![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
the inline numbers seem to relate to the arrows in the references list, but without saying which is which. I don't know how to sort this out, but if anyone does, please do... Johnbod 12:42, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Hans Memling is mentioned as being German in the article. While it is true that he was born in the region where modern Germany is established, I wonder whether this is entirely correct as the article rightfully confirms that there was no concept of Germany in the early 15th century. One could only argue that he was from Germanic ethnicity but I am not sure this alone would be enough to name him a German immigrant. He was from the Flemish tradition and I think this characterizes him better than his ethnicity. Being of some ethnicity is always subject to discussion as it is hard to find an individual coming from a single trait. In that sense a DNA test may also prove that his grand father was from Hungarian ethnicity but does this make him a Hungarian painter? What if you find out one day that, his great grand father was from Central Asian origin as %60 of the European population, could you then call him an Asian Painter. What I am trying to say is that, ethnicity is not a defining property of an individual but the culture and tradition is. I think everybody agrees with this. In the Dutch article Hans Memling is said to be a Flemish Painter and I think it is a correct statement. Hans Memling: A Flemish painter, born in Selingrad a place in the borders of modern Germany of possibly Germanic ethnicity and of unknown citizenship. (there was no concept of citizenship until French revolution.) Thanks BillyGee ( talk) 19:23, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
The main problem with the term Flemish Primitives is the pejorative connotation conferred by primitive. The main problem with the term Early Netherlandish is in the potential confusion between the modern and historic meanings of the word "Netherlandish", since Flanders was considered as the Southern part of the Netherlands in historic times while now largely being part of Belgium. There is wide scientific consensus that the creative climate, artistic-technical infrastructures, and financial support for this "new" art were provided, virtually uniquely, by the wealthy cities of Bruges and Ghent, as correctly stated in the article, and that the large majority of artists were from Flemish origin and did work predominantly within the geographic constraints of Flanders. The correct name to refer to this new art should therefore per definition always include the designation Flemish and not Netherlandish. There is no confusion possible: Ghent and Bruges were located in Flanders, then and now.
The pejorative connotation to "primitive" is much less pronounced in languages of latin descent, and since it is widely established, it is preferable. There is no democratic precedent for introducing this highly confusing Early Netherlandish term: in contrast to what Google Fight may reveal, a simple Google search reveals 96,600 hits for Flemish Primitives and only 45,500 for Early Netherlandish Art. Also, the main collections of Flemish Primitive art housed by the cities of Ghent and Bruges and other musea world-wide are just called that way, and are unlikely ever to be renamed Early Netherlandish art. So, why deliberately creating confusion if there is no reason for it?
The main drive of this article seems to reside in an attempt to justify why the term Early Netherlandish is preferable and the author goes to great lengths in this regard. One would almost be inclined to suspect that there is as political-strategic motive: the artificial increase of the weight of the (current, i.e. the historic Northern) Netherlands in a school of art to which the Dutch, in effect, only peripherally contributed and of which they were never the mainspring.
The authors use arguments which are entirely reversible: Cologne was not part of the Netherlands and neither was it part of Flanders. The list of painters highlights painters from outside Flanders but does not include affiliations following the names of the truly Flemish painters.
[citation] Also, like the concept of the Italian Renaissance itself, it stresses the birth of a new age rather than the culmination of an old one.[citation] This apparently, may be the main drive for renaming Flemish Primitives into Early Netherlandish art: to highlight it as nothing more than a "lead-in" to the forthcoming golden century of the Northern Netherlands (17th century). But this totally discards the reality of the Flemish-Burgundian economic-cultural golden age per se, which coincides precisely with the time of the Flemish Primitives and engendered their art. Early Netherlandish art constitutes therefore a violation of what the Flemish Primitives de facto embody: the culmination of the Flemish golden age. As such, Early Netherlandish is a post hoc logical fallacy.
To reconcile all opinions, I suggest to include in the title of the article both Flemish Primitives and Early Netherlandish Art. Kvandenb ( talk) 12:37, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
Someone get rid of that Haber's art review link it's absolute drivel —Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.92.103.101 ( talk) 13:45, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
As far as I know, the term "Flemish Primitives" is unusual in English. The usual term is "Early Netherlandish Painting" (e.g. in the famous work by Erwin Panofsky, to name only one art historian), as is also mentioned in the article.
"Flemish primitives" seems to me a litteral translation from the French name for this school of painters, "Les flamands primitifs"; in French "primitif" means also "early" (and cannot always be translated with English "primitive", which means "simple, undeveloped", which is definitely inappropriate to describe these painters).
I think the title is inappropriate and should be changed into Early Netherlandish Painting.
