Talk:The Swimming Hole

Good start

Good to see this started. A couple of quick thoughts: All the men in the painting are shown in profile, giving the work an anal sex undertone is problematic because all the men are clearly not shown in profile, and the mention of anal sex seems out of place for the second paragraph--too much, too soon. One wouldn't think of introducing the same idea into the early paragraphs of The Rokeby Venus, for instance, or other great nudes. Incidentally, the swimmer at far right is a self-portrait, and the dog was probably his Irish Setter, Harry, who is also featured in the portrait of his wife Susan in the Metropolitan Museum. JNW (talk) 04:43, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm about to go to bed. Just a few thoughts before I sign off -- I think it's a good start. There's a few things I'd like to see expanded (by myself or someone else):

1. The restoration section should be expanded
2. There seems to be some confusion as to when the nude swimming model pictures were taken. Some sources say 1883, some say 1884, others say 1885.
3. I'd like to see more discussion of the homoeroticism of the work.

Eventually, it might be worth nominating this article as a featured article candidate. Raul654 (talk) 06:02, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I think I can find sources and add content on these and other matters (for instance, the work's likely influence on George Bellows' paintings of boys swimming in the east River), though it might not be immediate. JNW (talk) 13:18, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Heads up

This article is going on DYK in a few hours. Raul654 (talk) 21:59, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

The mention is great, but the hook states that artist Thomas Eakins was fired shortly after the exhibition of The Swimming Hole (pictured), cited as a prime example of homoeroticism in American art; it doesn't specify what he was fired from, and it implies that the painting had a role in his dismissal from the Pennsylvania Academy, an iffy conclusion. The reasons for his departure, as stated in his bio, were many, and had much to do with his behavior and the politics of the Academy. Can a DYK item be edited? JNW (talk) 00:13, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

I've mentioned this at [1]. Sorry I did not notice this earlier--I'm a stranger to the DYK process. JNW (talk) 00:33, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi, JNW and Raul! I also observed that the DYK makes an apparent link between the homoeroticism of this pic and Eakin's dismissmal. This is like bad journalism! I don't like the sensationalism of it! Other than that, I like the article itself! Well done! Reminds me of that wonderful scene in Room with a View which someone on IMDb described with disgust as "massive nudity"! They're not having quite as much of a romp as in Room with a View! .... .... Oh I remember a long hot summer about forty years ago ..... no drought or flood that year, .... and plenty of water in Snaky Creek.... Amandajm (talk) 05:28, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi Amanda. I'm dubious about making that connection, too. Though there may be some recent interpretation in that direction, it appears that the majority of published scholarship is not inclined to make that leap--I would like to find more about this. There were many controversial teaching incidents. Unlike Whitman in his poetry, Eakins was far more ambiguous as to sexual meaning. In his personal life he was quite forward with his female models, and was implicated, fairly or no, in a scandal with a niece, as well as a supposed affair with his wife's best friend. Nonetheless, the connection to Whitman was real, given their friendship and Eakins's portraits of him. I've added something on that, formed a bridge to the recent interpretation, and moved it under 'interpretation'. JNW (talk) 05:55, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Soon I plan to add more on the picture's conservation history. I've also Googled Adams' text, to which Raul654 has already referred, and found interesting content re: interpretations of the painting's erotic content. Apparently writers began to muse openly about the picture's homoerotic content by the 1940s. Lots of speculation, ambiguity, and worth mention, esp. since he notes that there was no other painting in American art to that time featuring so many male nudes. JNW (talk) 18:01, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

I have amended the reference to 'anal sex' to read 'homosexual impulses' "homoerotic interests": I could not find a direct reference to the former terminology in the cited text by Adams, except for the suggestion that Eakins's manipulation of the clay model used in preparation for the diver, his putting 'a spindle through the middle of the figure', constituted a 'symbolic enactment of anal intercourse.' That, a rather far-fetched speculation, does not relate directly to the painted image. If there was a clearer ref that I missed, please discuss or re-introduce. JNW (talk) 17:11, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

