File talk:Edliner Mozart.jpg

As far as my informations go this portrait is still not authenticated as that of Mozart. Gryffindor 14:37, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

And it probably isn't. See this article in German, saying it is of some Joseph Anton Steiner, a merchant and official. Shanes 12:28, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

But looking into it furthetr, that article is probably wrong according to talk on en. So never mind. Shanes 12:42, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

The views of Richard Bauer are no challenge to the authenticity of the Edlinger Mozart

After archival investigations, Bauer (2005) found that a portrait painting by Edlinger that had the same size as the assumed Mozart portrait by Edlinger had been owned by one family for more than 100 years and showed the Munich merchant Steiner. The results of these investigations are plausible and have not been disputed. Then, in a second step, Bauer suggested that this Steiner portrait might possibly be the currently discussed Mozart portrait. He presented two reasons for his suggestion.

First, the size of the Steiner portrait, as documented in the archives, and the size of the assumed Mozart portrait are the same, and Bauer stated that this size was rarely used by Edlinger when painting portraits.

Second, the last known owner of the Steiner portrait, which was the widow Josefine Lindauer, possibly abandoned some of her paintings, when she moved to a smaller flat in 1933 or 1934. Indeed, a large-format painting that she still had owned in 1929 was sold in 1935 by an art dealer to a museum in Düsseldorf. Because just in 1934 the assumed Mozart portrait was sold by a Munich art dealer to the present owner, the Gemäldegalerie Berlin, Bauer suggested that it might have been Mrs. Lindauer’s Steiner portrait that was sold to Berlin.

Both reasons, however, turn out to be rather unconvincing. First, the catalogue of Edlinger’s paintings (Schenk, 1981) lists several other paintings of identical size. Second, Mrs. Lindauer listed five paintings in her testament from 1943. None of these five paintings was specified in her testament, and their present locations are unknown. But, considering that Edlinger was an outstanding painter, it would seem plausible that Mrs. Lindauer had not abandoned her Steiner portrait by Edlinger, when moving to a smaller flat in 1933 or 1934, but instead had kept it and then included it in her testament from 1943 when writing “five paintings”. Therefore it seems much more likely that her Steiner portrait was not the portrait that was sold to Berlin in 1934. The Steiner portrait and the Mozart portrait would therefore rather be two different portraits, instead of being the same.

In conclusion: Considering that Bauer’s suggestion of an alternative sitter for the portrait called “Edlinger Mozart” is not based on hard facts or convincing arguments, it can not be regarded as a challenge to the strong empirical evidence that the Edlinger Mozart is a genuine portrait of Mozart.

Text above supports self proclaimed expert Martin Braun, links to his site are spammed throughout all wikipedias. See discussions on en:Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart and de:Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart. His claims to be a biomedic, no real publications, not proven to have any degree. He is also an expert for shipwrecks, he presents a new theory for a desaster 50 years ago, all done by two pictures loaded from the internet. He is also an expert in biometrics, he statistically proved the authenticity of a "Mozart" portrait, by, guess how, loading and comparing pictures of paintings from the internet. There is no raw data. And, bad luck huh, he found another "Mozart" he called Hagenauer-Mozart. Proven of course, guess how? --stefan (?!) 03:57, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

see also discussion en:Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, de:Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, and at the identical Image:Mozart 1790.jpg --stefan (?!) 04:08, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

File information

This file was marked as equivalent to w:Image:W_A_Mozart_at_34.jpg from en.wikipedia.org according to the NowCommons tag.

This is the edit history for that file's page:

• [2005-04-16T12:28:55Z] BioMed ({{PD}} The so-called "Edlinger Mozart" was painted by Johann Georg Edlinger (1741-1819), presumably 1790 in Munich (Germany). Today it is displayed in the Berliner Gemäldegalerie, Berlin, in Germany. The authenticity of the "Edlinger Mozart" has been es)
• [2005-04-16T13:39:26Z] 213.164.193.161 (comma, etc.)
• [2006-01-30T20:39:08Z] Stefan h (remove crap study of self-proclaimed expert)
• [2006-02-19T03:38:02Z] Stefan h (format)
• [2006-03-19T23:12:52Z] Stefan h (NowCommons)

Original title:

• W_A_Mozart_at_34.jpg

Upload log:

• (del) (cur) 12:28, 16 April 2005 . . BioMed (Talk | contribs) . . 248×315 (11,460 bytes) ({{PD}} The so-called "Edlinger Mozart" was painted by Johann Georg Edlinger (1741-1819), presumably 1790 in Munich (Germany). Today it is displayed in the Berliner Gemäldegalerie, Berlin, in Germany. The authenticity of the "Edlinger Mozart" has been es)

Text:

{{PD}}
The so-called "Edlinger Mozart" was painted by Johann Georg Edlinger (1741-1819), presumably 1790 in Munich (Germany). Today it is displayed in the Berliner Gemäldegalerie, Berlin, in Germany. The authenticity of the "Edlinger Mozart" has not been proven. References: - Michaelis, Rainer, and Seiller, Wolfgang. Ein unbekanntes Bildnis Wolfgang Amadeus Mozarts in der Berliner Gemäldegalerie. In: Mozart-Jahrbuch 1999 des Zentralinstitutes für Mozartforschung der Internationalen Stiftung Mozarteum Salzburg. Bärenreiter, Kassel, 2000, 1-12.