Regards, Friedrich Tellberg 4 Aug 2005
-->
"Netherlandish"?! Is that even English? If it's a matter of including both Dutch and Flemish painting, the way to do that in English would be to say "Dutch and Flemish painting". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.189.58.222 ( talk) 08:49, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Furthermore the article states that the term "Netherlandish" allows for an broader geographical base for the artists associated with the period than the more inclusive "Flemish". This may be true but the difference in geographical base for the artists associated with the period does not differ much, and geographical bases like Estonia, Germany and Cologne are still not included when using the term "Netherlandish". Another argument agains the use of Netherlandish, is the fact that the term 'Netherlands' nowadays is almost exclusively used to refer to what is now known as "The Kingdom of the Netherlands", whereas the region Flanders remained the same and as is stated in "Designation" that region was the cultural center of that time. The fact that this term has been introduced by german art-critics can hardly be seen as an argument since the german word Niederländisch can be translated to either "Dutch" and "Of the Low Countries". That's why I dare speculate the english authors who discuss "Netherlandish art" just tried to whip up some dirt with their fancy neologism. Last but not least, before this term "Netherlandish" was introduced by art-historians it would have been considered a fatal grammatical error, since the only adjective in the english language with the meaning 'of the Netherlands' or 'of the Low Countries' used to be the adjective "dutch". I would like to point out Netherlands_(terminology) or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netherlands_(terminology) 82.156.102.102 ( talk) 20:11, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
Any ojections to spinning this out as the timelime presents the info in a more accessable format. Having both seems excessive, and I think the timeline is the one to focus on and develope. Ceoil ( talk) 02:07, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
Don't know much about the subject. Bosch and van Eyk are the painters I recognize. Page gets decent traffic. Like the graphic with clickable painters names a lot (who did that?). TCO ( talk) 23:46, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
I'm not crazy about the map - it's really hard to read, for one thing. What do others think? I've been looking through the maps available at the Commons, but I'm not seeing one that quite fits the bill. The guy I'd ordinarily ask for help hasn't edited in well over a year... any ideas as to how we might fix this? Kafka Liz ( talk) 00:03, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
I just noticed that we don't have an article on Northern Renaissance art... We could always redirect the page here, but what would we do about sculptors like Claus Sluter, Tilman Riemenschneider et al, or German painters like Gruenwald and Duerer? If not, we need to be a bit more clear in differentiating this from the Northern Renaissance, as this sentence: The use of the term "Early Netherlandish painting", as well more general descriptors like "Ars nova" and the inclusive "Northern Renaissance art", allows for a broader geographical base for the artists associated with the period than the more exclusive "Flemish". makes it sound as if they're more or less synonymous. I checked the German Wikipedia, where oddly enough the page Nordische Renaissance redirects to Niederländische Renaissance... no help there. Thoughts? Litho derm 16:49, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
"Religious paintings—including altarpieces for churches or private devotion—remained popular in Early Netherlandish art. Secular portraiture, however, was a shared development, as both Netherlandish and Italian artists freed themselves from the medieval idea that portraiture should be limited to saints and historical figures." This appears to be saying that the painters of the Italian renaissance weren't interested in religious paintings, but they remained popular there too. What's missing something, me or the sentence? Yomangani talk 01:36, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
Although this style/period of art certainly is "Gothic," I've also often heard it referred to as "Northern Renaissance" painting. While obviously not working along the same stylistic lines as Italian Renaissance art, I think the term is a valid one.-- 66.162.230.194 17:47, 21 June 2007 (UTC)rubinia
The few sentences at the beginning of the "Relation to the Italian Renaissance" section are misleading: "Italian influences on Netherlandish art are first apparent in the late 1400s, when some of the painters began to travel south. By then Mannerism had become the predominant style in Italy, a reason why a number of later Netherlandish artists became associated with, in the words of art historian Rolf Toman, "picturesque gables, bloated, barrel-shaped columns, droll carouches, "twisted" figures, and stunningly unrealistic colours—actually employ[ing] the visual language of Mannerism". Italian Mannerism has been developed around 1520s, not in the late 1400s. The late 1400s is the height of Renaissance period in Italy, especially in Florence. Kulturtrager ( talk) 00:30, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
The few sentences at the beginning of the "Relation to the Italian Renaissance" section are misleading: "Italian influences on Netherlandish art are first apparent in the late 1400s, when some of the painters began to travel south. By then Mannerism had become the predominant style in Italy, a reason why a number of later Netherlandish artists became associated with, in the words of art historian Rolf Toman, "picturesque gables, bloated, barrel-shaped columns, droll carouches, "twisted" figures, and stunningly unrealistic colours—actually employ[ing] the visual language of Mannerism". Italian Mannerism has been developed around 1520s, not in the late 1400s. The late 1400s is the height of Renaissance period in Italy, especially in Florence. Kulturtrager ( talk) 00:30, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
