Talk:Early Netherlandish painting/Archive 1

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

references

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

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)

There was a concept of Germany in the early 15th century (the Holy Roman Empire). Some hicks pride themselves in being more homebound in an age of automobiles, cars and planes than most people who had to walk: they call themselves Flemish or from Holland; France, Brabant, Gelre, Utrecht or Friesland are beyond their mental horizon. Unfortunately they rule nl.wikipedia.org. Erik Warmelink (talk) 00:21, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Like Italy, Germany was a country long before it was a state. Johnbod (talk) 16:45, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Flemish Primitives

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)

Firstly that is against WP titling rules, secondly the term is mentioned in the first sentence of para 2, which discusses the matter fully, and thirdly it is just not the correct term in English, as discussed above. Most of the current text you object to, btw, is written by a professor of art history of Flemish origin. Johnbod (talk) 02:13, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
There is no such thing as "Flemish" origin! BELGIAN origin is imperative, certainly when you're from abroad. But too long to explain here. Although I will say that in no sense did the "Low Countries" exist, nor did the "Netherlands" exist - these terms didn't even exist. The "country" was officially called LEO BELGICUS. Also "Low Countries" is a faulty translation from "Inferior Germania", which would modernly translate into Secondary Germania, which was a term from the perspective of Germania. Meanwhile the 'country' itself had its own name which was like I said LEO BELGICUS (and not for nothing; that's because Belgium did exist, so one could "fall back" on that, and the Netherlands did not and was never heard of).
I am truly shocked reading this article. It is inter-contradictory and to be honest extremely self-centered. I completely agree with K Vanden B, and I am glad someone else already supported this case. You can't interfere in a country's history in such an inappropriate way, certainly not if you obviously don't know anything about its history. Also, this Belgian innovative art may not in any way be confused with Holland or the Dutch. They have absolutely nothing to do with this and the title is just absurd. Furthermore, if Belgium calls it the Flemish primitives, you should follow. If you think it is too pejorative (because it had been wrongly translated to modern times in the first place) you should translate it to a modern version which would be the Belgian Innovatives or Innovators.
Just like Italy and Germany, Belgium was a country long before it was an independent state. Also remember the Netherlands exist for only 180 years. Belgium during its whole history of 2065 years has always been one country, one region, and certainly from Emperor Charles V on (who was Belgian) (and which concerns the period of this article), Belgium was both perceived as well as governed as one country. Burgundy was part of Belgium (and had always been, from the start of Belgium's birth), as was the north of contemporary France, whole Luxemburg, part of Switzerland, part of Germany as well as the South of contemporary Holland.
This is truly a shocking article and diminishes Wikipedia's integrity. And I am really disappointed. Not so much of simply all the facts that are completely misrepresented here, but more so by the disrespectful way you inappropriately interfere in the history and patrimony of another country. What would you think if someone else would indiscreetly change and determine your kid's name one day, even to the point that it sounded like your child was the proud possession of someone else, and then would back this up with false argumentation on top of that?
There is only one word for it, this article is truly a mess. Especially when in the end it is said that a certain painter was from the Netherlands, while he was from Belgium!
You can't write history on your own to your own likings and make up some terms, or else you should call it fiction and write a novel instead. If the main parts are written by a Belgian professor, then he almost certainly must be a separatist. The term "Netherlandish" alone is truly shocking propaganda (the least you could say is he went along with this term, that on itself is alarming enough), and completely misrepresenting, even lying about historical facts.
Last but not least, "Flemish" had an incomparably different meaning back then than the connotation it has today. Still, it should never be understood without the immediate additive of "Belgium". Even back then it never was. "Flemish" was more like a province that belonged to Belgium; meanwhile there was a great distance between the people from Holland, the Hollandish, and the other peoples from above the river Rhine who are now citizens of the Netherlands and are called Dutch, only since 180 years. To the contrary, Belgians have almost always been called the Belgians for over 2000 years.
UniverseNow, 21 oct 2013

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)

Title

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

The article itself clearly states that "Because of the ambiguity of the word "primitive", art historians prefer the term "early Netherlandish painting"." I believe there is also a redirect from "early Netherlandish painting" to this page. These painters are known as "de Vlaamse Primitieven" in Dutch and as "les primitifs flamands" in French. Primitive here should be understood not so much as "early", but rather as "original" in the sense of "that which is at the origin of something". It is very well possible that the term is unusual in English, although this article has been around for quite a while and you're the first reader to make this remark. If the title is changed, the article itself should be rewritten as well. - Karl Stas 15:24, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
A check with Google Fight reveals that Early Netherlandish painting is the more common term, so I have made the necessary changes. - Karl Stas 15:46, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
Flemish Primitives (like Italian Primitives) was standard 100 years ago, but is now out of use in English. My understanding is the same is happening more slowly in other languages. There was a pejorative element to the terms - ie they couldn't get perspective right etc —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Johnbod (talk • contribs) 12:46, 11 December 2006 (UTC).

