Talk:Ukiyo-e/Archive 1

Archive 1

Comment

Ukiyo-e were affordable because they could be mass-produced. They were mainly meant for townsmen, who were generally not wealthy enough to afford an original painting. The original subject of ukiyo-e was city life, in particular activities and scenes from the entertainment district. Beautiful courtesans, bulky sumo wrestlers and popular actors would be portrayed while engaged in appealing activities. Later on landscapes also became popular. Political subjects, and individuals above the lowest strata of society (courtesans, wrestlers and actors) were not sanctioned in these prints and very rarely appeared. Sex was not a sanctioned subject either, but continually appeared in ukiyo-e prints. Artists and publishers were sometimes punished for creating these sexually explicit shunga.

Statistically speaking shunga form the major group of prints - there is an excellent book by Timon Screech: Sex and the Floating World: Erotic Images in Japan 1700-1820 Last edition of 2009. Wirza (talk) 08:04, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Another comment

Hello ...

I have recently been enlightened to this art form by a friend...and i must say i think these prints are all excellent.

I particularly enjoy the work of "Ando Hiroshige" who painted delightful everyday scenes of Japan....when it was still an innocent country and unwesternised.

Another favourite is the work of "Utagawa Kuniyoshi" who is remembered mainly for his scenes depicting ancient japanese folk tales and myths.

There is a story about alot of these prints that prior to westernisation they were in abundance.......upon contact with the western world..via american battle and trade ships ...apparently ??....many of these prints were simply used as packing for pottery ..cups..plates etc...and yet now some of these prints must be very rare and expensive to buy.

A.S.PETERS

9/10/2004

Of course, original prints, especially the pre-prints, are very expensive, like car or a house (big ones or small ones, houses/cars, i.e.).

That depends on your definition of original print. Actually most of them were considered "temporary" and not for sale. We have to remember that Edo ukiyoe artist made only monochrome sketch - a shitagaki, in late 18th century when nishikie started - he would add written descriptions of colors. The more expensive were luxurious editions and nikuhitsu-ukiyoe - paintings by ukiyoe artists. The price of regular print was similar to that of a bowl of noodles Wirza (talk) 08:04, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I will ask your question somewhere about packing and ukiyo-e. I personally doubt it. I think they were too expensive.

Ben please vote! 05:10, May 19, 2005 (UTC)

see woodblock printing in Japan for this; also Monet supposedly discovered them used as packing in a spice shop in Holland. Johnbod 20:56, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Use plural

The article omit the plural "s" when refering to ukiyo-e. I.e. "Ukiyo-e feature" instead of "Ukiyo-e features". Though possibly both usages are correct, the introduction says "ukiyo-e are pictures of the floating world", so it should be treated consequently as plural throughout the article. Ben please vote! 05:10, May 19, 2005 (UTC)

The ukiyoe literary means "floating" (uki) "world" (yo) "picture" (e) Japanese language usually omits plural/singular distinction. When used for "many pictures" it should be plural. Throughout the article it is mostly used as a name of a genre - hence singular. Wirza (talk) 08:04, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

So really what he's getting at is that it's really "floating/fleeting" + "world" + "picture(s)". English isn't always consistent when it comes to languages that don't use plurals on a regular basis: speakers go between treating it as a foreign term (The four ninja attack) and treating it as a standard English word (The four ninjas attack), with the latter usage usually growing over time. But: it's really awkward to pluralize ukiyo-e thanks to not really knowing what that hyphen is doing there, so it's more common to talk about ninjas these days but ukiyo-e will probably always be left the way it is.

Or, like the OED notes, people cheat and just try to use it attributively (i.e., like an adjective) as much as they can: ukiyo-e prints, ukiyo-e artists, ukiyo-e style... — LlywelynII 02:42, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Your response is to a version of the article that has since been rewritten from scratch. Nevertheless, your response makes no sense whatsoever: ukiyo-e is a genre. Do you refer to "an impressionism"? "A surrealism"? OF course not, and you would never refer to an ukiyo-e work as "an ukiyo-e". It has nothing to do with "cheating" or any such gibberish. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 09:26, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

"Ronin" misused

In the history section of the page, the writer states, "The urbanization of the late 16th century led to the development of a class of ronin, merchants and artisans who began writing stories and painting pictures...." I believe this to be a misuse of the word ronin, which actually refers to masterless samurai, who would under no circumstances enter the class of merchants or artists. Clicking the link to ronin, in fact, takes you to the correct information.