Would a short section on these be out of scope. Ceoil ( talk) 10:48, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
I bought this book by Huizinga some time back thinking to use it here. There's quite a lot about "plastic art" versus whatever else it's called (highbrow?) and durable, and about themes, iconography and so on. Only problem - it was published in 1924 and I think a little dated. Thoughts? Victoria ( talk) 22:02, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
I just remembered the amount of time we spent on The Entombment (Bouts), getting it right. Should we have a section somewhere about the tuchlein paintings - maybe try to put into "Devotional panels"? I'd think much of it could be copied from what we we've already written. Victoria ( talk) 20:52, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
Before I get too bold and ruin this, would like some input. I restructured as I did with the thought that it's a long article so wanted to showcase for the reader the type of works as soon as possible, followed by techniques, etc. After reading the techniques section, I'm beginning to rethink that. So I guess I'm wondering which is best for a general reader: the works first, or the techniques first? A follow-up issue is that the "Overview" I think can do with some restructuring, but I'll come back to that. Victoria ( talk) 00:32, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
Was thinking of adding a short sec on landscapes, but while figuring out where to place it, I noticed that the order of the sections under "formats", while correct in importance, are around an inverse of their chronological development. Not sure this can be resolved, though. Ceoil ( talk) 12:52, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
Nice work, I'll try to contribute some more (content and polishing of text). I think that, while largely complete in its coverage of the major players, the absence of two major players from opposite ends of the period is striking; Melchior Broederlam and Simon Bening. Fram ( talk) 14:48, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
From the lead, "or the early-17th century", for the end of the period; this seems to be a rather fringe view, no one seems to really extend it until after 1570 or so as far as I can tell. Of course, there were still some painters working in the same style (e.g. Pieter Bruegel II and III), but no major artists can be said to be Early Netherlandish painters after Bruegel the Elder, and his inclusion is much disputed. Simon Bening died in 1561, and all other major painters of the period are Renaissance painters (everyone after Metsys, including Mabuse, Jan Messys, ... The dispute about the end of the period seems to be between ca. 1530 (death of e.g. Cornelis Engebrechtsz. and ca. 1560 (death of Bruegel, Bening, ...), with painters like Aertgen van Leyden starting in the Early style but turning into Renaissance painters later on. Of course, one can argue that "Early" ended with the Antwerp Mannerism, but some overlap between the two seems to be correct, and postulated by most art historians. But few if any stretch it to the early 17th century, I believe. Fram ( talk) 09:57, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
The timeline starts much too abrupt, "A consolidating change in approach" can hardly be the start of a timeline, the sentence doesn't include a "compared to" part anyway. This timeline is the place to give a general chronological overview, so should start with the predecessors and early influences, not the first master.
The section includes " Lucas Cranach managed a trade in pharmaceutical goods, Mathias Grunewald in pigments." Neither is normally considered a Netherlandish painter, so I don't think this should be included (certainly not in this way; if you want to add a mention of related artists from surrounding territories, then these are fine candidates). Similarly, " Albrecht Dürer emulated van Eyck's attention to detail and precision but focused on the secular.[33]" is not really relevant for the timeline of Netherlandish painters IMO. It can be moved directly after the next sentence though, "By the 16th century the visual and iconographical innovations and painterly techniques developed by van Eyck had become standard throughout northern Europe."
"with Ulm, Nuremberg, Vienna and Munich being the most important artistic centres on the start of the 16th century." The most important artistic centres of what? Not Europe, obviously, and not the Netherlands either. I presume "of the Holy Roman Empire" is intended?
"Van Eycks hellscapes" Does this refer to the Crucifixion and Last Judgement diptych or something more/else? Fram ( talk) 10:26, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
Near the end of the "terminology and scope" section is the sentence " The 16th century can be seen as directly leading from the painterly innovations and iconography of the previous century." I have no clear idea what is intended here, or how it integrates with the rest of the paragraph.
A few sentences later, "Especially from the mid-1500s, artists began to explore illusionistic depictions of three dimensions, with Geertgen tot Sint Jans a leading innovator.": I guess the intention is that the 15-th century innovations of Geertgen get fully developed in the mid-1500s (the 1550s and 1560s is intended, I believe), but the sentence gives the impression that Geertgen tot Sint Jans was the leading painter of those mid 1500s painters, which is of course not correct. Fram ( talk) 10:14, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
Some things, gasp, are not easier to say using inline comments...