-->

Oddly, I get 52,100 for "Early Netherlandish", but only 16,100 for "Flemish Primitives", on the whole much less relevant in the opening pages. I see Princeton UP have rather let the side down by not translating properly the title of a 2003 book by a Flemish art historian, but otherwise the usage of modern anglophone art history is consistent. Let's face it neither score is large, & the whole idea is obscure to most English readers. Johnbod (talk) 11:48, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
So why is this "Netherlandish"? Why not "Netherlander"? Or just Dutch? "Netherlandish" is just very awkward to say in English. Is "Netherlands" referring to the Low Countries? Shouldn't this just be an offshoot of the Northern Renaissance? ForestAngel (talk) 06:12, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
No. Johnbod (talk) 08:52, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

"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)

Wrong. This is the standard and correct term - and see Netherlandish. Johnbod (talk) 08:52, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
The word Netherlandish only exists on Wikipedia land....standard English usage is Flemish or Dutch —Preceding unsigned comment added by 57.67.164.37 (talk) 15:44, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
I agree with 57.67.164.37,

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)

It may well be that art historians were wrong to use Netherlandish for this, instead of Flemish. But as long as the more often used term in English language art history is "Netherlandish", it will remain the one we use, as we go with the most commonly used term in relevant sources, not with what we consider to be the "correct" or "better" one. Please see WP:COMMONNAME and the intro to WP:V ("verifiability, not truth"). Fram (talk) 07:57, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
Indeed, and the OED shows "Netherlandish" has been a word in English for over 400 years. Johnbod (talk) 12:04, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

List of painters

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)

It was added in September 2006 by User:Vlad9...Modernist (talk) 02:13, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
Ta Modernist. It prob worth stalking his edits to find the place to change the colour scheme to as I suggested mat red. I'd do it but I dont uderstand numeric colour code, but willing to learn how. Ceoil (talk) 02:24, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Nice page

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)

That's fairly old, but quite useful; it's by Vlad b. We tweaked the colours a bit, but that's it. Kafka Liz (talk) 23:52, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
TCO, I'm not espically impressed with you at the moment, so back away from here please and let me dabble in peace. Also, with all due respect, fuck your "decent traffic". What a shallow metric to "judge" how I spend my time on a sunday evening. Ceoil (talk) 23:56, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Map

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)

It needs to be cut down to just northern Europe, and I have just such a map in a source; I'll try and scan at work during the week. But a map is important to illustrate that its not just today's Holland we are talking about, and that many of the artists were french, flemish, german and so forth. Ceoil (talk) 00:21, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
Agreed on that - I'd just like to see something legible, and preferably not orange. Kafka Liz (talk) 02:51, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
I hear you, its not optimal, and I can/will fix. Ceoil (talk) 03:12, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
People might see it as pushing a French POV. ;) Kafka Liz (talk) 03:22, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
We're not fond of Orange were I'm from. Let me think about it. Ceoil (talk) 23:45, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Just gonna bite my tongue on this one. Much I could say, much I won't. Kafka Liz (talk) 00:07, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
Wise. Ceoil (talk) 01:57, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

