User talk:Aleksandr Sur

Welcome to Wikimedia Commons, Aleksandr Sur!

First steps tutorial Our first steps tour and our frequently asked questions will help you a lot after registration. They explain how to customize the interface (for example the language), how to upload files and our basic licensing policy (Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content). You don't need technical skills in order to contribute here. Be bold when contributing and assume good faith when interacting with others. This is a wiki. Getting help More information is available at the community portal. You may ask questions at the help desk, village pump or on IRC channel #wikimedia-commons (webchat). You can also contact an administrator on their talk page. If you have a specific copyright question, ask at the copyright village pump.

Goodies, tips, and tricks Put Babel boxes on your user page so others know what languages you can speak and indicate your graphic abilities. You can find the files you have uploaded in your Uploads. Please sign your name on Talk pages by typing ~~~~. To link to an image page without embedding the image, type: [[:File:Foo.jpg]], which produces: File:Foo.jpg. You may enable gadgets (custom features) for your account. There are several tools to upload files. Have you edited Wikipedia before? This guide might be useful. Made a mistake? Do you want to have a file renamed or moved? Use the move link and wait for an authorized user to rename it. Do you want to have your recently uploaded picture removed? Tag it as {{speedy|reason here}}. For more information read the deletion guidelines.

-- Wikimedia Commons Welcome (talk) 15:15, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Attributions of paintings

Hi, Aleksandr,

Thanks for taking photos of artworks. When you do, though, please make sure to state information about the artist. Have a look at File:(Barcelona) View across Llanberis Lake toward Snowdon c.1799-1800 - William Turner - Tate Britain.jpg as an example. I realize that's more work, but you're better able to do it as a photographer at a museum than someone else who has to try to do research from home. It's also problematic if you don't do this, because, for example, in the case of File:Eugeen van Mieghem.jpg, depending on when it was painted, it might or might not be in the public domain, and if it's unclear whether it is or not, it could be nominated for deletion.

Would you be able to work on this kind of documentation, or at least some of it (such as the name of the artist, location where it's exhibited, and year of composition)?

All the best,

Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:49, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Hello Ikan

I did not find a design template like yours (with a table).

The photograph of the painting was taken at the Buat Fine Art Gallery, a very rare work done on a wooden board that was previously part of a ship. Previously, the painting was in a private collection.

All the best, Alex Sure (talk) 13:23, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. I don't know where that template comes from. Perhaps User:Archaeodontosaurus could be of assistance on this. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:04, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

• Bonjour Messieurs,

Thank you for this invite. There doesn't seem to be a copyright issue for this painter. I have urgently added the category whose absence may be a reason for deletion. We now have time. You can take inspiration from existing models without any problem. If you have any questions you are always welcome. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:20, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, Archaeo. Alex, it's up to you. I know we're all volunteers here, so I can well understand if adding this information to your files is not interesting to you, but I just hate to see useful photos deleted, I've seen that happen a lot, and the more documentation you can provide, within reason, the less likely it is that any of your work will be nominated for deletion. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:58, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

• • • • Hello, this floral painting that you have titled "Flower Still Life, 1874" is a fake Monticelli. It was sold on ebay as an original, then returned to seller who has knowingly sold some forgeries as originals. The seller then resold it on ebay. The painting is most likely by M. Tourniaire. See page 122 of Stemmegna's book "Faux Monticellis." It is the same style. The painting in question has a signature unlike any other verified Monticelli signature. It is on canvas, which is highly unusual, and it covers the entire surface with paint, again highly unusual. (27 Nov. 2023)

• • • • Hello, Thanks for the interesting information, but you have a lot of problems with it:

1. Adolphe Monticelli signed many of his works, which is confirmed (you say no) 2. Adolfo Monticelli primarily painted in oils on panel, but he has many confirmed works on small format canvas (you say no) 3. You say that a fake is being sold, but do not provide any facts; Did you personally draw up the expert opinion or is this a “signature and canvas” type of story? 4. Here's what they told me: This painting was lined (perhaps for this reason there was an assumption of a fake), the canvas is old, the signature does not shine in ultraviolet light, the signature corresponds calligraphically to the author, the style and structure corresponds to the author, the chemical analysis corresponds to the time of writing, + There will also be an art criticism conclusion. +Thank you again for your attention.

• • • • P.S. During his lifetime, Monticelli often faced criticism of his style; he was not a popular commercial artist in his time. Therefore, contemporaries would not fake his work. The popularity of Adolphe Monticelli's works grew after his death, and this is the very end of the 19th and beginning of the 20th century, but not to a commercial level. Accordingly, the Monticelli painting could have been forged in the second half of the 20th century or signed on an unsigned painting by the author of that period. The fact is that a fake after 1930 is easily determined by chemical analysis of the paint layer, and a fake signature in oil, made at different times with the creation of the painting, is even easier to determine.

And even today Monticelli is considered an insignificant figure of the 19th century. (03 Dec. 2023) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aleksandr Sur (talk • contribs) 09:48, 3 December 2023 (UTC)