These two sentences in different sections seem to contradict each other:
Riggr Mortis ( talk) 04:24, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for addressing the above. Some new ones:
In the section "Patronage", I read "Prototypes were sold at regularly held fairs[...]" This seems illogical, the prototypes would be shown to prospective buyers and coies then made for them, you wouldn't sell the prototype (or it wouldn't be a prototype). I haven't corrected this, wanting some feedback first. Fram ( talk) 12:46, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
Near the start of the "Rediscovery" section, I read "[...] placed the art works of era at the heart of Northern Renaissance art." I don't understand this sentence. I assume that it should be "of THE era", but even so, it is unclear what is intended here. Fram ( talk) 14:15, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
Further: "[...]and created new national divisions among the cities of[...]": again, no idea what is meant here. Fram ( talk) 14:18, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
The text states "(klein patroons in Flemish, petit patrons in French)"; neither seems correct. In Dutch/Flemish, one would say "kleine patroons" or "kleine patronen", but I wasn't able to find a source for either of those, so perhaps we should just drop the Flemish here; in Frecnh, it should be "petits patrons" instead of "petit patrons". Fram ( talk) 13:29, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
Footnote 62 (about van der Weyden's Descent from The Cross) refers to Campbell (2004). What is Campbell (2004)? Mick gold ( talk) 09:31, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
According to the Burgundian Netherlands article, that state was disestablished in 1482. According to this article, however, Early Netherlandish painters were active in the Burgundian Netherlands until the 16th century. Should this article instead read "Burgundian and Habsburg Netherlands"? Neelix ( talk) 14:51, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
...but the pictures are poorly laid out. The section "Patronage" Needs this image. I have removed the colour cast from the York project file. It is still not as good as it could be. I'll be back. Amandajm ( talk) 03:30, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
I have created an article on the 1902 Exposition des primitifs flamands à Bruges. Any help, additions, corrections, ... are more than welcome. It has slightly overwhelmed me, so I probably have missed or neglected some important aspects (and kept some stupid errors). It also contains some interesting redlinks. Fram ( talk) 14:40, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
Images are typically interspersed individually throughout an article near the relevant text (see WP:MOSIMAGES). However, the use of a gallery section may be appropriate in some Wikipedia articles if a collection of images can illustrate aspects of a subject that cannot be easily or adequately described by text or individual images. The images in the gallery collectively must have encyclopedic value and add to the reader's understanding of the subject.
Hafspajen ( talk) 08:06, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
Just happened to come across this page and was stunned at its beauty. The images are wonderfully laid out. The lack of page clutter allows the images to shine. Bravo! Parabolooidal ( talk) 17:21, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
Can the dialogue represented in File:The Braque Triptych interior.jpg really be called " speech balloons", rather than speech scrolls? The terms certainly overlap, but my gut feeling is this falls outside the area of overlap. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 01:56, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
Would it not be rightwise to list the toll of Flemish Primitives produced by each town? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:411:1600:44AD:633C:7A20:5A74 ( talk) 18:52, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
With the creations of Colart de Laon and Friedrich Winkler (and some redirects like Marcus van Vaernewijck and Bartolommeo Fazio), all redlinks in the body of the article have now been turned into bluelinks (there is one redlink left in the references). Our coverage of Early Netherlandish painting and its study is really becoming quite impressive, with many major paintings getting their own articles as well. I often despair about Wikipedia, but topics like this make it worthwhile. many things in these articles of course can still be expanded and improved, but if anyone prefers the creation of new articles instead, I guess Early Netherlandish Painting (Friedländer) would be a worthy topic. Fram ( talk) 11:01, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
Is this the same concept as "Flemish School" (see http://www.artmovements.co.uk/flemish-school or https://www.boundless.com/art-history/textbooks/boundless-art-history-textbook/the-northern-renaissance-22/painting-in-the-northern-renaissance-898/flemish-painting-in-the-northern-renaissance-577-5748/ )? If so than maybe we should mention it in the article, if not than lets remove the redirect. Many institutions label unknown artists from this era as "Flemish School" so it would be nice to explain the term on Wikipedia. -- Jarekt ( talk) 12:49, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
The 14 volumes of Friedländer's " Early Netherlandish Painting" are now now available, in English, here. Seems to be a joint initiative of the goverments of Belgium, Germany and the Netherlands. Ceoil ( talk) 20:20, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
"In 1830 the Belgian Revolution split Belgium from the Netherlands of today and created divisions between the cities of Bruges (home of van Eyck and Memling), Antwerp (Matsys), Brussels (van der Weyden and Bruegel) and Leuven (Bouts). " It is not clear how or why the 1830 revolution "created divisions" between the cities. Didn't these exist earlier? And why are they important? Fram ( talk) 13:25, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