I am afraid that is a popular misconception. In many cases ronin's were forced to take jobs. They often became teachers, sometimes artisans (often bandits though). Status of a ronin was always rather vague. "Ronin" certainly shouldn't be used as a "class" category Wirza (talk) 08:04, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

red link policy

We should try not to have to many red links in articles. I don't know any of the artists in the following list I removed from the article. Please feel free to insert the name as soon as an article on them is created.

• Goyo Hashiguchi
• Koson Ohara
• Kotondo Torii
• Shunsen Natori

• I disagree with the removal of artists until an article is created - one thing the red links do is create an automatic 'wish list' of articles that other wikipedians pick up on and help to create. Perhaps a better idea would be to google the artists to confirm there referencability. I have, and they are valid here. Just because there is not an article yet does not mean they are any less important in the information presented in an article on Ukiyo-e. Let me know what you think - but I move to put them back in - red links and all...Kunchan 21:41, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Introduction - confusing part

The introduction states the following:
Beautiful courtesans, bulky sumo wrestlers and popular actors would be portrayed while engaged in appealing activities.
and
Political subjects, and individuals above the lowest strata of society (courtesans, wrestlers and actors) were not sanctioned in these prints and very rarely appeared.

Which one is it? Are they an example of portrayals or were they very rarely portrayed? These sentences are almost next to each other, and it's very confusing. Does somebody know which is the correct statement?
Ninja neko 13:32, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

They are both correct. Wrestlers, courtesans, and actors were among the lowest classes of society. Samurai (i.e. nobles) and other higher-class people were almost never portrayed in ukiyo-e art. LordAmeth 15:15, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually the shogunate prohibited depictions of famous persons from recent history. Utamaro was punished for portraying Toyotomi Hideyoshi. Samurai though often accompany prostitutes in ukiyoe - it was acceptable as long as no family name was mentioned. Wirza (talk) 08:04, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Beautiful courtesans, bulky sumo wrestlers and popular actors would be portrayed while engaged in appealing activities.
and
Political subjects, and individuals above the lowest strata of society (courtesans, wrestlers and actors) were not sanctioned in these prints and very rarely appeared.
My question here is, why do the ukiyo-e artists portray wrestlers, courtesans, and actors? What is the purpose of those images? Are they communicating the experiences of another sector of society for those who cannot access it? Jlskiba (talk) 20:28, 2 November 2010 (UTC)jlskiba 4:27, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

They were like movie star posters. Remember there were not any photograph then. Oda Mari (talk) 05:25, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Assessment

This article is long and detailed, with a good number of pictures. But there are no cited references, either in-line or in a separate references section. Also, for such a complex and important topic, there is significant potential for expansion. I myself have been working on articles on the individual artists and schools. I understand the trepidation that comes with tackling such a large, broad, and important topic, which is why I haven't done much to this article myself. But I think if a good number of people each contribute a little, a lot can be done. Perhaps once I get a better sense of the different artists and schools myself I'll go tackle the creation of a detailed "history of the development of ukiyo-e" section. LordAmeth 15:21, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Gradients

Does anyone have info on how the color gradients are achieved? It would be a useful addition to the article.

Not sure of the policy on 'self-linking' here, but anyway, I could mention that there is a short photo-essay on my website that concisely illustrates the process of producing a gradation on an ukiyo-e type print. Might it be useful? (David Bull)

Ōkami

The video game Ōkami definitely uses this form of painting for its art style. Shouldn't it be included in the Popular culture section? -- Interrupt_feed (talk) 18:53, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Cut text

I removed the following text as it does not pertain to ukiyo-e, but to later, 20th century, print artists. But rather than delete it, I thought I should copy it here so someone might make use of it, to create articles for those artists or to build upon articles on their movements (sosaku hanga, etc).