vs Northern Renaissance art

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? Lithoderm 16:49, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, and I wonder if the word "painting" in this article is right; illuminated manuscripts and sculptures? And anyway a lot of the early altarpieces were composits of painting and sculpture. The range of activity seems to have been far narrower than in Italy, but there are some significant artists who worked outside of painting. I'm still confused re scope, did it end in the 1520s with Gerard David or extend to Bosch and Brugel. Most general overviews end with David and Dürer who died in 1528 (obviously German but obviously influenced), but then you often see Bosch and Brugel described as Early Netherlandish. Ceoil (talk) 17:02, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
I'm still doing some research on the timeline, so I don't feel I can comment on that just yet. From what I have read, early Netherlandish art did focus for more strongly on painting (which broadly speaking includes manuscripts), and a separate article intended to include sculptors would cover a lot of the same ground. Perhaps the article should be moved to Northern Renaissance art and its scope expanded? Kafka Liz (talk) 17:11, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
No, Northern Ressanace and early Netherlandish art are very differnt things, the former coming from the latter but rainging to east Poland and Bohemia, right across France (esp Fouquet) and south to Bavaria and Austria. Different article, but one that is surely missing. If yourself or Lith (welcome back Lith by the way) would be up for it I would be too. Ceoil (talk) 17:23, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Well, focusing on Northern Renaissance art in general would be a much greater task. But then, if you want a large task, look at Renaissance art, which is one sad little article, especially when you consider its high visibility. You can't say "only three images" enough... Lithoderm 17:42, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Ha, way, way outside of my knowledge and ability. You need to talk to Amanda there. Ceoil (talk) 17:55, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Eh, I put in a few more images, at least. Honestly. Lithoderm 17:57, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Point. Sounds like a huge task, though, and I'd rather commit to this one primarily, at least for now. My tiny mind is only capable of one thing at a time. Kafka Liz (talk) 17:59, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
I'll drop Johnbod a note re Northern Renaissance art- he seems like the most qualified person for it, and may be interested. Lithoderm 18:02, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Good plan. I'll try to chip in from time to time, certainly. Kafka Liz (talk) 18:04, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
We certainly should have an article here, but what it covers is more complicated. Some people start "Northern Renaissance" with Sluter et al., but personally I prefer starting near the end of the 15th century. Then when do you finish? I've changed the text here just now, as I think ending "Early Netherlandish painting" with David is a minority view, although one with something to be said for it. What do Friedlander & Panofsky do? The NGA catalogue so called goes to 1599. The start should be earlier too - quite apart from Robert Campin and the Milan-Turin Hours there is Melchior Broederlam. Normally I deplore WP calling all articles "painting" but here I find it ok, but we should remember "painting" should cover manuscripts, which were increasingly important in Flemish art from about 1450. I don't think this should be merged to "Northern Renaissance art"; there is plenty enough to cover without that. Johnbod (talk) 20:55, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
I agree with you on almost points, but was unsure as to if I should tread on whatever incumbants. But the more I read the more I disagree with a lot that was on the page. I would dearly like to bring in Bosch and Brugel if I thought I could justify a post 1520s cut off. Ceoil (talk) 21:23, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
With a bit of luck, the article will end up in the summary style, a section on manuscripts would be great to have. Ceoil (talk) 21:25, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Bosch is certainly within the period, even with the earlier cut-off. I agree that manuscripts should be covered as well, and personally I think a case can be made for a date later in the 16th century. It's not a hard and fast designation, and the Met (for example) describes it as lasting until 1550ish. Kafka Liz (talk) 21:37, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
(ec) I can add a MS section in the New Year. I wouldn't worry about that statement, which goes back to "Vladb" in 2006 in true WP style, though it was expanded by User:Stomme who is an art historian. See (and marvel) how Campbell dodges the issue on p.7 (NG cat). Bosch started in the 1470s & can certainly be included I think. Agree with Liz - I would say the most common end is the late 1560s with the death of Bruegel & the Dutch Revolt, although even that leaves a few awkward decades before you get properly into Dutch Golden Age/Flemish stuff proper. Johnbod (talk) 21:42, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Ive been plotting a sub section on the artists, breaking them down to three, now four generations. Campion, van Eyck, van der Weyden ( the early dazzelers), Bouts, Critstus and Memling (mature period), van der Goes and David (late period). I still think Bosch and Brugle are anomolies, but am very interested in both and want to include in a sect that segues to Durer and Vel and the wider spread of the northen ress. Durer is esp interesting, he#s contemporary, but by far the best eg of the spread of van eych's influence. Ceoil (talk) 22:12, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Bosch and Bruegel are a bit anomalous, but I'd say they do fall within the scope of the article. Thanks in advance, Johnbod, for the manuscript section. Ceoil, how are you planning on titling the subsections, or is it too early to say yet? Kafka Liz (talk) 22:21, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
I'd say Bosch and Bruegel screw your characterisation (and so will Broederlam if you start earlier) and trying to give a variable cut off weakens the article. Why don't you say that everybody agrees it is over by 1600 and then live with the fact that any artist who has a surname starting with B will need asides as you go through. It's coming on nicely though. Yomanganitalk 03:09, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
David c.s. are the last of the period when you got Early Netherlandish and nothing else; there are many later examples of Early Netherlandish painters, including indeed Bosch and Bruegel (and some of the later Bruegeles as well) and people like Gerard Horenbout, but at the same time you get Jan Mabuse (shouldn't that be at Jan Gossaert?) who is probably the first who is no longer considered an Early Netherlandish painter but a Flemish Renaissance painter. I note that Quentin Matsys is still categorized as "Early Netherlandish", but a case can be made for him as well to be more of a Renaissance painter. I guess that those two are the most important transitional painters. Fram (talk) 07:54, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for these Yoman and Fram, there is guidance here. I think I'll leave the belnding between periods in the planned timeline sections until late, I'm still seeing conflict in the sources, but Fram's suggestion that there is overlap between Early Netherlandish and Flemish Renaissance from (arounf 1530?) is very useful. Bosch and Bruegel certainly screw the characterisation, but from I'm reading they were out growths, exceptions and one offs in the truest sence (Of course Bosch more so than Bruegel (who was someting of a "second off"). Anyway thanks guys; input and cmt always welcome. Ceoil (talk) 23:19, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
Agreed, plus loving Yomangani's too infrequent copyedits. Kafka Liz (talk) 00:39, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
Quite or we'll have to start paying him. Ceoil (talk) 00:49, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
Is payment in song not an option? Kafka Liz (talk) 00:59, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
A promise not to sing may work Yomanganitalk 01:39, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
Done and done Kafka Liz (talk) 01:47, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Don't get it