"I could not find a direct reference to the former terminology in the cited text by Adams" -- Page 443 (in whatever edition google books is using; it's in the "Love of Looking" chapter): "The idea of anal sex seems to be a subtext in many of Eakin's photographs (such as the ones of Bill Duckett) as well as of paintings such as Swimming. Raul654 (talk) 09:22, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

That page (443) is not available on google books and the comment is too POV to be added as fact, although the speculation is probably reinforced by the ambiguity of Eakins' behaviour and isn't surprising...I am in favor of leaving it out...Modernist (talk) 14:07, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

I did find the page [2], but tend to think along the same lines as Modernist. I don't know if Adams' interpretation stands alone (what is on that and subsequent pages appears to make pretty strong leaps of post-Freudian conjecture) or is representative of the most recent scholarship. But until such readings are clearly more mainstream, I still opt for the more subtle 'homoerotic interests'. Is that too euphemistic? JNW (talk) 15:44, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. I think euphemisms should be avoided - that we should accurately represent what the source actually says. Raul654 (talk) 02:58, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually I still cannot access that page on google books...however I take you at your word that Adams says that or rather that Adams makes a statement that goes beyond anything Lloyd Goodrich, Fairfield Porter, Sidney Kirkpatrick, Darrel Sewell, Nica Gutman, or Mark Tucker have written. Frankly the one Adams source just reads as POV to me and should not be used here, we need a corroborative source for what amounts to a pseudo Freudian conjecture about Eakins' intentions..I do not endorse using that quote..Homoerotic isn't just a euphemism by the way, that exact expression is used by Adams and others directly and can be quoted see page 308 in Adams...[3] Modernist (talk) 04:27, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

For clarity: I did not say that the terms being used were euphemisms; I was genuinely inquiring whether others thought so. For prose reasons alone, as well as a way of accurately representing the bulk of scholarship on Eakins, I find them preferable, and don't think they skirt the issue. Eakins has a lot of biographers, and Adams' interpretations represent a recent extreme; he also conjectures at length, based on circumstantial evidence, on the likelihood that Eakins was sexually abused as a child, as well as the possibility of his having engaged in incestuous relationships. Adams writes things like "Some therapists I have spoken with find it quite likely that Eakins had sex not only with both men and women but even with animals ." Also, "While we have no direct evidence on the subject, one psychologist I spoke to noted that on the basis of Eakins's symptoms he felt that there was 'an 85% chance that he was the victim of some form of sexual abuse'." One is not saying that these things were not possible, but this is wildly speculative stuff, and propositions that begin with "Some therapists I have spoken with" don't pass muster by Wikipedia standards.

The following are several passages from a review in the Los Angeles Times after the publication of Adams' biography [4]:

The response of other Eakins experts has been skeptical. “You’d be hard-pressed to come up with someone who’s really on the side of Adams or in his camp,” says Cheryl Leibold, an archivist at the Pennsylvania Academy of the Fine Arts, where the Bregler Collection is housed. “He’s really so extremist. What he’s done is really take Freudian psychology and try to apply it to the documents that survive. In actual fact, nobody buys into Freudian psychology anymore.”

Michael J. Lewis, professor of art history at Williams College in Massachusetts and the only critic reached for this article who says he has read the Adams book in its entirety, says he finds it both reductive and confusing. “Instead of weighing the evidence,” says Lewis, author of “Frank Furness: Architecture and the Violent Mind,” “he seems to very quickly have decided that Eakins was one sick puppy, and proceeded to diagnose six or eight maladies that are self-contradictory. We find out that Eakins was perhaps gay but also a compulsive seducer of women, an exhibitionist, a voyeur, a manic-depressive, he had a serotonin imbalance, he drank too much milk. In every instance, he [Adams] looked for the worst-case scenario.”

Elizabeth Johns, professor emerita of art history at the University of Pennsylvania and the author of “Thomas Eakins: The Heroism of Modern Life” (1983), says she is “surprised and sorry that Adams took this tack – focusing exclusively on Eakins’ putative sexual identities and behavior – because much of Adams’ earlier work has been very fine art history.”