In the 1950s, Fumiaki Fukita developed a technique for creating woodcut prints using oil-based inks and an etching press. Using these techniques, it became possible for artists to free their expressive powers and create huge prints with a scale and dynamism unlike anything that had come before. Artists like Seiko Kawachi, Shuko Takagaki, Nana Shiomi, and Shigeyuki Kimura have carried on these developments, wrestling with conceptual themes, and using their own techniques like wood intaglio and reverse-side printing. Gen Yamanaka, Mieko Kawachi, Ayomi Yoshida, Satoru Matsushita and Mana Aki create pure abstract or symbolic representations of contemporary life. But again, the characteristic expression of these artists incorporates neutral tones which seep into the paper and matt colors roughly printed by hand. Japanese multi-colored woodcut prints encompass a vast range of expressivity. Printmaking remains a form of contemporary art of which we can be justifiably proud.

LordAmeth (talk) 20:33, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

The lead

Isn't this lead quite long? 5 paragraphs instead of 4, and quite long ones. WP:Lead. Hafspajen (talk) 17:35, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

I thought it was a pretty tight summary of the article. What would you recommend cutting? Curly Turkey (gobble) 21:11, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Ukiyo-e/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: CaroleHenson (talk · contribs) 23:19, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors: Overall it's a very well-written article. I reviewed it and made some edits for punctuation, spelling and minor copy edits. No issues found in the source to content checks.--CaroleHenson (talk) 14:43, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists: --CaroleHenson (talk) 01:24, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. Has an appropriate reference section: --CaroleHenson (talk) 01:24, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

   B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary: Good sources, web sources checked out (most to John Fiorillo's site, who has many published articles about Japanese art)

   C. No original research: no evidence of original research, well cited content--CaroleHenson (talk) 01:24, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects: Great coverage of the topic, including background historical information; key artists and subjects; print production processes; and interest by the west and influence on western art.--CaroleHenson (talk) 01:24, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

   B. Focused: the article is quite comprehensive, but topics are covered concisely. The article has 41,860 characters of readable prose, which is within WP:LENGTH.--CaroleHenson (talk) 01:24, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias: --CaroleHenson (talk) 01:24, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc: --CaroleHenson (talk) 00:30, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content: I fixed a number of licensing tags, and they're good now.--CaroleHenson (talk) 00:30, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

   B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions: It would have been nice to have had the collection information, but because of the multiple groupings of images, the brevity is understandable.--CaroleHenson (talk) 00:30, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Comments -

