Talk:Wilhelm von Gloeden

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The von Gloeden Family's View of Wilhelm von Gloeden[edit]

The Barony von Gloeden continued uninterupted from the year 1272, when Weichmann von Gloeden, son of Rambertus Gloeden became the first Baron von Gloeden, until 15 JUL 1935 when the Baroness Anna Ulrike von Gloeden died. She handed down the seal, the von Gloeden Family Bible, the Gloedenhoff estate book and all other remaining von Gloeden documentation to her son Falko Wilhelm Schilling, who handed it down to his son Falko Max Schilling, and so on to his son. The estate book contains not only financial account of the Griebow estate, but also family births and deaths and the notation of the passing of the von Gloeden Barony.

Von Gloeden Family members have made the contention for the last 125 years that the gentleman born in 1856 who called himself Baron Wilhelm von Gloeden was an impostor, as far as his lineage was concerned. Many suggest that it is unlikely that he is even "von Gloeden," but more possibly "Kloethe," "Klothe" or "Gloethe." Great uncle Georg contended that Wilhelm, the Taormina photographer, was actually adopted, called himself a baron and made up his lineage.

Unless a second Barony von Gloeden was established in Mecklenburg, he can not lay claim to the title of "Baron von Gloeden," established in 1272, since the line through his lifetime is very clearly delineated in Dr. Carl Gesterding's Genealogien und beziehungsweise Familienstiftungen Pommerscer, in the von Gloeden Family Bible record (1773 to 1935), and in the Gloedhoff estate book from Griebow.

From before the time of Wilhelm's birth on 16 SEP 1856 until after his death on 16 FEB 1931, the line of the Barony von Gloeden was as follows:

Baron Carl Gustav von Gloeden (b.1733)(Baron 1755-1810), husband of Countess Elenora Ernestina Louise von Eickstedt

--to son-- Baron Hans Felix Conradt von Gloeden (b.1771)(Baron 1810-1840), husband of Ulrica Johanna Friederica von Neetzow

--to son-- Baron Carl Felix Wilhelm von Gloeden (b.1798)(Baron 1840-1870), husband of Augusta Carolina Dorothea von Eickstedt

--to son-- Baron Carl Gustav von Gloeden (b.1821)(Baron 1870-1868), husband of Louise Ulrike Carolina Wallenius

--to son-- Baron Falko von Gloeden (b.1847)(Baron 1868-1885), who died with his ship the HMS Augustus in the Indian Ocean in 1885. (He had no offspring and all brothers had died either from disease or from the Franco-Prussian War.)

--to his sister--

--Baroness Anna Ulrike von Gloeden, (b.1852)(Baroness 1885-1935).

gay visual artist[edit]

if wikipedia or wiktionary has a definition for this can someone put a link in? thanks.99.224.220.52 (talk) 20:27, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More images[edit]

There is some more information and some pre-1901 photos that could be added to this article here. (not safe for work ). Suntag (talk) 15:54, 8 August 2008 (UTC) images have been added —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.106.226.25 (talk) 03:26, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The real background of von Gloeden[edit]

It appears that most biographical references to von Gloeden rely on Roger Peyrefitte - mostly through secondary sources. However the information seems incorrect. von Gloeden's background was always something of a mystery.

The following information used to exist in the article:

"Wilhelm von Gloeden was the son of head forester (forstmeister) Carl Hermann von Gloeden]] (1820–1862) and his wife Charlotte Maassen (1824–1901; from 1864 von Hammerstein). Although von Gloeden claimed to be a minor German aristocrat from Mecklenburg, the von Gloeden family and its heirs have always insisted that no such person existed in their family records and his claim to The Barony von Gloeden was without warrant; the barony became extinct in 1885 with the death of Baron Falko von Gloeden."

The article history shows it was deleted from the entry by user Pico around 2011 due to lacking sources. People who simply delete stuff without bothering to do the hard work of sourcing should be bitchslapped. I'm restoring it with a cite needed tag.