"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? Yomanganitalk 01:36, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I think that what the sentence means to say is that while the religious art was of a more stagnant type, with little actual development, the portrait art was a much more rapidly evolving genre, from Van Eyck to (especially) Memling, and that the situation was comparable in Italy. It could do with a rewrite to make this a lot clearer though. Fram (talk) 07:47, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
I don't see the contrast. At the least the "however" should go. Johnbod (talk) 08:20, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
As far as I can tell, the contrast is that the portraits of Memling cs had a serious influence on Renaissance portraits (in Italy and throughout Europe), while the religious paintings (e.g. Dirk Bouts' work) were more of a dead-end street, evolutionary speaking. Fram (talk) 09:01, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
I don't have too many sources on hand for this, but if I understand correctly, the sense is that although both Netherlandish and Italian Renaissance art leaned toward secular humanism, religious themes and commissions remained dominant in the Low Countries. Ceoil has the Hand and Toman sources; I'm going to hold off fussing with it until he can weigh in, but if anyone else has these and can clarify, feel free to jump in. Kafka Liz (talk) 21:55, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
I have a source that discusses art in the Burgundian court and the rise of portraiture, which in turn drove portraiture in general, which I think should be developed more. Adding: actually I returned the source to the library, but could always get it back when I decide to return to editing. Truthkeeper (talk) 22:34, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
Will take another look at weekend. Ceoil (talk) 22:39, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Renaissance?

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)

Italian dates

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)

Indeed; the second sentence is talking about influences the other way, in Antwerp Mannerism etc. Johnbod (talk) 02:37, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Tapestries

Would a short section on these be out of scope. Ceoil (talk) 10:48, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Thinking about this; prob wouldn't be out of scope. They were important. Victoria (talk) 14:38, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
Probably not, I agree. Do we have a decent main article? No, we don't - User:PKM needed. Johnbod (talk) 15:56, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, I phrased badly. I think maybe it should be included, but yeah, haven't looked yet for a main article. The dukes of Burgundy did commission a lot of tapestries and that industry was so important to the region that I'm leaning toward having one, but still thinking about it. Victoria (talk) 16:03, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
I was thinking our article is called "Early Netherlandish painting", which im not sure includes these. But will give it a go. Whats the worst that can happen. An/i? Ceoil (talk) 16:09, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
Designing tapestries was quite an important part of the work of many of the artists like Van der Weyden (if very poorly documented, & with little surviving) so worth a section. But a decent main article on pre-Renaissance tapestries would be ideal. Johnbod (talk) 16:15, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
Note: this and this are fully online as PDFs Johnbod (talk) 16:12, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
Thanks very helpful, and Nash coveres them well. Ceoil (talk) 16:14, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
Re the title, that's why I'm not sure. A bit of reading needed. Weren't the cartoons painted and sent to the weavers? This is something I might be interested in taking on. Big project though. Victoria (talk) 16:21, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
So we presume, though I don't know if the Raphael Cartoons, sent to Flanders in 1518 or whatever are paralleled by earlier survivals or documentary records. Johnbod (talk) 13:11, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
Have made a start. Not very happy with the image used though; suggestions? Ceoil (talk) 19:33, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
I've not had time to delve into the sources above, well have scanned a bit but that's all, but what you added might be enough. I like any of the The Lady and the Unicorn series, but these cartoons are French so I guess not appropriate. I'm fairly certain The Hunt of the Unicorn is Netherlandish. I have a book about them - will find it. A bit busy atm so won't get to any of this until next week. Victoria (talk) 12:53, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
FWIW my understanding is that besides their visual, religious, and literal content as works of art; tapestries and other large wall hangings were also of practical use as insulation, aiding in heating the stone wall rooms in buildings. Installed on walls and keeping warmth in - essentially aiding in the insulation of the room...Modernist (talk) 13:17, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
Thanks Modernist; and it would seem that textiles in general were useful to necessarily migrant clergy and kings in providing an easy put to gether cermonial atmosphere. Ceoil (talk) 15:20, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Question re source

