Talk:Le Musée français

I do not know where to reply to questions raised about my submission on a page called Le Musee royal (not my title).

I have reedited in order to try to accomodate concerns about scholarly references and referencing. The questions suggest misunderstadning of references which I orginially made. The clarification requires a lot of words ... which I put at a page called Teahouse, where I was told that no one will read it because it has a lot of words. Thanks a lot ...

Let me post them again here. I hope people who question the scholarly status of the references in this article will choose to consider this clarification:

My use of the term “brilliance” is a conventional characterization of the information conveyed by the lumoinosity of a traditional, successful burin engraving.

The tone of superlative accomplishment is an important feature of this subject – e.g. why else would Napoleon recognize the publication with an act of state (see note 2)? -- this event alone would seem to establish the subject’s historical interest.

I suppose all of my references to journalism of the period can be verified in Retronews.

The comment that the article lacks authoritative references has been addressed by adding references ... I hope, without confusing the reader. Please advise if there need to be further private exchanges on this subject. While there’s obviously not sufficient interest to publish a complete bibliography in Wikipedia, I’ve added a reference to the very thorough one compiled by Peter Fuhring.

In any case, the references originally provided carry historical authority. The journal Les Nouvelles de l’estampe (note 2) is an official outlet for scholarship of the National Library of France – and the principal French outlet for scholarship in the field of print history; the cited article deals with the publication and its official reception in detail. The journal Gazette des Beaux-Arts was, in its day, the leading international journal for art historical scholarship of French art. There’s also Weissert’s book, which is quite scholarly, and the extensive discussion of the subject in Sgarbi’s publication. Why have reviewers disregarded the standing of these sources in their preoccupation with the inclusion of an exceptional masters thesis?

And why is this masters thesis so different from others? To begin with, it is the only cited reference for further information in the library cataloguing of the Musée français at the Royal Academy in London, as noted in the article, and also in the catalogue of the National Library of France: <https://catalogue.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/cb40282999b>; likewise, it is noted at the head of all other references in the art historical resource begun by Fritz Lugt in the 1920’s and continued today by the Fondation Custodia, Les Marques de collections de dessins et d’estampes <http://www.marquesdecollections.fr/detail.cfm/marque/12536>. If good enough for these institutions, why would Wikipedia have problems with it? Evidently, the thesis is regarded as important for understanding and consulting the publication. The thesis’ circulation in recent scholarship is more difficult to trace – two important recent examples in English: Sarah Betzer, “Ingres Shadows,” Art Bulletin, 95 (2013): 78-101 (“instrumental to my discussion”); and Susanne Anderson-Riedel, “A French Raphael ...” Art in print, 6 (May-June 2016), pp. 17-30. Also, it is referenced, of course, in McKee’s additional publications on the subject in the Revue de l’art (no. 98) (the officially sponsored successor to the Gazette de Beaux-Arts for authoritative discussion of French Art History) and the Revue du Louvre (déc. 1995) (the official scholarly outlet of the National Museums of France).

George-Amherst (talk) 20:10, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Titles and volumes?

From looking at refs #1 and #2, it appears (?) that Musee francais consisted of four volumes published over a time period 1803 to 1809. Musee Napolean an unspecificed number of volumes started in 1812, and Musee Royal two volumes published 1816-1818. If there is confirmation of this (including Napolean details) that should be in the article. David notMD (talk) 00:48, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

@George-Amherst: @Justlettersandnumbers: Regarding the title Le Musée français, I wonder if the title should be capitalised “Le Musée Français” per the sources such as The Royal Academy [1] and British Museum [2]? Theroadislong (talk) 17:37, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Theroadislong, I never know what we should be doing about this; I often stick to the native-language capitalisation out of some kind of respect – who are we to know better? But if there's support from the sources for capitalisation then that's probably what we should do. It's a minefield – the British Library downcases 'français' but not 'Royal'. David notMD, do you have any thoughts on this? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:52, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm an American, biocehmist by trade, what do I know? David notMD (talk) 18:26, 4 February 2022 (UTC)