This is submitted by way of underscoring that not all published scholarship is alike, nor universally accepted. Wikipedia does not censor, but it also seeks to record scholarship responsibly. While Eakins scholarship has recently accepted the homoerotic interpretations, and even these are based as much on speculation as on factual evidence, the interpretation of this painting as suggestive of anal sex appears to be anomalous. JNW (talk) 05:39, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

I see your point. If Adams is extremist in his views (and I don't know all that much about this subject but I'll take your word - and above paragraphs - as evidence that he is) then I agree that we should not take his more far-flung views as gospel. It still might be worth including with proper caveats, though, but I won't press the issue. Raul654 (talk) 06:01, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

To me, it's a footnote at best, and even then would be accompanied by its own footnote--for instance, this is another response, from a review in the New York Times [5]:

However, Eakins's major living biographer, William Innes Homer, author of "Thomas Eakins: His Life and Art," has read the book and praised it as "extremely perceptive and bold and courageous." Though he said: "It goes too far. It goes off into the wilderness when it comes to the ultimate interpretation of Eakins's pictures."

And Homer is not given to idolatry of his subject. Psychological speculation can be applied to Eakins scholarship, as well: Goodrich's suppression of the unseemlier biographical aspects has since resulted in overcompensating efforts to find fault, even if it means painting with a broadly speculative brush. That said, it's an interesting article, with many worthy contributions already, which I've enjoyed taking part in. JNW (talk) 16:17, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Quote from wikiquote

I've been looking for my copy of the Lloyd Goodrich bio..and I haven't found it yet, but this quote seems pertinent:

• When a man paints a naked woman he gives her less than poor Nature did. I can conceive of few circumstances wherein I would have to paint a woman naked, but if I did I would not mutilate her for double the money. She is the most beautiful thing there is — except a naked man, but I never saw a study of one exhibited.
  • Letter to his father, Benjamin Eakins (1867), quoted in Lloyd Goodrich, Thomas Eakins: His Life and Work (1933)

I'll keep looking for my book...Modernist (talk) 05:19, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

wikiquote again

Eakins on his resignation:

• My figures at least are not a bunch of clothes with a head and hands sticking out but more nearly resemble the strong living bodies that most pictures show. And in the latter end of a life so spent in study, you at least can imagine that painting is with me a very serious study. That I have but little patience with the false modesty which is the greatest enemy to all figure painting. I see no impropriety in looking at the most beautiful of Nature's works, the naked figure. If there is impropriety, then just where does such impropriety begin? Is it wrong to look at a picture of a naked figure or at a statue? English ladies of the last generation thought so and avoided the statue galleries, but do so no longer. Or is it a question of sex? Should men make only the statues of men to be looked at by men, while the statues of women should be made by women to be looked at by women only? Should the he-painters draw the horses and bulls, and the she-painters like Rosa Bonheur the mares and cows? Must the poor old male body in the dissecting room be mutilated before Miss Prudery can dabble in his guts?

  Such indignities anger me. Can not anyone see into what contemptible inconsistencies such follies all lead? And how dangerous they are? My conscience is clear, and my suffering is past.

  • Letter of resignation to Edward Hornor Coates, Chairman of the Committee on Instruction, Pennsylvania Academy of the Fine Arts (1886-02-15)

This seems relevant to the article text...Modernist (talk) 05:25, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Refs

Somebody with the books to hand needs to add page numbers. This should be done before the page is expanded further. And I agree with the above that this could be FAC. Ceoil (talk) 06:33, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Later I will add pages to the notes I've contributed. JNW (talk) 06:36, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Great. I'll help with the expansion once this is done. Ceoil (talk) 06:48, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I've added page numbers to those footnotes I'd contributed. JNW (talk) 17:09, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Nudes

What we now need is something on how it relates to the tradition of group nudes, from the High Renaissance, especially Michelangelo's Battle of Cesana, the Battle of the Nudes (engraving) and various Diana & nymphs etc, through to Cezanne etc. It seems to me somewhat of a riposte to Titian's Andrians the fete champetre motif. Johnbod (talk) 17:42, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes. So far such references seem to be slim in the material I have, but I will dig a bit. JNW (talk) 17:46, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