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)

Its rougly contemporary to Friedländer, who is used (mostly indirectly) a lot on bios, locations, timelines etc. But it's pre-Panofsky, so re iconography it might be best to be weary. Ceoil (talk) 22:12, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
For iconography Ward is very good and I have something stashed that I need to find, and not a lot in Huizinga anyway. A lot about of background and about patronage and usage though. Of course requires reading. Victoria (talk) 22:30, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
Still a classic re the general culture, though various emphases are disputed now. A great read as I remember it. Plastic is just sculptural/3D vs literary, painting, prints & tapestries, isn't it? Johnbod (talk) 23:27, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
Wall murals, tableau vivants, all the various painting for the castles and such. I'm not sure it's in the scope here but merits a mention because for some of the artists it was their paying job, and all things that haven't survived as opposed to so many of the commissioned pieces. I'll see what I can extract - it is a good read has a lot about art. Victoria (talk) 23:43, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
Are we saying a great read, or a usable/RS for this article. If the latter Victoria, not having read, would you recommend tracking down? Ceoil (talk) 03:29, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
Well, I'm saying I need to re-read. But yes, definitely bits to be used in the article & definitely RS and the reason I bought the book. I'll sandbox notes and you can decide. Probably not worth tracking down - we've done okay when I've had one set of sources and you another. Victoria (talk) 03:37, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
I'm getting the impression it worth finding whether the which; not very dry - so nice find, and thanks. Ceoil (talk) 03:43, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
Used to be a Penguin, so dirt cheap on Abebooks. The silly libraries (smaller) have probably dumped all theirs. Fairly short. Johnbod (talk) 08:42, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Bouts and tuchlein

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)

That page was a bitch; happy memories, eh?! I already put that stuff into "Technique and material". I worry that it might come across as undue; but its unfamilarity is down to its low survival rate, and its usually covered in general overviews. Ceoil (talk) 21:20, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
It was a little hard. If I hadn't done a mass reorg here and left the techniques where they were, I'd have realized that. Still reading through and wondering now if the techniques should be moved up again. Not sure. Thinking. But that form is about more than technique - like the tapestries, a lot was painted on cloth, but as you say, little survives. Victoria (talk) 22:14, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Structure

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)

I can see where you are going and tend to agree. I think the problem is the way the TOC is organised; with sections bundled into third level groupings. I might have a stab at undoing this. Ceoil (talk) 01:08, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
That's a good point and would be helpful. Easier to move individual sections instead of blocks, like I did earlier last week. Victoria (talk) 01:26, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
Totally amazing we didn't edit conflict here, but I think that test works (just noticed it!). I'm a little busy today, but will try to dig in here during the week. I seem to have quite a few sources on the manuscripts, so will probably begin with that section. Victoria (talk) 16:58, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Hierarchy

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)

Wouldn't worry about now. Go ahead and add the section and we can decide later how to structure. I'm not crazy about the structure there and keeping shoving things around. Eventually we'll get it right. Victoria (talk) 14:28, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
Not trilled myself; if you want to play around go for it. You seem to have a knack. Ceoil (talk) 14:37, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
Looks fine, where you've placed it. Landscape falls into some of the other formats, so ending with it seems a good solution. I suspect we'll be rejigging those a bit before we're completely happy. I had wondered if maybe diptychs and triptychs should be combined and give polyptychs a separate section, but not at all sure about doing that. At some point when I get to it, I might sandbox and fiddle there. Victoria (talk) 20:22, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
I would'nt be happy with that combination. Very different things. Ceoil (talk) 01:05, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
Ignore that I mentioned it. Wouldn't want you unhappy. Victoria (talk) 01:20, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Some missing key players

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)