the inline numbers seem to relate to the arrows in the references list, but without saying which is which. I don't know how to sort this out, but if anyone does, please do... Johnbod 12:42, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Hans Memling is mentioned as being German in the article. While it is true that he was born in the region where modern Germany is established, I wonder whether this is entirely correct as the article rightfully confirms that there was no concept of Germany in the early 15th century. One could only argue that he was from Germanic ethnicity but I am not sure this alone would be enough to name him a German immigrant. He was from the Flemish tradition and I think this characterizes him better than his ethnicity. Being of some ethnicity is always subject to discussion as it is hard to find an individual coming from a single trait. In that sense a DNA test may also prove that his grand father was from Hungarian ethnicity but does this make him a Hungarian painter? What if you find out one day that, his great grand father was from Central Asian origin as %60 of the European population, could you then call him an Asian Painter. What I am trying to say is that, ethnicity is not a defining property of an individual but the culture and tradition is. I think everybody agrees with this. In the Dutch article Hans Memling is said to be a Flemish Painter and I think it is a correct statement. Hans Memling: A Flemish painter, born in Selingrad a place in the borders of modern Germany of possibly Germanic ethnicity and of unknown citizenship. (there was no concept of citizenship until French revolution.) Thanks BillyGee ( talk) 19:23, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
The main problem with the term Flemish Primitives is the pejorative connotation conferred by primitive. The main problem with the term Early Netherlandish is in the potential confusion between the modern and historic meanings of the word "Netherlandish", since Flanders was considered as the Southern part of the Netherlands in historic times while now largely being part of Belgium. There is wide scientific consensus that the creative climate, artistic-technical infrastructures, and financial support for this "new" art were provided, virtually uniquely, by the wealthy cities of Bruges and Ghent, as correctly stated in the article, and that the large majority of artists were from Flemish origin and did work predominantly within the geographic constraints of Flanders. The correct name to refer to this new art should therefore per definition always include the designation Flemish and not Netherlandish. There is no confusion possible: Ghent and Bruges were located in Flanders, then and now.
The pejorative connotation to "primitive" is much less pronounced in languages of latin descent, and since it is widely established, it is preferable. There is no democratic precedent for introducing this highly confusing Early Netherlandish term: in contrast to what Google Fight may reveal, a simple Google search reveals 96,600 hits for Flemish Primitives and only 45,500 for Early Netherlandish Art. Also, the main collections of Flemish Primitive art housed by the cities of Ghent and Bruges and other musea world-wide are just called that way, and are unlikely ever to be renamed Early Netherlandish art. So, why deliberately creating confusion if there is no reason for it?
The main drive of this article seems to reside in an attempt to justify why the term Early Netherlandish is preferable and the author goes to great lengths in this regard. One would almost be inclined to suspect that there is as political-strategic motive: the artificial increase of the weight of the (current, i.e. the historic Northern) Netherlands in a school of art to which the Dutch, in effect, only peripherally contributed and of which they were never the mainspring.
The authors use arguments which are entirely reversible: Cologne was not part of the Netherlands and neither was it part of Flanders. The list of painters highlights painters from outside Flanders but does not include affiliations following the names of the truly Flemish painters.
[citation] Also, like the concept of the Italian Renaissance itself, it stresses the birth of a new age rather than the culmination of an old one.[citation] This apparently, may be the main drive for renaming Flemish Primitives into Early Netherlandish art: to highlight it as nothing more than a "lead-in" to the forthcoming golden century of the Northern Netherlands (17th century). But this totally discards the reality of the Flemish-Burgundian economic-cultural golden age per se, which coincides precisely with the time of the Flemish Primitives and engendered their art. Early Netherlandish art constitutes therefore a violation of what the Flemish Primitives de facto embody: the culmination of the Flemish golden age. As such, Early Netherlandish is a post hoc logical fallacy.
To reconcile all opinions, I suggest to include in the title of the article both Flemish Primitives and Early Netherlandish Art. Kvandenb ( talk) 12:37, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
Someone get rid of that Haber's art review link it's absolute drivel —Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.92.103.101 ( talk) 13:45, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
As far as I know, the term "Flemish Primitives" is unusual in English. The usual term is "Early Netherlandish Painting" (e.g. in the famous work by Erwin Panofsky, to name only one art historian), as is also mentioned in the article.
"Flemish primitives" seems to me a litteral translation from the French name for this school of painters, "Les flamands primitifs"; in French "primitif" means also "early" (and cannot always be translated with English "primitive", which means "simple, undeveloped", which is definitely inappropriate to describe these painters).
I think the title is inappropriate and should be changed into Early Netherlandish Painting.