1. After running Dablinks, I added one disambiguation tag for burnishing - the options seem to be burnishing for metal and pottery. Neither quite fit, but marked with the tag for resolution.--CaroleHenson (talk) 01:24, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
   • Yeah, I left it at the dab because the metal and pottery pages obviously weren't appropriate. I couldn't tell whether I should redlink to a Burnishing (paper) page, or if it would be best if someone created a Burnishing article that had the metal, pottery, & whatever pages as subarticles, or combined into one article (I'm no expert on the subject). Curly Turkey (gobble) 04:04, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
     • Yep, it gets a bit complex in that there seems to be a different definition of burnishing for paper vs. ukiyo-e (couple of good sources here. Does "burnishing" come up a lot in ukiyo-e articles? If not, maybe it could be unlinked and have a note with the definition. Or, as you say create a Burnishing (paper) or Burnishing (ukiyo-e) article. Whatever you think is best works for me.--CaroleHenson (talk) 04:46, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
       • I found a source that clarifies it. I've unlinked it and included a short explanation in the body of the text. Curly Turkey (gobble) 05:01, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
         • Great, thanks!--CaroleHenson (talk) 05:10, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
2. Starting to check content to source. So far, the Lane cited text is well-written, without copyvio issues. Will spot-check some others tomorrow, but so far looks good.--CaroleHenson (talk) 01:58, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
3. There are weird CS1 errors for web citation dates: "Check date values in: |date= (help)" This occurs for the citations with date ranges, but the en dash is used appropriately, so I'm not sure what the issue is. If anyone else knows how to correct this, that would be helpful. One option might be to use the latest year.--CaroleHenson (talk) 02:02, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
   • These errors aren't showing up for me. Can you check again? Curly Turkey (gobble) 04:01, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
     • Oh, that's good. I have something set in preferences somewhere so that I see the errors. I don't know where, I investigated a CS1 error at one point and on that page I clicked a box so that I could see the errors directly, versus the indirect route. If the error message isn't seen for most people it's not likely a big issue.--CaroleHenson (talk) 04:46, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
       • You know what it might be? They appear to be deprecating the "|year=", "|month=", and "|day=" parameters and combining them into the "|date=" parameter since they've moved to using Lua in the templates. Maybe because I'm using "|year=" instead of "|date=" it's spitting out those errors for you. If that's the case, I'd just leave it alone until the bot gets to it. Curly Turkey (gobble) 04:51, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
         • Yep, I've corrected a lot of CS1 errors by moving individual month + year to date. But, I've not seen CS1 errors for lone year values. This time I think the issue is the range of years, but you've got an en dash between the years, as directed. I think we should let it go.--CaroleHenson (talk) 05:10, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
           • It might be an error with the new coffee code, then, and might be worth reporting. Curly Turkey (gobble) 06:51, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
             • Ok, I went to the online chat and they don't see anything wrong, so I posted a message here. We'll see what they have to say.--CaroleHenson (talk) 14:20, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
               • Changes made to the article per Help talk:CS1 errors/Archive 1#Ukiyo-e--CaroleHenson (talk) 14:58, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
4. I see that added content from the Boston Museum was removed, which is fine since the original added statements weren't backed up by the source. There's one open clarification tag for "high establishment", numbered items 1 and 3 in this list are complete, and I just have to do some more spot-checking of sources to content (#2).--CaroleHenson (talk) 22:15, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
   • I saw a new comment on the CS1 talk page after I created this summary, so I struck out item #3 as done for the time being/until there's consensus.--CaroleHenson (talk) 22:28, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
     • My comment was just asking for clarification. I wasn't disputing anything. Curly Turkey (gobble) 23:01, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
       • Ok, good. So far, the source-to-content checks are going very well. If you could take a look at the clarification tag for "high establishment" that would be great, and if you see anything in my edits that is concerning to you that would be good to know, too. I don't plan on making any more copy edits.--CaroleHenson (talk) 23:16, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
         • Changed the phrase to "Japanese art establishment". I'd probably meant to write "high art establishment". Curly Turkey (gobble) 00:46, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Great, I've passed the article.--CaroleHenson (talk) 14:43, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Illustrations

I kind of hate to say it, but this... really isn't very well illustrated. It's all low-resolution copies. The Library of Congress has a whole section on Ukiyo-e - examples: http://www.loc.gov/search/?q=Hokusai&sp=2&st=grid http://www.loc.gov/pictures/related/?fi=name&q=Utagawa%2C%20Kuniyoshi%2C%201798-1861 , and there's several featured pictures that are ukiyo-e (obviously, not everything at that link). We can do so much better than this.

One warning: For the Library of Congress prints, you must download the TIFF to get the full-resolution copy. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 06:17, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Actually, quite a number for them are high-res scans from the LoC, uploaded as PNGs coverted from the TIFFs and also converted to JPEGs, such as this and this.

Even though the LoC scans are incredibly high-res, they're not always the best scans, though—they don't have anything as beautifully scanned as this Harunobu from the Metropolitan Museum of Art, where you can clearly see the embossing. Sometimes the copies the LoC has are just not that nice (badly faded colours or whatever), even if super-high-res. And, of course, many well-known images just aren't available at the LoC (either they don't have a copy, or it's not online).