Yes, that the end of the period needs further work has been mentioned also in the PR. These suggestions are helpful. Ceoil (talk) 19:17, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
Have made a start on developing coverage of both the very early and very late edges. Ceoil (talk) 01:12, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
Victoria, as I'm working on explaing the messy final years, I'm finding a stuctural problem, in that narratively the whole thing is over by the time we get to the "painters" sect, which starts cronogically from 1390. Might have to move some sections around, again I'm thinking. Ceoil (talk) 16:31, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, I saw that happening last weekend when I split out the painters. I thought about structuring by century, which we could do (but would take a lot of work), but rejected it. I like having the level with painters, patronage, workshops all in one place. I'd planned to rewrite the Relationship to Italian Renaissance section to have it begin in the 1600s and swing through into a flashback type thing about the close relationship between the north and Italy since the beginning of the movement, i.e, van Eyck visited Italy, much of the early iconography came from Italy, the Italian nobility were avid collectors, but as the Italians moved away stylistically the northern art fell out of favor. Something like that, which might be placed away from the Terminology and Scope and maybe just in front of Destruction and Dispersal. I like Scope and Terminology split out but if it doesn't work we might have to combine again. I have a bit of time now and could maybe move the entire page into my sandbox to play with. Would that be helpful? Victoria (talk) 17:17, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
It would, I might switch over to the parents diptych if you want to think it through in the sandbox. One thing, I want Ghent and the Garden to appear togher in the scope section, as I think they serve as very revelaing bookends when seen side by side, but I left it on thursday night before that sect was finished, hench the text squash. Bear with me on that one; today or tomorrow. Ceoil (talk) 17:38, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
I like the Ghent and the Garden together, so that's not a problem. I'll move it all to sandbox and make some test edits. I never know until I start playing around how best to do it. Yes, the feedback is great! Victoria (talk) 17:45, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
Be bold. Worst than can happen is that I'll revert and ask Cas to block and lock down your talk for 35 years. The FAC should be over by then. Ceoil (talk) 17:53, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
I'm being bold. Get ready to have Cas block. What if we do this, [1]? Split 15th and 16th centuries in the Scope section. They each have separate characteristics and it would be easier to develop the sections. Victoria (talk) 18:58, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
Its a very good idea, but when we make the split, I'm not so sure. I think we need Johnbods's input here. Ceoil (talk) 19:17, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
I've rejected that for now, but it's a possibility later. I think the problem is that we've gone too far to the edges, pulling in the early parts and late and in doing so have skipped right over the meat of the matter. I don't have time for it now, but would like to come back at this and pick up at the part about the illuminated manuscripts and probably develop at least a paragraph about the characteristics of the 1500s. Or something like that. Victoria (talk) 19:21, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
I think we'd too heavily (perhalps rightfully) over covered 1430-1480, and are making up for it now. Ceoil (talk) 19:42, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

"or the early-17th century"

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)

I've left it at c 1568 in the lead, but this needs more work in the article body. Ceoil (talk) 22:44, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Timeline

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.

  • Agree, and this needs work over the coming weekend. Ceoil (talk) 23:58, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

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."

  • Removed mention of Cranach and Grunewald; the source was discussing Northern art more generally. Dürer sencence moved, well spotted on two counts. Ceoil (talk) 23:58, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

"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?

  • Yes and made clearer. Ceoil (talk) 23:58, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

"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)

  • Just that work; clarified now. Ceoil (talk) 23:58, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

"The 16th century can be seen as directly leading from the painterly innovations and iconography of the previous century."

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.

  • This was an attempt to address Johnbod's point on PR - "after [van Eyck's] great leaps forward, in many ways the style of works then developed pretty slowly for nearly a century." Its obvious, but the page still does still does not capture this. Ceoil (talk) 22:58, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
  • I think it's not finished because I may have been working rapidly and stuck it in as a place holder. I have specifics in sandbox notes that need to be brought over. Victoria (talk) 19:26, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

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)

  • Rewritten now, minus mention of Geertgen. Ceoil (talk) 22:58, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

More notes

Some things, gasp, are not easier to say using inline comments...

These two sentences in different sections seem to contradict each other:

  • Following Jan van Eyck's innovations, the first generation of Netherlandish painters emphasised light and shadow, elements absent from 14th-century illuminated manuscripts.
  • This innovation was first seen in manuscript illumination which after 1380 established new levels of realism and an ability to convey perspective, together with a skill in rendering colour and the conveyance of gradients of light