None of the literature I've accessed so far draws these comparisons, probably because Eakins is not primarily viewed as relating to those specific sources. But I thought of Michelangelo's 'battle' cartoon, too. JNW (talk) 17:54, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I added this link about Cezanne's male bathers as another reference in the intro: [6]..Modernist (talk) 03:01, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Good. I'd rather like to see some references to other paintings of the same subject. Is Tuke's "Autumn Blue" there? Sidney Long's "By Tranquil Waters", also the splendid painting called "On Top of the Tide" which shows a small boat harbour with a man and boy swimming (might be another Tuke), while the wife dabbles her feet. There is also the rather cutesy Scandinavian pic of the little girl in all her clothes watching all the naked little boys having fun in the sea. Amandajm (talk) 03:43, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Pre-FAC question

I'd like to nominate this as a featured article candidate soon. Before I do, I'd like to get an idea of what you guys think is missing. What topics should this article address, or do a better job of addressing? Raul654 (talk) 09:35, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I'd suggest, and will try to get around to, placing the photographs in context with his other work in that medium. Same for the painting, which in the literature is often grouped with and compared to his Arcadia [7]. Secondarily, I think these also elaborate on the ambiguity between classical motifs as inspiration and erotic interpretations. I'm still inclined toward the former--I really do think there was an innocence to these works, notwithstanding his behavior and the images' rather obvious grist for interpretations of the sub-conscious. Anyway, I don't foresee more than a brief passage on these, so as not to execute 'undue weight'. JNW (talk) 16:49, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Comparison with Arcadia seems worthwhile, I think the article needs some more work...Clearly Eakins skirted a very thin line, leaving much to interpretation...maybe too much..Modernist (talk) 17:16, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. Eakins's personal behavior was unusual, and in some cases disturbing enough to invite interpretation. However: even though the advances in psychological studies in the last century are momentous, we must be wary of ascribing our cultural mores to those of other eras; additionally, one's personal life is not necessarily perfectly reflected in one's work. To ascribe to any artist certain predilections or even perversions based on documentary or hearsay evidence is one delicate matter; to then extrapolate that to their paintings is quite another leap altogether. Something similar, though more damning, has happened in the recent reappraisal of Sickert's personal life. Just talking...JNW (talk) 19:19, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, as we have discussed..Eakins primarily was one of the best American painters of his era, if not the best, although he clearly was a strange and thorny character; and I think Adams goes too far; much further than we should go..Modernist (talk) 21:41, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi Raul, I think it's ready now...Modernist (talk) 15:08, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

After dropping off my fiance at the airport today, I took a spin up 476 to Mill Creek and Dove Lake and took some pictures. See User:Raul654/favpics/Misc. I looked for the rocky promontory but couldn't find it. It's probably gone, but it's possible that I simply didn't see it -- that it was obscured by the foliage. Does anyone think those pictures are usable in this article?

First: you should receive a barnstar just for going there and taking the pictures. I read in several sources that Eakins saved the receipts from his travels there, and that the site is in Bryn Mawr--is this so? As for relevance to the article, my take is that none of them bear enough resemblance to the painting to be useful, but I am not adamant on it. I might be thinking too narrowly, and if there's a consensus for using, please do. JNW (talk) 01:46, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it's near Bryn Mawr. See Google maps (which also has a satellite view). Raul654 (talk) 01:50, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Curious if people still swim there? Are there summer houses? Nice pictures though..maybe if there was a deeper section on Eakins' photos of the place; a current picture might be an interesting inclusion...currently we have three, maybe a few more and some text. Modernist (talk) 01:56, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Nobody swims there - it's all private property, with "No trespassing" signs everywhere, and absolutely nowhere to park a car in sight. That's why I didn't go to the lake's edge - I'm sure they have to deal with a lot of trespassers there. There are some houses nearby - big, expensive ones. Raul654 (talk) 02:05, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I want to add a little more about the restoration, and maybe the recent pic of hte lake (I'm still undecided on that one). Once that's done, I think I'm going to nominate this on the FAC. Raul654 (talk) 18:34, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Also, people are going to object to the use of a gallery and want it broken up into seperate images. Raul654 (talk) 18:39, 3 January 2009 (UTC) I doubt that, as visual arts galleries seem accepted at FAC now, & there isn't room in the text for them all, plus they form a distinct group. Johnbod (talk) 19:01, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I do think your initial decision to use a gallery format works here, for the reasons Johnbod gives. However, in experimenting with format, I found that the first two photographs can fit very nicely into the section, one left and one right, but under this alternative I would lose the grainiest photo (poorer quality) and the dog head (out of context with photos). JNW (talk) 19:59, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