Feel free to replace any of the images with higher-quality copies, of course (or switch out any of the images with something you think better or more appropriate). Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 07:07, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Also, did you notice that the article uses five of the Featured Pictures from the page you linked to (used to be six, but I switched out Woman Wiping Sweat for Comb to better show of the use of bright colours). Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 07:18, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Maybe it's just what I clicked on being an unlucky selection, but I managed to get about 7 in a row of fairly low-res images, though only two (File:Kuniyoshi Utagawa, Suikoden Series 4.jpg, File:Hokusai Manga 02.jpg) were bad scans. There were a couple borderline scans, though. It just seems we have the resources to get this much better, but I can't just swap out images in an FA. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 07:27, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Sure you can. Who said you couldn't? If you're afraid the "owner" of the article will throw a fit, well, I'm the guy who wrote it, and I hereby grant you the privelege of modifying "my" aritcle.

Oh, and here's what I was talking about with the LoC scans: on Commons vs at the LoC. Not only does the LoC copy have horrible colour fading, but it's also cropped—the TIFF is 55MB. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 07:46, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Well, not every LoC scan is like that. Take http://www.loc.gov/pictures/resource/jpd.02639/ or http://www.loc.gov/pictures/resource/jpd.02639/ - which would hold up fairly well. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 07:48, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

They do have some good scans, but the one you're pointing to is actually scanned from a book and not an original print. If you read the descriptions, you'll find many of their best images are 20th-century reprints, like almost all of their Sharaku ones—you have to read carefully to figure that out, though (if you see "Adachi" anywhere in the description, it's a reprint). For the purposes of the ukiyo-e article, I've preferred many reprints, though, at the expense of "authenticity", to highlight the bright colours, etc. that won't be obvious otherwise (Hokusai's Wave, the Sharakus, and Utamaro's Three Beauties are amongst the reprints in the article). Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 07:59, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Of course, I'd be thrilled with anything you could do to improve the article. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 08:01, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi-res isn't everything. Curly is I'm sure very open to further improvements, but I think new images should be suggested here first. There are complex issues here, as his comments above show. The article is also quite long with lotas of images, so loading time is also a factor. Johnbod (talk) 11:36, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Name

I'm usually the first to suggest we port all the pronunciations over to Wiktionary, but this is one of the articles where people legitimately have no idea how to say this thing. I removed the Japanese tonal pronunciation that was already commented out (if you're commenting it out, it doesn't belong in the article in the first place) and that seems fine. I understand people being annoyed with removing the Japanese pronunciation ("but that's how it should be said!") but the romanji is already phonetic and doesn't need to be duplicated with a less straightforward system. It's the English pronunciations need to be included. Meanwhile, ukiyo-ye is such an uncommon spelling that its inclusion in the lead falls WP:UNDUE.

I'm fine with starting a new "name" section for all of this stuff: we could add ukiyo-ye, ukiyo-we, ukiyoe, ukiyoye, and ukiyowe (per the OED) and everyone's pronunciations and move the etymology and discussion of the 'floating world' there as well. Seems like a bit much to me, but maybe others feel the lead is too ugly now. One thing that is odd is the OED's pronunciation: they give /ukijoˈjeː/ which I've never heard and might just match one of their editors trying to say "ukiyo-ye". — LlywelynII 02:52, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

