Talk:Nicolas de Staël

Untitled

Nicolas de Staël (1914-1955) (French, of Russian origin) was a painter known for his use of a thick impasto and his highly abstract landscapes. This page needs to be unprotected so that we can get his bio page on the wiki. -- NYArtsnWords 17:39, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Deletion?

Why was this page deleted?

ThomasHoughton 18:28, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Open for creation

...as you like. This page was protected against re-creation because childish vandals kept re-creating it with nonsense content. Hopefully they're tired of it now, but you should watch the page in case they return. · Katefan0^(scribble)/mrp 19:08, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one article was rated and this bot brought all the other ratings up to at least that level. BetacommandBot 07:36, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Links to Fine Arts Presentations

This link: Nicolas de Staël at Fine Arts Presentations features the artworks and short bio of Nicolas de Staël. Does the community believe this additional link in the External Links section would enhance this document? The elibrarian (talk) 14:06, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

It is not a reliable source, it does not reference any specific in the article, and it is basically an advertisement. Read WP:EL...Modernist (talk) 14:30, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

The referenced site contains de Staël's works which is relevant to the article. Fine Arts Presentations has been on the Internet since 1992, and its sister sites, especially Rudolf Steiner Archive, are quoted in several Wikipedia articles. What is a Reliable Source? Many of the other External links for this article have advertisements and ask for donations ... the Internet would be a barren place without these tools. FAP does not use pop-ups, overlays, etc. as some of the other sites referenced in this article do. I don't understand your reference that it is basically an advertisement. What are your suggestions? The elibrarian (talk) 16:23, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

• Read this: WP:RS, the website is a plug for the webmaster, this is an encyclopedia, reference information and forget the advertising...Modernist (talk) 16:30, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

  I strongly disagree that the site is a plug for the webmaster! Have you visited the other sites in the EL? Do you have any idea what it takes to keep a website running? I have asked you for help! Please explain your criticisms. The elibrarian (talk) 17:26, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

  The best advice that I can offer you is to use the link as a reference to something specific in each article and not as an external link...Modernist (talk)

Exhibition list

Would this section benefit from an exhibition list of de staels?

In particular later retrospectives, including works at the MOMA https://www.moma.org/artists/1447 and Whitechapel art gallery in London just after his death :https://www.whitechapelgallery.org/about/history/exhibitions-1950-present/

Or would it be possible to add within the 'legacy' section? I'm relatively new to wikipedia editing, so would not know what is best! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clesmon (talk • contribs) 09:52, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Death of Jeanine Guillou

The cause of her death is not clear. The article says that it was because of malnutrition, but some references explain that it was due to a therapeutic abortion (including the recent exposition about De Staël in the Orsay Museum in Paris). Hervegirod (talk) 15:46, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Request for comment: Cooper attribution in death section

The article's description of de Staël's suicide places a meeting with art critic Douglas Cooper as the immediate precursor to the act. Should this causal framing be retained? Gfusvh (talk) 07:55, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

Support removal. The sole citation for placing Cooper as the immediate precursor to de Staël's death is John Richardson, The Sorcerer's Apprentice (Pimlico, 2001), p. 195. Richardson was Cooper's former romantic partner and longtime companion, which makes this retrospective testimony rather than neutral third-party sourcing. Laurent Greilsamer's Le Prince foudroyé (Fayard, 2001), the authoritative biography, written with full access to the family archive, does not attribute the suicide to the Cooper meeting. Greilsamer identifies a convergence of factors: the breakdown of de Staël's relationship with Jeanne Polge, chronic exhaustion, insomnia, and depression. The Centre Pompidou exhibition catalog (Ameline, 2003) takes the same view. Furthermore, according to Greilsamer (p. 346), Cooper and Richardson's visit to Antibes took place in early January 1955. De Staël died on March 15, 1955. A gap of roughly ten weeks makes "in the wake of" an unsupportable characterization. Placing Cooper in the sentence describing the act itself, on the basis of Richardson alone, also conflicts with WP:SUICIDE's caution against single-cause narratives. It is worth noting that Cooper was one of de Staël's earliest champions and wrote the first monograph on his work in 1961. The causal framing misrepresents that relationship. The preceding paragraph already covers the relevant context; removing Cooper from the death sentence loses nothing substantive. Gfusvh (talk) 07:59, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

I would like to comment on this, but first please respond to Katzrockso's question about whether you are using an LLM to generate this text. Amatmilen (talk) 06:55, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

I have addressed this on my user talk page. Gfusvh (talk) 07:14, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

Thank you. I agree with Gfushv here. Identifying a connection, even implicitly, between one person's action and another person's suicide definitely demands a pretty reliable source, which Richardson's associations with Cooper precludes. Perhaps the claim could be restated without using WP:WIKIVOICE? Amatmilen (talk) 07:52, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

Thank you, Amatmilen. The issue is structural, not stylistic. Whether the text uses wikivoice or attributes the claim to Richardson, Cooper still appears in the sentence describing the act and the causal implication is the same.

Cooper appears exactly twice in Greilsamer's biography. The first instance (pp. 328-330) describes de Staël visiting Cooper's Château de Castille to leverage his influence on the London art market. The second (p. 346) is the January 1955 visit to Antibes, after which de Staël writes Cooper a long letter defending his work with complete conviction, then spends the following two months producing major canvases and planning three exhibitions. Cooper is absent from everything that follows.