The current day photo looks and works surprisingly well...good move..Modernist (talk) 04:43, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Excellent work, Raul. Not only the photo, but the rewrites and inclusion of the quote that Modernist suggested are all improvements. Well done. JNW (talk) 05:17, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, but don't sell yourself short. You've both done an extremely good job on this article. I think it's good enough to be a featured article, so I've nominated it on the FAC. Raul654 (talk) 05:21, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

A fine community effort--I'm very glad that you started it. When it reaches FAC status I will propose a virtual champagne toast. JNW (talk) 05:25, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

You can take it for granted JNW that I'll show up for that ;). Well done to all. Ceoil (talk) 09:51, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

The "drip", "prior to" and Tuke

• I might have missed something, but it seems to be assumed that the reader knows about the drip mark before it is explained. Should it say "a drip was painted out" rather than "the drip"?
• Why do we have "prior to" when a simple before would have the same meaning?
• Is it worth including a sentence or two and a link to Eakins' English contemporary Henry Scott Tuke? Graham Colm ^Talk 10:38, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Sketch of Harry

I am looking all over for this painting and I can't find it...What collection, what size, etc.. I think we need more information about it...Modernist (talk) 03:33, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

The closest I can find is this: [8] Lithoderm 03:48, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm having no luck--I don't know who added it to the commons, nor which book it's in. JNW (talk) 04:04, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

It was uploaded by this guy, whom I have contacted (also at the German WP [9]). I won't hold my breath, though, because his last commons contrib was in Jan. '08, and on DE July '08. Lithoderm 04:16, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm wondering if we should let Harry go? I am fond of the picture..Modernist (talk) 05:16, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I like it, too--I've not come across it in any publications, so I'm puzzled. If guidelines compel us to let it go, c'est la vie, and we can restore it when the information is found. JNW (talk) 05:21, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Harry is sleeping in the gallery for now and I moved the sketch to the studies section...Modernist (talk) 05:51, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

German version of this article

I found that there's a German Wikipedia article on this painting - one of their "excellent articles" (their equivalent of our featured articles). It appears to have been written primarily by °, our friend who uploaded the harry eakins scan. Can someone who speaks german take a look at that article and copy over any relevant facts or information not found in this one? Raul654 (talk) 10:24, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Also, I just realized something -- it's extremely likely that the Eakins dog picture was scanned from one of the books cited in the references section. Probably "Thomas Eakins and the Swimming Picture" since it's cited by far more than all the others. Raul654 (talk) 10:28, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

My University library has a copy available. I'll pick it up tomorrow. Raul654 (talk) 10:29, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Good research. According to its website, my college library has a copy, and they open tomorrow--I will try to check it out, too. JNW (talk) 14:09, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

My hunch was correct. The dog painting can be found in 'Thomas Eakins and The Swimming Picture', Edited by Doreen Bolger and Sarah Cash. Amon Carter Musuem, 1996. Plate #18.

The caption given in the book is: Plate 18. Thomas Eakins, Sketch of Harry's head, from two sided sketch for "Swimming," 1884, oil on cardboard, 10 1/2 x 14 1/2 in., from Eakin's large sketchbox, Collection of Mr. and Mrs. Daniel W. Dietrich II Raul654 (talk) 18:42, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Good find..Modernist (talk) 20:09, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Excellent. I picked up the book today. JNW (talk) 23:24, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Here are some quotable tidbits from "Thomas Eakins and the Swimming Picture" that I'm transcribing as I get through it. Feel free to cite and/or quote these as you find appropriate:

---

Forward (Rick Stewart)

• The Swimming hole is "widely regarded as an American masterpiece... an unqualified civic treasure, a vivid symbol of the cultural accomplishment of the Fort Worth community, past and present." - vii
• The purchase of the painting by the Fort Worth community catalyzed the purchase of Eakins' other works. - viii