Poccil 23:58, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

What strong empirical evidence?

There is no "strong empirical evidence" that the portrait is Mozart, and the previous identification of the painting as Anton Steiner has not been refuted. The supposed refutation is based solely on the untenable assumption that the person who very hastily sketched the position of the paintings in order to identify them went to the trouble of getting their proportions just right. Since the person did not even bother to give the paintings 90 degree angles, this is a weak and unconvincing argument at best.

But the truth is that whether or not the painting represents Steiner, there is simply no reliable empirical evidence to connect it with Mozart. The only thing connecting it with Mozart is a "biometric" analysis by someone with no experience in the field of biometrics, using a mysterious "database" of images that he will show to no one. The method (if it can be called that), which has since been used to "authenticate" a series of highly improbable paintings, should not be taken seriously.

It is very troubling to see people spamming the Internet with unsupported opinions in propagandist fashion in an area where people should by rights be engaged in the search for truth. (Unsigned contribution)

The Steiner hypothesis has in the meantime been deleted from the German Wikipedia (Edlinger article) by a former advocate of this hypothesis. It is also known that the Munich archivist Bauer, who was the author of the Steiner hypothesis, no longer defends it.

All art historians that to date have come out with an opinion on the issue unanimously confirmed the Mozart attribution.

This means that we now have a Mozart attribution that in unchallenged in the art world, and that is without alternative anywhere else. Vivian G 19:02, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

The only one seriously attributing the painting to Mozart is the BGG, unfortunately the owner of the painting. No other studies have been puplished supporting the attribution. For the challengers, there is no need (and also no possibility) to prove anything, the authenticity has to be proven. Last but not least, there is a joke of an expert, Mr. Braun. Find yourself in the Braun supporters sock puppet collection on User:Stefan h. --stefan (?!) 20:58, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

There is no "challenger" anymore anywhere. There may be a single lonely St. Peter in the Wikipedia Commons. If this is your concern, you may add this fact to the article. But you have no right to delete valid sources. Vivian G 23:40, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

There is a lonly Mr. Braun, everywhere in the WP. In fact he isn't lonly, he has got a puppet on every finger. Vivian is the latest one, the first one "blue". Mr. Braun also creates Mozart portraits out of nowhere, like sock puppets. Someone, I'm not claiming it is Leeson, someone finds a portrait without provenance, Braun provides a "study" proving it's a Mozart. Not even wrong colour of the eyes is a problem. So far Braun has "proven" 4 Mozarts, the Edlinger and 3 absolute jokes. He is VERY interested in having the Edlinger attributed, hoping to grade his "study" up. That might help the other "Mozarts". Unkown sitter vs. Mozart DOES make a difference in pricing. Even unknown sitter vs. debated Mozart is a big deal, have a look at the Edlinger. So our puppeteer adds references that support the attribution of the Edlinger, no matter what quality they are. He interprets and reinterprets. The viennese catalogue shows the Edlinger as "Mozart (?)" while the owner BGG titles "Mozart". Does that looke like support? New puppet, same old story. Little Vivian comes to Commons, continues the POV-pushing of banned puppets, writes "Hi" to her pages and demands having a checkuser done in her fifth edit. Got a new proxy? --stefan (?!) 00:04, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

This is a load of paranoia and fantasy, with no relation to reality and with no information on the issue in question.Vivian G 11:51, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

"Die Zeit" article

IMHO the article is of no use, it is an essay with improper citing. It is easy to read, but lacks accuracy. The quotes are crippled, no complete sentences, no context. Sometimes it is even not clear, who is cited. The referenced primary sources are referenced here already. The article is for entertainment only. I am not sure about the standards here at commons, on :de the link doesn't meet the standards. --stefan (?!) 00:04, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

In this article the report of the opinion of Dr. Schenk is unequivocal. There is no reason to question this item in the article, in particular, as both Hagedorn and Schenk can easily be asked about it. Concerning this issue, the source must therefore be considered as reliable, as long as there is no evidence to the contrary. Vivian G 11:57, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

As the editor who reinstated the link, I don't have strong opinions either way. I don't see the Zeit article as proof or evidence of much, but as an accessible (for those who read German, anyhow) summary of the controversy. Rl 07:22, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Schenks Opinion might be like you interpret the quote, but it is not documented, not by the quote, nor by any other published scientific paper. Michaelis published, Bauer published. That's it. Please ask Schenk to publish, I`d appreciate that. He did the first study for the BGG (Attribution to Edlinger), why didn't he do a second one? That would have been a strong support to the BGG. He didn't, did he? --stefan (?!) 08:09, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

As before, user Stefan h tries to replace ignorance by fantasy. Schenk never worked for the Gemäldegalerie in Berlin. He attributed the painter Edlinger to this portrait painting in his dissertation, which was later published as a book. After the work of Michaelis and Seiller, there was no reason to replicate the Mozart attribution in a new study. But, as unequivocally reported by Hagedorn in “Die Zeit”, Schenk supported the Mozart attribution when he learned about it and regretted not to have found it 15 years earlier during his own research on the painting. Vivian G 12:29, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

As I wrote above, might be. But the crippled quote is no documentation. The article is entertainment only. --stefan (?!) 15:38, 11 June 2007 (UTC)