De Staël's response to criticism of his late work was consistent dismissal. When Lecuire criticized the new paintings around the same time, de Staël wrote to Dubourg: "Jugement superficiel. Ne tenez pas compte de cela" (a superficial judgment, don't take it into account). Attributing unusual weight to Cooper's reaction, on the sole authority of Richardson, is unwarranted to say the least.

What Greilsamer actually documents (pp. 337, 340, 343) is suicidal ideation from at least the summer of 1954, rooted entirely in his relationship with Jeanne Polge. Months before meeting Cooper, de Staël told his friend Ciska that death was a deliverance (p. 340) and wrote to Madeleine Haupert that to reach the great light he would need to rid himself of his human frame (p. 343). The final causal sequence is Jeanne refusing to come on March 14 and driving past his building without stopping on March 15.

Cooper, primarily a Cubism specialist, arguably does not belong in the article at all outside a footnote; he clearly should not be in the sentence describing the artist's death. Gfusvh (talk) 16:00, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

(Previous:Should the article attribute de Staël's suicide to a meeting with art critic Douglas Cooper, sourced solely to Richardson (2001), or should the death be described without singling out a proximate cause, in line with Greilsamer (2001), the primary biography?) Gfusvh (talk) 23:56, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

This RfC doesn't comply with WP:RFCNEUTRAL, in my opinion. Would you mind changing the RfC question and then offering the sources as a comment/!vote @Gfusvh? Katzrockso (talk) 02:56, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

Background:

Cooper attribution and WP:SUICIDE

The current text states that de Staël died "in the wake of a disappointing meeting with art critic Douglas Cooper." I am requesting outside input on whether this framing meets Wikipedia's sourcing and editorial standards.

The sourcing problem. The sole citation for this claim is John Richardson, The Sorcerer's Apprentice (Pimlico, 2001), p. 195. Richardson was Douglas Cooper's former romantic partner and longtime companion. This is not a neutral third-party account; it is the retrospective testimony of someone with a direct personal relationship to Cooper. WP:RS cautions against giving undue weight to accounts by parties with a personal stake in the narrative.

The claim is contradicted by the primary biography. Laurent Greilsamer's Le Prince foudroyé (Fayard, 2001) is the authoritative, extensively researched biography of de Staël, written with full access to the family archive and correspondence. Greilsamer does not attribute the suicide to the Cooper meeting. He identifies a convergence of factors: the breakdown of de Staël's relationship with Jeanne Polge, chronic exhaustion, insomnia, and depression. This is also the account given in the Centre Pompidou's exhibition catalog (Ameline, 2003), the standard reference work for the artist.

The French Wikipedia article, which draws on the full scholarly literature, does not attribute the suicide to the Cooper meeting.

WP:SUICIDE. Wikipedia's guideline on the depiction of suicide explicitly discourages presenting simplistic single-cause narratives. "In the wake of a disappointing meeting" is precisely such a narrative, and it is sourced to a single anecdotal account that contradicts the primary scholarship.

Cooper was not a hostile figure. He was one of de Staël's earliest champions and wrote the first monograph on his work (1961). Characterizing their final meeting as a cause of the suicide, on the basis of Richardson alone, misrepresents Cooper's relationship with de Staël and gives one source undue causal weight.

Proposed resolution. Remove the causal attribution to Cooper entirely, in line with Greilsamer and Ameline. The broader context of de Staël's final weeks (isolation, the Polge relationship, exhaustion) is already covered in the preceding paragraph and provides sufficient context without singling out one meeting as a trigger. Gfusvh (talk) 20:29, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

@Gfusvh did you use a LLM to generate this comment? Katzrockso (talk) 02:56, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

Comment: The remarks regarding the suicide should remain...Modernist (talk) 00:17, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

• Richardson's comments From The Sorcerer’s Apprentice: Picasso, Provence and Douglas Cooper (UK: Jonathan Cape, 1999) 92-96; must be believed. Richardson was an enormously observant biographer of Picasso and his remarks regarding his knowledge of Cooper and Cooper's enormous collection of Cubism and his contempt for the more contemporary artists of the time was well discussed. The suicide tragedy was undoubtedly a collection of events both personal and professional...Modernist (talk) 00:17, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

  Thank you. I'd note that your own formulation — "undoubtedly a collection of events both personal and professional" — already concedes the central point. Wikipedia:Articles on suicides cautions against content that causes "disquiet among those who loved, liked or simply respected the dead person." Attributing de Staël's death to a single critical remark does precisely that: it reduces a complex, accomplished artist, brought down by accumulated personal and professional pressures, to someone who jumped off a building because a critic didn't like his paintings. That is disrespectful to his memory, to his family, and to the historical record as established by Greilsamer, the primary biography, which identifies a convergence of factors including the breakdown of a relationship, exhaustion, and isolation, not a single triggering event. As a secondary concern, the same essay cautions against "pillorying those alleged to have contributed to the suicide." Naming Cooper as the proximate cause does that too, on the basis of a single account written by his former romantic partner. The fix is simple: remove the causal phrasing. Cooper can remain in the article in his proper context as an early champion of de Staël's work. Gfusvh (talk) 09:48, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

• I'll remove the word disappointing and leave the rest...Modernist (talk) 11:31, 28 May 2026 (UTC)