Regards, Friedrich Tellberg 4 Aug 2005
-->
"Netherlandish"?! Is that even English? If it's a matter of including both Dutch and Flemish painting, the way to do that in English would be to say "Dutch and Flemish painting". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.189.58.222 ( talk) 08:49, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Furthermore the article states that the term "Netherlandish" allows for an broader geographical base for the artists associated with the period than the more inclusive "Flemish". This may be true but the difference in geographical base for the artists associated with the period does not differ much, and geographical bases like Estonia, Germany and Cologne are still not included when using the term "Netherlandish". Another argument agains the use of Netherlandish, is the fact that the term 'Netherlands' nowadays is almost exclusively used to refer to what is now known as "The Kingdom of the Netherlands", whereas the region Flanders remained the same and as is stated in "Designation" that region was the cultural center of that time. The fact that this term has been introduced by german art-critics can hardly be seen as an argument since the german word Niederländisch can be translated to either "Dutch" and "Of the Low Countries". That's why I dare speculate the english authors who discuss "Netherlandish art" just tried to whip up some dirt with their fancy neologism. Last but not least, before this term "Netherlandish" was introduced by art-historians it would have been considered a fatal grammatical error, since the only adjective in the english language with the meaning 'of the Netherlands' or 'of the Low Countries' used to be the adjective "dutch". I would like to point out Netherlands_(terminology) or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netherlands_(terminology) 82.156.102.102 ( talk) 20:11, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
Any ojections to spinning this out as the timelime presents the info in a more accessable format. Having both seems excessive, and I think the timeline is the one to focus on and develope. Ceoil ( talk) 02:07, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
Don't know much about the subject. Bosch and van Eyk are the painters I recognize. Page gets decent traffic. Like the graphic with clickable painters names a lot (who did that?). TCO ( talk) 23:46, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
I'm not crazy about the map - it's really hard to read, for one thing. What do others think? I've been looking through the maps available at the Commons, but I'm not seeing one that quite fits the bill. The guy I'd ordinarily ask for help hasn't edited in well over a year... any ideas as to how we might fix this? Kafka Liz ( talk) 00:03, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
I just noticed that we don't have an article on Northern Renaissance art... We could always redirect the page here, but what would we do about sculptors like Claus Sluter, Tilman Riemenschneider et al, or German painters like Gruenwald and Duerer? If not, we need to be a bit more clear in differentiating this from the Northern Renaissance, as this sentence: The use of the term "Early Netherlandish painting", as well more general descriptors like "Ars nova" and the inclusive "Northern Renaissance art", allows for a broader geographical base for the artists associated with the period than the more exclusive "Flemish". makes it sound as if they're more or less synonymous. I checked the German Wikipedia, where oddly enough the page Nordische Renaissance redirects to Niederländische Renaissance... no help there. Thoughts? Litho derm 16:49, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
"Religious paintings—including altarpieces for churches or private devotion—remained popular in Early Netherlandish art. Secular portraiture, however, was a shared development, as both Netherlandish and Italian artists freed themselves from the medieval idea that portraiture should be limited to saints and historical figures." This appears to be saying that the painters of the Italian renaissance weren't interested in religious paintings, but they remained popular there too. What's missing something, me or the sentence? Yomangani talk 01:36, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
Although this style/period of art certainly is "Gothic," I've also often heard it referred to as "Northern Renaissance" painting. While obviously not working along the same stylistic lines as Italian Renaissance art, I think the term is a valid one.-- 66.162.230.194 17:47, 21 June 2007 (UTC)rubinia
The few sentences at the beginning of the "Relation to the Italian Renaissance" section are misleading: "Italian influences on Netherlandish art are first apparent in the late 1400s, when some of the painters began to travel south. By then Mannerism had become the predominant style in Italy, a reason why a number of later Netherlandish artists became associated with, in the words of art historian Rolf Toman, "picturesque gables, bloated, barrel-shaped columns, droll carouches, "twisted" figures, and stunningly unrealistic colours—actually employ[ing] the visual language of Mannerism". Italian Mannerism has been developed around 1520s, not in the late 1400s. The late 1400s is the height of Renaissance period in Italy, especially in Florence. Kulturtrager ( talk) 00:30, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
The few sentences at the beginning of the "Relation to the Italian Renaissance" section are misleading: "Italian influences on Netherlandish art are first apparent in the late 1400s, when some of the painters began to travel south. By then Mannerism had become the predominant style in Italy, a reason why a number of later Netherlandish artists became associated with, in the words of art historian Rolf Toman, "picturesque gables, bloated, barrel-shaped columns, droll carouches, "twisted" figures, and stunningly unrealistic colours—actually employ[ing] the visual language of Mannerism". Italian Mannerism has been developed around 1520s, not in the late 1400s. The late 1400s is the height of Renaissance period in Italy, especially in Florence. Kulturtrager ( talk) 00:30, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
