![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
|
I nominate this entry to be trimmed substantially, the list should be shorn. There is perhaps a sense that post-Napoleonic sensibilities were different, and that grand manner is a style of painting whose substance declined in Italy when old regimes were toppled or transiently shelved by around the end of the 19th century: for example, republican Venice, Medici Florence, and transiently papal Rome. However academicism continued (continues) to live on. Christie's and Sotheby's categories have the academic substance of Sunday newspaper coupon books. CARAVAGGISTI 12:35, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
The pope was kept in France during the Napoleonic takeover of Italy, hence his "political reign" was transiently toppled. I didn't keep track of what happened to all the small fiefdoms in Northern Italy, but I sense many of them were overthrown, but then restored in 1814. The Napoleonic wars changed the artistic sensibility and much of the patronage of Italy, such that one could say that panegyric paintings like Tiepolo, or paintings linking a family to glorious ancestors were less commonly apt or commissioned, hence the grand manner was ebbing.
You can leave the text of the article, and lose the list. Todays top fifty will not be all there tomorrow. CARAVAGGISTI 14:43, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Gainsborough?... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.133.229.155 ( talk) 19:20, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Thomas Gainsborough The Heakes ( talk) 21:25, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
What's with the Dutch vs Flemish in the list section? Is the ("nationality") behind the names supposed to reflect the area where the Old Masters had made most of their paintings? Both the Flemish artists in the list were not born in Flanders..so, please explain. 81.68.255.36 ( talk) 18:40, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Not moved. There is a strong opposition to this retitling citing many sources. ( closed by non-admin page mover) -- Dane talk 01:35, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
Old Master →
Old master – mos, we really don't have time to always discuss this kind of nonsense, see also onelook.com
Espoo (
talk)
23:05, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
My reversion of these edits] by User:Informed analysis have been reverted by him (he also wants to rename High Renaissance and has had an undiscussed move of it reverted by an admin already). The problems are:
He is new to editing on art, & doing so rather too boldly ( this for example) on various articles.
What do other people think? Johnbod ( talk) 02:40, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
To clarify, it is the Italian Renaissance Paimting article, which both in its intro and in its detailed section, says painters like Botticelli, Perugino and Ghirlandaio who painted the Vatican Chapel in 1880 should all be considered High Reneissance and that commission is the starting point (Birth of Venus would therebefore be High Renaissance and a picture of it is there). Other pages and certain art historians state that da Vinci in 1490s or 1498 (Last Supper) as the start.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Informed Analysis ( talk • contribs) 22:58, September 25, 2018 (UTC)
I added Botticelli to the Early Reniassance lead section, but the years used there (1475) are wrong. Obviously, not all artists fit into one category - the list under Old Masters did put them in one, and I tried to add text explaining that certain ones were more than one. The fact is, the various wikipedia articles ARE NOT CONSISTENT in a lot of text. They should be. That is what I am trying to fix. Informed analysis ( talk) 15:57, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
"However brief the period that we call the High Renaissance actually was, the 4 decades between 1490 and 1530 have always been regarded as the golden years of the Renaissance" The Art of the Italian Renaisance, ed by Rolf Toman, page 309. The chapter then discusses da Vinci, Michelangelo, Raphael, de Sarto. Botticelli, Perugino and Girlandaio are discussed in the early Renaissance chapter.
"Italian art from the 1490s to about the the time of the sack of Rome in 1527 is called the High Renaissance." Art History, Marilyn Stokstad, page 662. I can cite several other books. Informed analysis ( talk) 15:57, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
"In art history, the High Renaissance is the period denoting the apogee of the visual arts in the Italian Renaissance. The period is traditionally taken to begin in the 1490s, with Leonardo's fresco of the Last Supper in Milan and the death of Lorenzo de' Medici in Florence, and to have ended in 1527 with the sacking of Rome by the troops of Emperor Charles V. The term was first used in German (Hochrenaissance) in the early 19th century and has its origins in the "High Style" of painting and sculpture described by Johann Joachim Winckelmann" extract from Wikipedia page on High Renaissance. Informed analysis ( talk) 16:14, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
You seem to be mixing up what changes I did and did not make to the Old Masters list. The list of High Renaissance painters was already there. What I mainly I did was add a notation on which painters in the Venetian and Sienese schools headings were Early, High or Mannerism as just saying "Venetian school" does not tell the average reader what style they were; although it is known Venetian and Sienese painters were somewhat different than other Italian schools/painters.