I'm presuming it's been taken from one of the online german nobility sites. If anyone can supply solid sources for this, it would be great. The article's current reference to the German place of birth as "Chateau de Volkshagen" is amusing. But again, is Schloss Volkshagen true if he was in fact a self-styled aristocrat. Engleham (talk) 17:30, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Wilhelm von Gloeden. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:42, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is this legal[edit]

I'm concerned about the legality about this individual's body of work Forgive my crude formatting and grammar, I'm just concerned that this can be (or is) child pornography — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.18.13.225 (talk) 23:34, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, this is super weird Devgirl (talk) 17:33, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is, first of all because of its artistic nature. Secondly, It is nothing Close to pornography. None of these works involve anything that wasn't done before and its porpouse is clearly technically and aesthetically coherent. Scenes such as these have been portrayed in Western art for much of its history; for instance, check out the Renaissance or the later french academicism. There is no genital close-up or any hint of a sexual relashionshipt. You will find that this is a very recurrent topic when speaking of the ancients and its art. And even if it was, which it isn't, historical sources do not undermind a particular aspect of time because the topic is contemporaneously inappropriate, as these works date practically more than a century ago. 1st Duke of Wellington (talk) 14:51, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

'More explicit photos in which boys aged between about 10 and 20, and occasionally older men, were nude (sometimes with prominent genitalia) and which, because of eye contact or physical contact were more sexually suggestive, were traded "under the counter" and among close friends of the photographer, but "as far as is known, Gloeden's archive contained neither pornographic nor erotically lascivious motifs".' Even if they weren't ponographic or lascivious, from the quote from the page above it seems that in some photos there were 'genital close -ups' and 'hints of sexual relationships.' This wouldn't be problematic if the models are 18 and above, and happy to pose like that, but him asking 10-year-olds to pose erotically does seem creepy, even if they were happy to do so, which is doubtful at that age. 188.30.188.30 (talk) 07:16, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the very first sentence of his bio on artnet says he was 'known for his erotic images of adolescent boys'. The sexual element can't be ignored. Surely there is some literature that fully discusses the implications of this, especially how the boys felt about it. 188.30.188.30 (talk) 07:37, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
link here - http://www.artnet.com/artists/baron-wilhelm-von-gloeden/ 188.30.188.30 (talk) 07:37, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
more links which say he had sexual relationships with his models and that the statement that the photos were continuing Western, specifically Grecian, traditions, and were not erotic, was a pretext and false.
Yahoo, gayhistory@yahoo.com, Von Gloeden. http://vongloedengayhistory.free.fr/, viewed 9:33 AM EDT, Saturday, May 10, 2008.
Goldman, Jason, “Gloeden, Wilhelm von, Baron,” glbtq: An Encyclopedia of Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, Transgendered, and Queer Culture. http://www.glbtq.com/arts/gloeden_w.html. © 2002, glbtq, Inc., last updated October 29, 2006, viewed 10:02 AM EDT, Saturday, May 10, 2008.
Koymasky, Andre and Matt, “Wilhelm Von Gloeden – The Boys of Taormina,” The Living Room, http://andrejkoymasky.com/liv/glo/glo01.html. © Matt and Andrei Koymasky 1997 – 2005, viewed 8:43 AM EST, March 3, 2008.
see too the Baron's entry in The Queer Encyclopedia of the Visual Arts by Claude J Summers 188.30.188.30 (talk) 10:34, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Berman, Patricia G. "F. Holland Day and His 'Classical' Models: Summer Camp." History of Photography 18.4 (Winter 1994): 348-367. Gloeden, Wilhelm von, Baron. Taormina. Altadena, Cal.: Twelvetree Press, 1990. Leslie, Charles. Wilhelm von Gloeden, Photographer. New York: Soho Photographic Publishers, 1977. Pohlman, Ulrich. Wilhelm von Gloeden: Taormina. New York: teNeues Publishing, 1998. Waugh, Thomas. Hard to Imagine: Gay Male Eroticism in Photography and Film from Their Beginnings to Stonewall. New York: Columbia University Press, 1996. Weiermair, Peter. Wilhelm von Gloeden. Cologne: Taschen, 1994. 188.30.188.30 (talk) 11:11, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Wilhelm_von_Gloeden&oldid=1207443218"