• I've undone your edits.
  • if you're commenting it out, it doesn't belong in the article in the first place: the comment is there to prevent esitors from re-adding the tonals to the IPA, as it has been before, thus avoiding future edit wars.
  • removing the Japanese pronunciation is flat-out unaccaptable
  • "ukiyo-e" and "ukiyo-ye" (and their unhyphenated equivalents) are widely used in the literature. Ukiyo-ye was the spelling of Fenollosa's foundational and highly influential Outline of the History of Ukiyo-ye, and the spelling has persisted into the 21st century, as an Ngram indicates; the same Ngram shows that "ukiyo-we" simply doesn't occur in the literature: zero hits. The unhyphenated equaivalents are merely stylistic differences: Google ignores the hyphens in searches. Thus the two spellings cover all possibilities a reader is likely to encounter in English.
  • /juːˈkioʊˌeɪ/: Where on Earth did you get this? A search turns up zero hits, and I've never encountered it in real life.
  • the UK and US pronunciations are selective and unhelpful clutter; rather than phonetic pronunciations, we should provide phonemic pronunciations, which are easier to read, take up less space, and are easily mapped by readers to their own dialect's pronunciation: thus, /o/ is mapped to /oʊ/ for those BrEng and AmEng readers to pronounce it that way, /əʊ/ for those who pronounce it that way, /əʉ/ for those Australians who pronounce it that way, etc etc etc. Less precise, but not in the least less accurate (see Accuracy and precision).
  • "lit." should be avoided at all costs unless it's absolutely necessary.
  • "romanji" is not a word
• Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 09:26, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
  • romaji is a word, and it can be pronounced so nasal that it is easy to think an "n" is in there. Don't be pedantic. - Tenebris 14:29, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Labelling

The "clockwise" labeling for the top collection of images is not clear to a non-expert. Nine panels - six labels. Some of these seem to be doubles and the one at the bottom is a triple, but apart from the one at the bottom, it is guesswork how the others fit together. For those who are not fluent in Japanese, could the captioning be clarified to mention (1) translation, maybe, but especially (2) which frames belong together under the same label? - Tenebris 14:42, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

• "clockwise" was an error. I've removed it. It's in the order you'd expect an arrangement of panels on a comics page to be. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 20:32, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Comics, Tattoos and The Sea...

Great page! Any chance of extending the content on the influence to ukiyo-e to other areas, such as comic strips, the music of Debussy, and perhaps even tattoos [1]? 86.164.164.29 (talk) 14:07, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

• I might work in a sentence or so about comics, but the connection is not as direct as many comics histories would like you to believe—partly because the words manga and comics are not totally equivalent—manga has a much broader meaning, including all forms of cartooning, and its meaning has changed over time. The word manga existed before Hokusai, and Hokusai didn't do comics (in the English-language sense). I'd need a source that either demonstrates or refutes the connection, rather than simply making the claim that modern manga evolved directly from Hokusai Manga. This looks interesting, but I think it would apply more to the Manga and Hokusai Manga articles. Particularly this line (page 30): "More often than not, relying on a limited set of secondary sources and on surface similarities, these histories are condemned to merely reiterating the same dubious links and myths, such as those that relate Hokusai Manga to current manga." The meme is so common that I think it bears brief mention—let me digest this essay and see what I can come up with.
• If someone added brief mention of La Mer I don't think I'd remove it, but I'm not sure I'd say it was influenced by ukiyo-e in particular but by The Great Wave specifically; of course, that should be in the article for The Great Wave off Kanagawa.
• I think I'd have to have access to that Tattoo book to judge whether it would be appropriate—none of the sources I've been through have so much as mentioned tattoos, so I have to wonder if it would be WP:UNDUE. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 23:41, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Fascinating, thanks! I'd been under the (questionable, it seems) impression that the influence on modern manga was well established. Thank you again, 86.164.164.29 (talk) 22:51, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

It's "well established" under the extremely low standards of comics scholarship—once a "fact" is claimed, every other "scholar" repeats it without bothering to check its veracity. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 23:52, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

(RE Debussy: [2].) 86.164.164.29 (talk) 11:17, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I've added it. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 11:55, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Fwiw, I don't think that's undue in any way - Debussy chimed with an artistic feeling of the time. 86.164.164.29 (talk) 20:08, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

After reading the source you provided, I agree. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 21:40, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

File:Suzuki Harunobu - Evening Snow on the Heater.jpg to appear as POTD soon

Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Suzuki Harunobu - Evening Snow on the Heater.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on March 5, 2016. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2016-03-05. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:24, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Picture of the day

Evening Snow on the Heater, a mid-18th century ukiyo-e print by Japanese artist Suzuki Harunobu (1725–70), displays Harunobu's mastery of the then-new polychromatic nishiki-e (or "brocade") print, as well as luxurious techniques such as extensive embossing.Painting: Suzuki Harunobu