Chapter 1 (Marc Simpson)

• "Many recent writers, for example, have noted that Eakins has turned or strategically angled legs to provide each bather with an effective, if immaterial, fig leaf." - 1
• Eakins "is carefuly to imply, through the men's poses and gestures, through their seeming attention and watching, narrative events unfolding through time." - 1
• "The mere choice of depicting a dive into water, nearly unprecedented in the history of Western art, demonstrates the painter's intense ambition; not even Michelangelo's Battle of Cascina, the ne plus ultra male bathing pictures, included such a figure." - 1
• "Eakins switches between extreme precision (in the figures and the central foreground) and extreme diffusion (everywhere else) with virtually no moderating zones in between" - 2-3
• The painting was exhibited twice after its 1885 debut at the Pennsylvania Academy of Fine arts. In 1886, it was exhibited at the Southern Exposition in Louiseville Kentucky, and in 1887 at Chicago's Inter-State Industrial Exposition. "In both expositions, it apparently garnered a resounding critical silence. During the following three decades, as far as we know, no one beyond the painter's immediate circle of family and friends saw the painting. Nor is there any extant anecdotal or pictoral data to testify to the painter's sense of the work during these years... The painting simply failed to register in any significant, public way during Eakin's lifetime." Following Eakins' death, the painting was exhibited in Philadelphia and New York in 1917 at memorial exhubitions. -4
• By the 1920s, the work was viewed as a historical work, documenting ordinary life of the 1880s.
• Starting the 1970s, critics began to view the work as possible evidence for Eakin's homosexuality. - 6-7
• Critics have connected The Swimming Hole with the literary works of Eakin's friend, Walt Whitman. Whitman considered nude swimming to be "one of the joys of life" and refers to swimming several times in Song of Myself. Whitman's poem "Twenty-eight young men bathe by the shore depicts the same subject matter as The Swimming Hole. - 7
• The Amon Carter has reverted to the original title, Swimming, in its display of the painting. -8

---

I just added to this article a pic of Thomas Eakins (circa 1882) and of Edward Horner Coates. Both of these were scanned from Bolger's book. Raul654 (talk) 01:08, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

The addition of these and other images in the last few days has been welcome. I added the information on Vonnoh, who painted the Coates portrait. He's buried in the cemetery where I live and paint landscapes, and I've walked by his marker while teaching classes outdoors. JNW (talk) 02:40, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Refs

Raul, it looks like we are both using the 'T.E. and the Swimming Picture' for refs now, and perhaps using separate cites. Please feel free to alter my cites to match yours for consistency. Okay, probably done for the day here. Thanks, JNW (talk) 06:09, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Your page numbers match mine - no changes necessary. Raul654 (talk) 06:46, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Raul, that Amon Carter Museum link was making me crazy...Modernist (talk) 19:48, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Second thoughts

Is this unreferenced claim what we really mean to say? in this work, Eakins took advantage of an exception to the generally prudish Victorian attitude to nudity, in that swimming naked was widely accepted. Is this really factual? Is it meant as men only? Or in sex segregated areas? Or was it the original Woodstock at the lake? Somehow I can't imagine Victorian England with both nude men and women swimming down by the banks of the Thames...Modernist (talk) 17:23, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

It's a good question--probably we can start by trimming the Victorian reference, so that the claim can limit its scope to the US. Then we can supply a source that supports the acceptability of nude swimming in the States. I'll try to find one, but the Giants are playing in a half hour... JNW (talk) 17:29, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

After the game....I gotta go out now too..Modernist (talk) 17:31, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I've cited it. As for the game: rough one...maybe Raul is happy. JNW (talk) 21:21, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Well they had a good run...thanks for ref..Modernist (talk) 23:17, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

See Parson's Pleasure, and Dame's Delight, and Hampstead_Heath_swimming_ponds#Highgate_and_Hampstead_Ponds. I don't know if that amounts to "widely". And who could forget Simon Callow in A Room with a View (film)? Johnbod (talk) 14:20, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, Johnbod. I left the phrasing intact after all--the ref to Victorian attitudes and naked swimming is sourced. But now we have a better idea as to what was going on on your side of the pond as well. JNW (talk) 14:57, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

