Talk:William Dobson

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article is supported by the arts and entertainment work group.

Visual arts

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

Dobson underrated?[edit]

The unattributed statement that an English training such as Dobson's in the seventeenth century could not be first rate makes the curious assumption that genius can only come from training. Waldemar Janusczak, in his BBC4 TV 'Baroque! From St Peter's to St Paul's', describes Dobson as the unjustly neglected first genius of English painting.Dudley Miles (talk) 22:26, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not influenced by Van Dyck?[edit]

Hi, The page says that Van Dyck's influence on Dobson isn't that apparent, although I think you can clearly see that the faces and especially the hands from his later portraits bear a strong resemblence to Van Dyck. What do you think? The Count of Zielin (talk) 15:50, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am not expert enough to know, but the comment is unreferenced so appears to be someone's personal opinion. The article badly needs re-writing based on the referenced views of experts. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:01, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Who Is Really In This Painting?[edit]

According to the Wikimedia Commons title of the painting at right, "William_Dobson_-_The_Painter_with_Sir_Charles_Cottrell_and_Sir_Balthasar_Gerbier_-_WGA06361.jpg", in addtion to William Dobson the other two are Sir Charles Cottrell and Sir Balthasar Gerbier. However, copied from the William Dobson Wikipedia article (tied to this talk page), the descriptions states that it is "The artist with Nicholas Lanier (left) and Sir Charles Cottrell (right), circa 1645."

In addition to that image description, Waldemar Janusczak also claims the figure at left is Nicholas Lanier, starting from 39 minutes onward in his BBC4 documentary, "The Lost Genius Of Baroque: William Dobson (Art History Documentary) | Perspective" Perspective, Jul 25, 2020 YouTube.com/watch?v=F3vnzNfWWI0?t=2340s. Waldemar also verifies that the figure at right is Sir Charles Cottrell.

Again Waldemar Janusczak claims that the figure at left is Nicholas Lanier, starting from 25:15 onward in his documentary, "Designing St Paul's Cathedral (Art History Documentary) | Perspective" Perspective, Apr 30, 2020 YouTube.com/watch?v=t1r2hsj6etA?t=1515s.

This confusion should be resolved.

See also this mirrored comment in this Wikimedia Commons discussion: Commons.Wikimedia.org/wiki/File_talk:William_Dobson_-_The_Painter_with_Sir_Charles_Cottrell_and_Sir_Balthasar_Gerbier_-_WGA06361.jpg. ~ JasonCarswell (talk) 17:27, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well I have changed the article caption, which agreed with neither of these. Actually the man on the left looks more like Sir Endymion Porter than other portraits of Dobson or Lanier. Linked Balthazar Gerbier. Also, where is the painting now - the house has been broken into flats it seems. Don't know what the latest scholarly thinking is on the identities - Janusczak might be flying a personal kite, or not. Johnbod (talk) 02:44, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Barry Coward's A Companion to Stuart Britain, p. 200 at [1] shows it as with Lanier and Sir Charles Cotterell (not Cottrell), Collection of the Duke of Northumberland. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:18, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think Cotterell could be the figure on the right at [2] but the figure on the left seems to have more hair than Lanier in the 1632 by Van Dyck at [3]. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:31, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My interpretation is that the established title of the painting is "The Painter with Sir Charles Cottrell and Sir Balthasar Gerbier", but these are probably not the people shown. The title may not be Dobson's. There is an 1857 photograph of the painting in the British Royal Collection that bears the title 'Sir C. Cottrell embraced by Dobson, and Sir B. Balthazar Gerbier', so any misidentification is long-standing.[4] The title of the Commons file comes from its Web Gallery of Art source,[5] which appears to be reliable. It indicates that the painting is at Albury Park, although as that house has recently been divided into apartments it may no longer be there. I suggest we give the title as "The Painter with Sir Charles Cottrell and Sir Balthasar Gerbier [sic]", and add an explanatory footnote. Verbcatcher (talk) 12:38, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think that would be misleading. I suggest The artist (centre) with two companions. The figure on the right could be Cotterell, but the one on the left is not Gerbier. The painting was made in royalist Oxford whereas Gerbier was a parliamentarian. A note could be added citing the different identifications. Dudley Miles (talk) 13:15, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We should not make up the titles of paintings, we should use the title by which the painting is known in reliable modern sources. Barry Coward's book calls the painting 'Portrait of the artist with Nicholas Lanier and Sir Charles Cotterell',[6] so we are justified in using that title. We should also give its other common name to avoid confusion, probably in a footnote. Alternatively, we could use the title that Alnwick Castle use (where it now hangs[7]), but I can't find its title on the castle's website. I am surprised that the Web Gallery of Art locates the picture at Albury Park, but as Albury Park and Alnwick Castle are both connected with the Duke of Northumberland the picture may have been moved. Verbcatcher (talk) 13:53, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If we cite the title with Balthazar then we should cite ODNB at [8] that he was in Paris when the portrait was painted. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:23, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Web Gallery of Art isn't that reliable, and mostly uses sources 50+ years old. There is enough evidence here that there's been a rethink, and we should go with 'Portrait of the artist with Nicholas Lanier and Sir Charles Cotterell'. The Commons file should be updated. Older identifications and locations only need mentioning there, I think. Ideally we get a better image, like the one on the Alnick site, which doesn't seem downloadable. Johnbod (talk) 14:46, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We have Charles Cotterell too (apparently both spellings are found). Johnbod (talk) 16:12, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty conclusive: "Malcolm Rogers William Dobson, 1611–46. Ex. cat., National Portrait Gallery, London, 21 October 1983-8 January, 1984. London, 1983, p. 16 (etching, British Museum); p. 88, cat. no. 46 (related William Dobson painting showing himself, Nicholas Lanier, and Sir Charles Cotterell, coll. Duke of Northumberland)." - note from the Met here. Johnbod (talk) 16:17, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have scraped the image from the Alnwick Castle website and uploaded it as File:William Dobson - Portrait of the artist with Nicholas Lanier and Sir Charles Cotterell.jpg. I have made a new category c:Category:William Dobson - Portrait of the artist with Nicholas Lanier and Sir Charles Cotterell and have added the three files to it. Verbcatcher (talk) 22:05, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If doubts remain regarding the identity of the left figure I could create a comparison table to chonologically include the candidates, known images, image dates, ages, and notes. ~ JasonCarswell (talk) 16:47, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@JasonCarswell: we don't need that to support an image of the painting as we have reliable modern sources that identify the people. Such a table could be included in a new article on the painting, but you should be aware of the no original research rule. Verbcatcher (talk) 18:31, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, unless/until the painting gets its own article, I don't think we need to mention it. Most older English portraits have had at least one change of "identity" in the past, but I think this one is nailed, absent any recent RS dissent. Thanks, everyone! Johnbod (talk) 20:51, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]