333
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 12:
Line 12: + +
→Christo?: not a painter, not a painting. Delete.
::::Perhaps we could see if there was a copy of the painting which is in the public domain. That way we could put the two pictures side to side to provide a comparison between subject and result (although there are probably better examples out there). [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 06:17, 13 May 2008 (EDT)
::::Perhaps we could see if there was a copy of the painting which is in the public domain. That way we could put the two pictures side to side to provide a comparison between subject and result (although there are probably better examples out there). [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 06:17, 13 May 2008 (EDT)
I came here to say "why is such an obvious non-painting, by an artist who is not primarily known as a painter, included (and given such prominence) in an article about ''painting''?" I see I'm not the first! Why is this even (apparently, reading between the lines of the above comments) contentious? Delete it. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 08:57, 13 May 2008 (EDT)