It's a very useful find...Modernist (talk) 15:29, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Expansion

I've just expanded the sections describing the rejection by Coates and a sentence or two about the Whitman/homosexuality connection. I'm pretty much finished now -- I think the article is more-or-less complete now. Raul654 (talk) 07:46, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Temptation

I am *so* very tempted to ask William Innes Homer to comment on this article... Raul654 (talk) 08:15, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I gave into temptation. The website above is broken, but he just happens to be a professor at my university, so it wasn't hard to track his email down. I asked him if he had any feedback about this article - things that are wrong, unclear, or otherwise could be improved. Raul654 (talk) 08:29, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I just got off the phone with Dr. Homer. He said this article was "a good piece in general". He picked up on two fairly minor factual errors which I have now fixed and a couple of minor grammatical errors (one had already been fixed by Yomangi this morning, the other I fixed in that edit). He also suggested changing the notes section to use the full name instead of just the last name. I asked if he we would mind if I talked with him again in the future, and he said it was OK with him. Raul654 (talk) 16:54, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Nice move. Ceoil (talk) 20:04, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Interpretation section

JNW, Modernist, et al - can you guys address Awadewit's FAC comments about the Interpretation section? I didn't write it, so I'm not particularly well equipped to address them. Raul654 (talk) 20:49, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Closing sentences

The final three sentences are a little confusing.

The Swimming Hole marked the beginning of homoerotic imagery in American art. Eakins left a record simultaneously provocative and ambiguous on matters of sex. Based on the same visual evidence, that of the photographs, oil sketches, and the finished painting of swimmers, art historians have drawn markedly varying conclusions as to the artist's intent.

What is the "record" being referred to in the second sentence? The photographs, oil sketches, and the finished painting of swimmers? If so, it needs a more obvious connection to the final sentence. If the "record" is referring to his life's work or his personal effects, it needs to say so, but in that case the placement of the final sentence is awkward - it would be better placed as the second of those three sentences to avoid going from specific (the painting) to general (his life) then back to specific (the painting again). Yomangani^talk 02:06, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

You have a good point about the entire last paragraph. Changing the sentence order might make for a better read..Although I confess to liking it as is, or rather I don't really perceive a problem. But changing the order of the sentences there might help in clarifying the ambiguity..Modernist (talk) 02:33, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Which is it? If it refers to the painting and preparatory materials then it only needs a little clarification (perhaps replace "Eakins left a record" with "The work is") and the sentence order can remained unchanged. Yomangani^talk 00:58, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Goodrich quote

In changing Eakins's to Eakins' throughout there are two quotes which get changed, Bolger's I have corrected back to "Eakins's", but somebody with the book should check Goodrich's "Eakins' most masterful use of the nude" (formerly "Eakins's most masterful use of the nude"). Yomangani^talk 00:58, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I never found my book, and JNW has one but he's not around..I think we should change that one back too...Modernist (talk) 01:15, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Ambiguous

The article states "in some cases it is uncertain as to whether the forms portrayed are male or female". I'm not asware of any uncertainty. I've no doubt that mixed sex naked swimming would have caused more controversy at the time than the male-male buttock-gazing. Paul B (talk) 18:28, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I think other works are meant - eg which is the fiancee in Arcadia; but it should be made clearer. Johnbod (talk) 18:39, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Little boxes

All the longer quotations in this article had boxes around them, which I have removed. Boxes are used, stylistically, for quotations that are memorable within themselves, or exemplary of something that has been written, eg: "To be or not to be, that is the question...." or Lincoln's Gettysberg address, when inserted into an article on Lincoln.

In the case of the quotations here, they were all merely descriptive of the work, the process, or the history. Even the artist's indignant statement is not, of itself, memorable.

Part of the problem created by boxes is that they cause formatting problems. The first box was in part disappearing underneath the lead pic. The largest box (Eakin's statement) was being forced downward by the pic above it so that there was a gap in the text between "Eakin said:" and what he said. This may not have been apparent on all screens and at all settings. It your screen is narrow, your text large and your pictures small you wouldn't be aware of it, but on a wider screen boxes often create a problem.