Riggr Mortis (talk) 04:24, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Done. Differing levels of anaylsis from the souces; I think some repeating others. Have gone with the more credible. Ceoil (talk) 14:06, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
Guild and workshop system
  • I don't know what the syntax is trying to do in "...to reflect the commission from the Leuven guild of archers Schutterij for their chapel." Is Schutterij supposed to be in brackets?
  • Rephrased and Schutterij removed, as it was never certain in any case. Ceoil (talk) 00:22, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
  • "If the master was secure enough financially, he could dedicate his workshop to the production of copies of his commercially successful works, or on [to?] new compositions based on his designs." Between these two options, what else is a workshop going to do? I don't quite follow.
  • Not everyone did earn enough and had to sell at the large annual (?) fairs held in Bruges and Antwerp. Some held second jobs but did have workshops. This was once in (I though); will try to find. Victoria (talk) 21:57, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Its a very astute point and have worked on this; would appreciate if you could revisit. The fact is that lesser artists would have fewer "greatest hits" for the apprentices to churn out and would eventually be choked of work, espically as fashion moved then as it does now. Ceoil (talk) 00:47, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
iconography
  • "in his paintings a domestic scene is no more complicated than a domestic scene..." Eh?
  • Rephrased. Ceoil (talk) 00:22, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
  • "while the very wealthy could also establish churches or extensions[?]..."
  • Clarified. Ceoil (talk) 00:26, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
  • "The format became extremely popular across the north, and the innovations he brought to a traditional format are an important contributing factor in the emergence of Marian diptychs as an enduring Early Netherlandish format."--format, format, format.
  • <hangs head>. Rephrased. Ceoil (talk) 00:22, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
chronology
  • "Moralism and didacticism increased, as seen in works such as Pieter Aertsen's Deeds of Christian Charity, in which the biblical images are relegated to the background.[38] Bruegel is an important bridge between the Early Netherlandish artists and their successors; his work retains many 15th-century conventions but his perspective is distinctly modern, and his subjects often involve landscapes and genre scenes with elements of religious skepticism, moralisation, and hints of nationalism.[39] The period drew to a close with an emphasis on overwhelmingly sweeping landscapes, moralisation and humanism.[38]"--Lots of vague repetition here and not enough focus. This is the paragraph that ends the period and would benefit from tightening. From my limited POV, emphasizing landscape in the final sentence (seemingly without reference to it still being a secondary element in the purpose of a painting) is misleading to the average reader.
  • This paragraph has been rewritten and simplified to remove ambiguities that are maybe outside scope. Broad transitions are always difficult and no use in getting bogged down in those of one individual painter, which is what seems to have happened here. Ceoil (talk) 00:38, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Re repetition; it was trying to say too much as it was written before the "landscape" section, so might be cut down further. Ceoil (talk) 01:01, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
second pass, many edits later (Dec 21/22)

Thanks for addressing the above. Some new ones:

  • "Yet illumination was still popular at the luxury end of the market in the 1460s. The development of print was the major contributing factor, in addition reproductions of woodcuts and metal plates became popular, especially those by artists such as Martin Schongauer and Albrecht Dürer.[13]"
  • Reworded. Ceoil (talk) 10:53, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
    • Rearranging has lost the connection to "major contributing factor"--of what?
    • run-on sentence beginning with "in addition"
  • Sorted. Ceoil (talk) 10:53, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
  • "It became art was an early driving force..." needs fixing.  Done
  • "; tapestries provided easily assembled interior architectural environments for..."
    • reads that a tapestry is an "architectural environment". One way of interpreting the problem is that a word like "decorations" is missing; "easily assembled decorations for...". "Decorations" may sound minimizing, I don't know.
  • Decorations works for me. Ceoil (talk) 10:53, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
  • "It was centrally organised..." (re Looms, in Tapestry); "it" is not so clear here--"commerce" or "production" maybe?
    Production. Ceoil (talk) 10:53, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
  • I just want to clarify that "stock" is meant as a verb in "This entrepreneur would locate and commission patrons, stock cartoons, and [verb]" because the sentence doesn't quite work otherwise?
  • Yes should be a verb; rephrased now as "held stock". Tempted to say "Supply Chain", but I'm not gonna! Ceoil (talk) 10:53, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Patronage

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)

Yes (didn't Wehwalt mention this) it would be the versions produced from prototypes surely? Johnbod (talk) 13:13, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Prototypes isn't the right word here and thanks, Fram, for catching. For some reason during the FAC this point escaped me completely. I need to get back into the sources though, because I do remember reading that quite a few pre-produced (maybe that's the better word?) paintings were sold at the fairs. Will revisit this later in the day. I don't have Campbell but can check Ainsworth on this point. Victoria (tk) 13:54, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Adding: Ainsworth says "ready made" so I've plopped that in. Victoria (tk) 17:01, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Rediscovery

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)

I've tweaked the second one slightly. What's supposed to be meant is that nationalistic tendencies separated the cities and along with it thought about whose art belonged to which country. Maybe this needs to be spun out a bit more but requires a bit more reading so as to get it right. Victoria (tk) 17:01, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Formats

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)

Yes, cut. Ceoil (talk) 02:19, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Pedantic query

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)

Well spotted Mick. Added to the biblo now, Lorne Campbell, Van der Weyden. London: Chaucer Press, 2004 Ceoil (talk) 21:19, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Burgundian Netherlands

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)

Yes, clarified now. Ceoil (talk) 23:05, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Great article....

