Talk:Girl with a Pearl Earring

Who says that the focal point is the pearl earring. I think eyes both constitute the focal point. 206.217.201.28 (talk) 23:59, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't even appear to be a pearl earring to me. It looks disc-shaped and silver. The white 'pearl' area is a reflection, probably of a window. The girl's collar is reflected as a darker white arc along the bottom of the disc.Ormewood (talk) 05:06, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Vandalism. Someone wrote that they thought it was a boring painting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Laeni (talk • contribs) 06:48, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

what's with the "after vermeer" painting or photo or whatever in external links? I'm just wondering what the reasoning behind keeping this in the article is.

Good question, I removed it.

/ Mats Halldin (talk) 13:00, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

An imitation of this painting was used in the Less Than Perfect episode The Crush with Sara Rue as the girl. ----DanTD (talk) 18:16, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

The painting also features as a great work in the strategy game Civilization V: Brave New World, which while playing I first came across it and searched for this article. Cultural references in Civilization games may be how other younger folk come across famous artwork as well. 121.200.7.152 (talk) 02:11, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

BTW the current way the picture used in the article is cropped removes the signature; on the uncropped version, it is barely visible in the upper left part of the painting. One can see, very faintly, "Meer", with the "I" over it (see http://www.essentialvermeer.com/catalogue/girl_with_a_pearl_earring.html for description of signature).

Ll1324 (talk) 03:57, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

This is touring to the de Young gallery in San Francisco starting January 2013. I'm not sure where it is going after that. Is this information relevant to the painting. I think the touring information of famous paintings could be interesting and informational, but I haven't seen too much of it mentioned on other wikipedia painting pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.49.44.154 (talk) 22:47, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

It's currently in the High Museum in Atlanta, I think until the end of September, 2013. Ormewood (talk) 05:01, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

From Atlanta, this painting, along with the other works from the Royal Picture Gallery Mauritshuis in The Hague with which it is touring, will be in New York City, at The Frick Collection from October 22, 2013 to January 19, 2014. This will be the final stop on this tour. This tour is possible because the Mauritshuis is undergoing a two-year renovation which involves a tunnel connecting it to a neighboring building so that the original museum can be expanded. This is the first time in thirty years that the Mauritshuis has released a large body of work. If you miss it in New York, you will probably have to travel to Europe if you intend to see them in your lifetime. Ormewood (talk) 20:43, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

update: the painting will be exposed from February 8, 2014 to May 25, 2014 in Palazzo Fava, Bologna, Italia. --Wikinuno (talk) 22:14, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Does anyone else find it bad/sad/wrong that the file of the picture used on this page (and in a great many places apparently) has the wrong name for the work? THE GIRL WITH THE PEARL EARRING is not the name of the painting; it is GIRL WITH A PEARL EARRING. Am I wrong? ◦◦derekbd◦◦my talk◦◦ 00:23, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

The painting has been known by several names over the years. Nobody knows what Vermeer called it, or if he named it at all. It has also been known, at various times and by various people, as Girl In A Turban, Head Of Girl In A Turban, Head of a Young Girl, andThe Young Girl With Turban, so arguing that the word "the" should or shouldn't precede the current name seems a bit picky. Ormewood (talk) 23:42, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Indeed. There's rarely any point getting worked up about Old Master titles, which are made up on a whim by curators or come from 18th century auction/inventory clerks. The Arnolfini Portrait has been given I think 5 different titles by the National Gallery in the last 100 years. And the hassle of changing an image file name is almost never worth it. Johnbod (talk) 04:03, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

What does she wear on her head? It looks like a turban. Komitsuki (talk) 15:13, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes it does, though it is probably best not to call it exactly that. Head-wraps like this were quite common for both sexes, especially in informal wear at home, or when working. Johnbod (talk) 15:51, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

The image is quite unsatisfactory. It has been cropped removing the signature (why cropped for god's sake) and it's too dark. A high resolution image Commons:File:Johannes Vermeer - Girl with a Pearl Earring - WGA24666.jpg might be more adequate were it nor for the healthy rose-pink cast the editor has chosen to add to it. Meanwhile attempts to upload the fine Mauritshuis image are met with opposition from City Hall. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 12:33, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Would this picture work better? Looks quite OK to me, certainly better than any other reproduction I've seen online. --Jashiin (talk) 17:04, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that's a very acceptable image I think. I have in fact this afternoon uploaded the new Mauritshuis image here. Your image comes from geheugenvannederland.nl ("Memories of Holland") which is a national archive whose contents are theoretically in the public domain. But the Vermeer image there is credited to the Mauritshuis, and since it's slightly different I expect it's an old version (conceivably before its 1995 restoration). I've nominated the new Mauritshuis image as a Featured Image, and if that gains consensus I will change the article image. Thank you for your input. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 22:39, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry to see an editor has reverted to the cropped and saturated version on the grounds it's a "Featured Picture". Very city hall. I shall go to Commons and endeavour to have it unfeatured. That was in any case the advice given me when I tried to have the excellent recently made available Mauritshuis version "Featured". Coat of Many Colours (talk) 20:33, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Meisje met de parel.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on April 20, 2017. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2017-04-20. 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) 02:13, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Picture of the day

Girl with a Pearl Earring is an oil painting by 17th-century Dutch painter Johannes Vermeer. This tronie depicts a girl in an exotic dress, an oriental turban, and a pearl earring. The painting has been in the collection of the Mauritshuis in The Hague since 1902.Painting: Johannes Vermeer

Archive – More featured pictures...

Is it known, or is there any credible speculation, on who the model for the painting actually was? Thanks. --Lbeaumont (talk) 02:59, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

No. Various members of Vermeer's family are sometimes thought to have been used for his figures, but there is no evidence. Johnbod (talk) 10:15, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

There's no written evidence although visually it appears to be his daughter, Maria, who appears in several other of his attributed paintings although at different ages of course. 157.131.199.223 (talk) 17:45, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

As you can all observe she has no eyebrows. I don't see hair at all actually. I would like a professional to look and consider if she might have had treatment against bugs like fleas. Only a professional can write and publish an article about how bugs in that era were handled. At my side of reasoning, she had her hair and eyebrows perhaps including what you don't see shaven or cut away. This needs a professional artists journalist to publish about. Why doesn't she have eyebrows? Or any other hair? Professional middle ages and opinion of professional hair dress journalists are hereby invited to publish about her physical condition. She looks to beautiful to have a modern treatment that causes people to not have hair. Thank you for reading. If a professional is willing to publish about her circumstances. If someone had insects like fleas, it sounds logical to remove all body hair. Including as described. Citation needed of middle ages expert journalist before modify of article. Regards.~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.128.97.71 (talk) 15:25, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

The 2006 film is not mentioned at all, but the book is, did I miss a link? Jack Nunn Jacknunn ([[1]]) 11:48, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Yes you did, the film appears in the disambiguation tab at the head of the article. Since the article is about the painting, mention of the film would have been WP:OFFTOPIC. Sweetpool50 (talk) 12:25, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

This article is currently the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 9 January 2024 and 2 May 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): MarvinKano011 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by MarvinKano011 (talk) 01:35, 6 February 2024 (UTC)