Would a short section on these be out of scope. Ceoil ( talk) 10:48, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
I bought this book by Huizinga some time back thinking to use it here. There's quite a lot about "plastic art" versus whatever else it's called (highbrow?) and durable, and about themes, iconography and so on. Only problem - it was published in 1924 and I think a little dated. Thoughts? Victoria ( talk) 22:02, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
I just remembered the amount of time we spent on The Entombment (Bouts), getting it right. Should we have a section somewhere about the tuchlein paintings - maybe try to put into "Devotional panels"? I'd think much of it could be copied from what we we've already written. Victoria ( talk) 20:52, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
Before I get too bold and ruin this, would like some input. I restructured as I did with the thought that it's a long article so wanted to showcase for the reader the type of works as soon as possible, followed by techniques, etc. After reading the techniques section, I'm beginning to rethink that. So I guess I'm wondering which is best for a general reader: the works first, or the techniques first? A follow-up issue is that the "Overview" I think can do with some restructuring, but I'll come back to that. Victoria ( talk) 00:32, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
Was thinking of adding a short sec on landscapes, but while figuring out where to place it, I noticed that the order of the sections under "formats", while correct in importance, are around an inverse of their chronological development. Not sure this can be resolved, though. Ceoil ( talk) 12:52, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
Nice work, I'll try to contribute some more (content and polishing of text). I think that, while largely complete in its coverage of the major players, the absence of two major players from opposite ends of the period is striking; Melchior Broederlam and Simon Bening. Fram ( talk) 14:48, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
From the lead, "or the early-17th century", for the end of the period; this seems to be a rather fringe view, no one seems to really extend it until after 1570 or so as far as I can tell. Of course, there were still some painters working in the same style (e.g. Pieter Bruegel II and III), but no major artists can be said to be Early Netherlandish painters after Bruegel the Elder, and his inclusion is much disputed. Simon Bening died in 1561, and all other major painters of the period are Renaissance painters (everyone after Metsys, including Mabuse, Jan Messys, ... The dispute about the end of the period seems to be between ca. 1530 (death of e.g. Cornelis Engebrechtsz. and ca. 1560 (death of Bruegel, Bening, ...), with painters like Aertgen van Leyden starting in the Early style but turning into Renaissance painters later on. Of course, one can argue that "Early" ended with the Antwerp Mannerism, but some overlap between the two seems to be correct, and postulated by most art historians. But few if any stretch it to the early 17th century, I believe. Fram ( talk) 09:57, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
The timeline starts much too abrupt, "A consolidating change in approach" can hardly be the start of a timeline, the sentence doesn't include a "compared to" part anyway. This timeline is the place to give a general chronological overview, so should start with the predecessors and early influences, not the first master.
The section includes " Lucas Cranach managed a trade in pharmaceutical goods, Mathias Grunewald in pigments." Neither is normally considered a Netherlandish painter, so I don't think this should be included (certainly not in this way; if you want to add a mention of related artists from surrounding territories, then these are fine candidates). Similarly, " Albrecht Dürer emulated van Eyck's attention to detail and precision but focused on the secular.[33]" is not really relevant for the timeline of Netherlandish painters IMO. It can be moved directly after the next sentence though, "By the 16th century the visual and iconographical innovations and painterly techniques developed by van Eyck had become standard throughout northern Europe."
"with Ulm, Nuremberg, Vienna and Munich being the most important artistic centres on the start of the 16th century." The most important artistic centres of what? Not Europe, obviously, and not the Netherlands either. I presume "of the Holy Roman Empire" is intended?
"Van Eycks hellscapes" Does this refer to the Crucifixion and Last Judgement diptych or something more/else? Fram ( talk) 10:26, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
Near the end of the "terminology and scope" section is the sentence " The 16th century can be seen as directly leading from the painterly innovations and iconography of the previous century." I have no clear idea what is intended here, or how it integrates with the rest of the paragraph.
A few sentences later, "Especially from the mid-1500s, artists began to explore illusionistic depictions of three dimensions, with Geertgen tot Sint Jans a leading innovator.": I guess the intention is that the 15-th century innovations of Geertgen get fully developed in the mid-1500s (the 1550s and 1560s is intended, I believe), but the sentence gives the impression that Geertgen tot Sint Jans was the leading painter of those mid 1500s painters, which is of course not correct. Fram ( talk) 10:14, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
Some things, gasp, are not easier to say using inline comments...