Amandajm (talk) 01:05, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Pristine?

Forward: "... depicts six men swimming naked in a pristine lake."

With pristine eluding to being uncorrupted by civilization, untouched, etc, doesn't referencing a lake with swimmers render it no longer pristine? Maybe "serene" would be a better description?

--MtnMisty (talk) 00:53, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations!

It was lovely to log in and find this on the Main Page! Amandajm (talk) 03:20, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Public Success

In this otherwise quite strong article, it's not clear how the painting came to real public attention. The painting was exhibited only three times in its first 40 years, to a striking lack of interest, and sold in 1925 for $750, a fifth of what another Eakins painting sold for a decade earlier. It was displayed in the Ft. Worth public library, which one would not think a great venue for wide public attention outside of Ft. Worth. And yet, somehow, by 1990 it was worth $10 million. Is it possible to add some indication of how the painting finally did achieve critical and public success? John M Baker (talk) 13:46, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Presumably the several exhibitions in NY etc that are mentioned in the Restoration section, reproduction in books, and increased interest in the sexual overtones from 1970-ish, also mentioned. Johnbod (talk) 13:56, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

The price of the painting correlates to the change in critical appreciation for Eakins' work in general; The Gross Clinic, originally purchased for $200, recently sold for $68 million. Now that's where I should have invested....JNW (talk) 14:14, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

August Blue

There was a suggestion above that something should be said about Tuke's paintings, of which this is perhaps the leading example. I've added a "see also" but no doubt someone more knowledgeable about Eakins' work could weave something into the text. -- Theramin (talk) 01:13, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Serusier's bathers

In re-reading part of this, I came across a reference to a 1906 painting by Serusier, which I removed because I thought it was out of context. Then I checked and found the statement was contributed by Modernist--no harm intended, and if you think I've erred please restore it. Thanks, JNW (talk) 02:51, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

For that matter, the references in the previous sentence to Seurat and Cezanne aren't sourced. Maybe I added them--it was a long time ago--but perhaps they're original research. Can't remember if there was once a reference for that.... JNW (talk) 02:54, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Although I barely remember - I probably included the Serusier to provide additional context for the Bellows. Doesn't seem essential...Modernist (talk) 12:34, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Michiel Sweerts?

Michael Sweerts, Bathing Men (or Male Bathers), 1655, Musée des Beaux-Arts de Strasbourg

When I look at The Swimming Hole, I feel a bit like seeing a mirror-reversed and more daring version of Sweerts Bathing Men, painted in 1655, what do you think? Cheers, Insert coins (talk) 20:23, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

There are obvious similarities, but I haven't found any scholarship that suggests a conscious connection. JNW (talk) 21:09, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on The Swimming Hole. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081207162403/http://www.cartermuseum.org:80/works-of-art/1990-19-1 to http://www.cartermuseum.org/works-of-art/1990-19-1

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:18, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Citation styles

This article now has at least a couple of different citation styles. Unless someone objects, I'm going to undertake to unify the citation styles, probably using {{sfn}}, or related templates, or <ref>{{harvnb}}</ref>, or related templates. The goals of the conversion will be to:

• Continue and conform use to a short citation style, i.e. when you click on a footnote number in the text that you will be taken to a short style citation like "Kilroy 2017, p. 245" but
• Clicking on the short citation will take you to the long citation.

Right now, the article generally does the first, but not the second. There will be no deadline. Any objections? Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 22:20, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Done. Because of the ambiguous nature of the previous referencing schemes there was some uncertainty as to which inline Sewell refs went to which Sewell source. I've pointed all of the ones which pointed only to "Sewell" to the 1982 source and only the ones pointing to "Sewell et al" to the multiauthor 2001 source, but someone with access to the original sources probably ought to check them. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 17:05, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on The Swimming Hole. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090728223352/http://www.getty.edu/art/gettyguide/artObjectDetails?artobj=66570 to http://www.getty.edu/art/gettyguide/artObjectDetails?artobj=66570

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:30, 13 October 2017 (UTC)