thought, based current scholarship, that the page was wrong before 2018 when it definitively said that Turner *did not* witness the event he painted, and I edited accordingly then. I think the page is is equally wrong now to say definitively that Turner *did* witness it. I will try to check the Thornbury source but at a minimum, in my current view, the page should reflect both positions on the question and note that the source of one is from the 1800s while the other is the current view of scholars. I plan to edit accordingly in the fairly near future. Reactions welcome here before I do so. Thanks.

The article's sentence before my January 2018 edits:

He almost certainly did not witness the actual towing of Temeraire and used considerable licence in the painting which had a symbolic meaning for him, that his first audience immediately appreciated.

The sentence following my January 2018 edits:

He may or may not have witnessed the actual towing of Temeraire and used considerable licence in the painting which had a symbolic meaning for him, that his first audience immediately appreciated.

The sentence following the April 2020 edit by Stephencdickson (which is the current version of the sentence):

Turner witnessed the ship on tow whilst boating off Greenwich marshes with Clarkson Stanfield some time around noon on 5 September 1838.

Sullidav (talk) 16:56, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Since there was no response or further discussion, today I made the correcting edit that I discussed above as planned, essentially undoing an April 2020 edit. Note that the Matthew Morgan National Gallery lecture specifically questions the Clarkson Stanfield story that was added as factual in the April 2020 edit. Sullidav (talk) 15:58, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

References