These two sentences in different sections seem to contradict each other:
Riggr Mortis ( talk) 04:24, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for addressing the above. Some new ones:
In the section "Patronage", I read "Prototypes were sold at regularly held fairs[...]" This seems illogical, the prototypes would be shown to prospective buyers and coies then made for them, you wouldn't sell the prototype (or it wouldn't be a prototype). I haven't corrected this, wanting some feedback first. Fram ( talk) 12:46, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
Near the start of the "Rediscovery" section, I read "[...] placed the art works of era at the heart of Northern Renaissance art." I don't understand this sentence. I assume that it should be "of THE era", but even so, it is unclear what is intended here. Fram ( talk) 14:15, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
Further: "[...]and created new national divisions among the cities of[...]": again, no idea what is meant here. Fram ( talk) 14:18, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
The text states "(klein patroons in Flemish, petit patrons in French)"; neither seems correct. In Dutch/Flemish, one would say "kleine patroons" or "kleine patronen", but I wasn't able to find a source for either of those, so perhaps we should just drop the Flemish here; in Frecnh, it should be "petits patrons" instead of "petit patrons". Fram ( talk) 13:29, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
Footnote 62 (about van der Weyden's Descent from The Cross) refers to Campbell (2004). What is Campbell (2004)? Mick gold ( talk) 09:31, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
According to the Burgundian Netherlands article, that state was disestablished in 1482. According to this article, however, Early Netherlandish painters were active in the Burgundian Netherlands until the 16th century. Should this article instead read "Burgundian and Habsburg Netherlands"? Neelix ( talk) 14:51, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
...but the pictures are poorly laid out. The section "Patronage" Needs this image. I have removed the colour cast from the York project file. It is still not as good as it could be. I'll be back. Amandajm ( talk) 03:30, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
I have created an article on the 1902 Exposition des primitifs flamands à Bruges. Any help, additions, corrections, ... are more than welcome. It has slightly overwhelmed me, so I probably have missed or neglected some important aspects (and kept some stupid errors). It also contains some interesting redlinks. Fram ( talk) 14:40, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
Images are typically interspersed individually throughout an article near the relevant text (see WP:MOSIMAGES). However, the use of a gallery section may be appropriate in some Wikipedia articles if a collection of images can illustrate aspects of a subject that cannot be easily or adequately described by text or individual images. The images in the gallery collectively must have encyclopedic value and add to the reader's understanding of the subject.
Hafspajen ( talk) 08:06, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
Just happened to come across this page and was stunned at its beauty. The images are wonderfully laid out. The lack of page clutter allows the images to shine. Bravo! Parabolooidal ( talk) 17:21, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
Can the dialogue represented in File:The Braque Triptych interior.jpg really be called " speech balloons", rather than speech scrolls? The terms certainly overlap, but my gut feeling is this falls outside the area of overlap. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 01:56, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
Would it not be rightwise to list the toll of Flemish Primitives produced by each town? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:411:1600:44AD:633C:7A20:5A74 ( talk) 18:52, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
With the creations of Colart de Laon and Friedrich Winkler (and some redirects like Marcus van Vaernewijck and Bartolommeo Fazio), all redlinks in the body of the article have now been turned into bluelinks (there is one redlink left in the references). Our coverage of Early Netherlandish painting and its study is really becoming quite impressive, with many major paintings getting their own articles as well. I often despair about Wikipedia, but topics like this make it worthwhile. many things in these articles of course can still be expanded and improved, but if anyone prefers the creation of new articles instead, I guess Early Netherlandish Painting (Friedländer) would be a worthy topic. Fram ( talk) 11:01, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
Is this the same concept as "Flemish School" (see http://www.artmovements.co.uk/flemish-school or https://www.boundless.com/art-history/textbooks/boundless-art-history-textbook/the-northern-renaissance-22/painting-in-the-northern-renaissance-898/flemish-painting-in-the-northern-renaissance-577-5748/ )? If so than maybe we should mention it in the article, if not than lets remove the redirect. Many institutions label unknown artists from this era as "Flemish School" so it would be nice to explain the term on Wikipedia. -- Jarekt ( talk) 12:49, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
The 14 volumes of Friedländer's " Early Netherlandish Painting" are now now available, in English, here. Seems to be a joint initiative of the goverments of Belgium, Germany and the Netherlands. Ceoil ( talk) 20:20, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
"In 1830 the Belgian Revolution split Belgium from the Netherlands of today and created divisions between the cities of Bruges (home of van Eyck and Memling), Antwerp (Matsys), Brussels (van der Weyden and Bruegel) and Leuven (Bouts). " It is not clear how or why the 1830 revolution "created divisions" between the cities. Didn't these exist earlier? And why are they important? Fram ( talk) 13:25, 22 August 2018 (UTC)