Virgin of Chancellor Rolin

...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)

By all means Amanda. I would appreciate your input, espically. Ceoil (talk) 23:10, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Exposition des primitifs flamands à Bruges

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)

Amazing work! Johnbod (talk) 15:27, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
Thanks (blush). Fram (talk) 19:31, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
It's fantastic! It's a page we needed and I thought of tackling it, but this is much more ambitious than anything I conceived. Really excellent job. I think with some work it could easily become a featured list. I do have some material sandboxed here (in the Chapuis section) which may or may not be helpful, but please use it if it's helpful. Also I've started Saint John Altarpiece (Memling), fyi. Haven't decided whether or not to change to St. John Altarpiece (Memling) so suggestions welcome. Victoria (tk) 23:50, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
"St John" (no period) I think. We only use "St." for American place names that have it. Johnbod (talk) 02:53, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. I think most of it is covered in the article, although it could go to greater detail on some aspects. I'll probably write an article on Weale sometime soon. Fram (talk) 08:12, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Image larger than thumb.

Per WP:IG:

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.


  • Image use policy say: Sometimes a picture may benefit from a size other than the default; see the Manual of Style for guidance.


  • Manual of style: **As a general rule, images should not be set to a larger fixed size than the 220px default (users can adjust this in their preferences). 'If an exception to the general rule is warranted', forcing an image size to be either larger or smaller than the 220px default is done by placing a parameter in the image coding.


  • The exception from the general rule is most art and art related articles that they do fall into this cathegory, and they are this exception to the general rule .


Hafspajen (talk) 08:06, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Note that the default is about to be changed to 300px, which will change all this. That was in fact supposed to happen last week, but apparently has been delayed for technical reasons. Not sure what your point is anyway. Johnbod (talk) 12:12, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
Nor me. What? Ceoil (talk) 13:15, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
Relates to this I expect. Johnbod (talk) 13:37, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
Yes, Johnbod and Ceoil - user moving around, removing galleries and thumb-ing down pics. Reverted it. Hafspajen (talk) 17:28, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Beautiful, beautiful images in this article

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)

They mostly look too small to me, I must say. Johnbod (talk) 19:24, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
I didn't really know how to respond to any of this so decided not to. Then this caught my eye on my overworked watchlist yesterday. fwiw. I think this is a thread we could maybe just close. Or something. I like the way the images are because this is an overview article and the images don't overwhelm, whereas I prefer to see detail images on articles about single paintings. The other problem, as noted in the thread above, is that lots of people have been through resizing and moving images. So, I guess I said something after all! Victoria (tk) 20:43, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

"Speech ballon"?

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)

No, in fact neither of these in this case. Gone with "... for the floating "speech" inscriptions,...". Strictly banderole is the usual term for the speech scroll ones that look as though they are on strips of parchment. Johnbod (talk) 02:16, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
Should the relation not be noted? Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 02:56, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
How do you mean? Johnbod (talk) 08:02, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Early Netherlandishmen produced by the town of Dornick (Tournai)...

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)

All redlinks resolved

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)

Having all blue links on an article of this size and scope is great. Yes have noticed all the work and activity for a while now. It's very pleasing when eg creating sub-articles, that many of the ancillary paintings mentioned already have their own articles. Also while reading and you look up a particular artist or grouping, the info is there on wiki. There is a good community here. Ceoil (talk) 10:34, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Is this the same concept as "Flemish School"

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)

Not really - "Flemish School" covers a much longer period, especially Flemish Baroque painting. I'd dispute the definitions in both those non-RS links. Compare for example this book title: "Gregory Martin, The Flemish School, 1600–1900, National Gallery Catalogues, 1970, National Gallery, London, ISBN 0901791024". I've changed the redirect to target Flemish painting. Johnbod (talk) 13:18, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Friedländer

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)

Strange sentence in "rediscovery" section

"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)

Indeed - there were all in the same new state, which they had not been in the 15th century, or at times later. I'll remove. Johnbod (talk) 14:15, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. Fram (talk) 14:25, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

In Notes or Citations, but not Sources; In Sources but not Notes or Cites

In Notes or Citations, but not Sources
  • Ainsworth (2009)
  • Spronk (1997)
  • Cavallo 1973 (but there is a Cavallo 1993)
  • Harbison (1991)
  • Pächt (1999) but Pächt (1997) is OK
  • Phillip (1947)
In Sources but not Notes or Cites
  • Campbell 1974
  • Elkins, John
  • Freedberg, 133
  • Friedländer,
  • John Goldsmith (also formatted incorrectly and in wrong sort order)
  • Silver 2006
  • Teasdale Smith
  • Wolff
  • As noted above, there are some formatting and sorting errors also.
  •  ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 02:30, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Early_Netherlandish_painting/Archive_1&oldid=1136685262"