Can you also now please comment on the time periods and headings used in the Italian Renaissance Painting article - that is what my 3 quotes mostly relate to. Informed analysis ( talk) 21:22, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
Given that basically every other major artist of roughly their generation seems to be on this list, should they be here? (I note specifically Lawrence, Ingres, Gros, Friedrich, Géricault, and Delacroix). It seems particularly weird to consider Delacroix an Old Master, but not Turner and Constable. john k ( talk) 02:01, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
|
I nominate this entry to be trimmed substantially, the list should be shorn. There is perhaps a sense that post-Napoleonic sensibilities were different, and that grand manner is a style of painting whose substance declined in Italy when old regimes were toppled or transiently shelved by around the end of the 19th century: for example, republican Venice, Medici Florence, and transiently papal Rome. However academicism continued (continues) to live on. Christie's and Sotheby's categories have the academic substance of Sunday newspaper coupon books. CARAVAGGISTI 12:35, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
The pope was kept in France during the Napoleonic takeover of Italy, hence his "political reign" was transiently toppled. I didn't keep track of what happened to all the small fiefdoms in Northern Italy, but I sense many of them were overthrown, but then restored in 1814. The Napoleonic wars changed the artistic sensibility and much of the patronage of Italy, such that one could say that panegyric paintings like Tiepolo, or paintings linking a family to glorious ancestors were less commonly apt or commissioned, hence the grand manner was ebbing.
You can leave the text of the article, and lose the list. Todays top fifty will not be all there tomorrow. CARAVAGGISTI 14:43, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Gainsborough?... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.133.229.155 ( talk) 19:20, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Thomas Gainsborough The Heakes ( talk) 21:25, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
What's with the Dutch vs Flemish in the list section? Is the ("nationality") behind the names supposed to reflect the area where the Old Masters had made most of their paintings? Both the Flemish artists in the list were not born in Flanders..so, please explain. 81.68.255.36 ( talk) 18:40, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Not moved. There is a strong opposition to this retitling citing many sources. ( closed by non-admin page mover) -- Dane talk 01:35, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
Old Master →
Old master – mos, we really don't have time to always discuss this kind of nonsense, see also onelook.com
Espoo (
talk)
23:05, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
My reversion of these edits] by User:Informed analysis have been reverted by him (he also wants to rename High Renaissance and has had an undiscussed move of it reverted by an admin already). The problems are:
He is new to editing on art, & doing so rather too boldly ( this for example) on various articles.
What do other people think? Johnbod ( talk) 02:40, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
To clarify, it is the Italian Renaissance Paimting article, which both in its intro and in its detailed section, says painters like Botticelli, Perugino and Ghirlandaio who painted the Vatican Chapel in 1880 should all be considered High Reneissance and that commission is the starting point (Birth of Venus would therebefore be High Renaissance and a picture of it is there). Other pages and certain art historians state that da Vinci in 1490s or 1498 (Last Supper) as the start.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Informed Analysis ( talk • contribs) 22:58, September 25, 2018 (UTC)
I added Botticelli to the Early Reniassance lead section, but the years used there (1475) are wrong. Obviously, not all artists fit into one category - the list under Old Masters did put them in one, and I tried to add text explaining that certain ones were more than one. The fact is, the various wikipedia articles ARE NOT CONSISTENT in a lot of text. They should be. That is what I am trying to fix. Informed analysis ( talk) 15:57, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
"However brief the period that we call the High Renaissance actually was, the 4 decades between 1490 and 1530 have always been regarded as the golden years of the Renaissance" The Art of the Italian Renaisance, ed by Rolf Toman, page 309. The chapter then discusses da Vinci, Michelangelo, Raphael, de Sarto. Botticelli, Perugino and Girlandaio are discussed in the early Renaissance chapter.
"Italian art from the 1490s to about the the time of the sack of Rome in 1527 is called the High Renaissance." Art History, Marilyn Stokstad, page 662. I can cite several other books. Informed analysis ( talk) 15:57, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
"In art history, the High Renaissance is the period denoting the apogee of the visual arts in the Italian Renaissance. The period is traditionally taken to begin in the 1490s, with Leonardo's fresco of the Last Supper in Milan and the death of Lorenzo de' Medici in Florence, and to have ended in 1527 with the sacking of Rome by the troops of Emperor Charles V. The term was first used in German (Hochrenaissance) in the early 19th century and has its origins in the "High Style" of painting and sculpture described by Johann Joachim Winckelmann" extract from Wikipedia page on High Renaissance. Informed analysis ( talk) 16:14, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
You seem to be mixing up what changes I did and did not make to the Old Masters list. The list of High Renaissance painters was already there. What I mainly I did was add a notation on which painters in the Venetian and Sienese schools headings were Early, High or Mannerism as just saying "Venetian school" does not tell the average reader what style they were; although it is known Venetian and Sienese painters were somewhat different than other Italian schools/painters.
Can you also now please comment on the time periods and headings used in the Italian Renaissance Painting article - that is what my 3 quotes mostly relate to. Informed analysis ( talk) 21:22, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
Given that basically every other major artist of roughly their generation seems to be on this list, should they be here? (I note specifically Lawrence, Ingres, Gros, Friedrich, Géricault, and Delacroix). It seems particularly weird to consider Delacroix an Old Master, but not Turner and Constable. john k ( talk) 02:01, 6 January 2019 (UTC)