This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Belgium, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Belgium on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BelgiumWikipedia:WikiProject BelgiumTemplate:WikiProject BelgiumBelgium-related articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject France, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of France on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FranceWikipedia:WikiProject FranceTemplate:WikiProject FranceFrance articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Visual arts, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of visual arts on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Visual artsWikipedia:WikiProject Visual artsTemplate:WikiProject Visual artsvisual arts articles
Because this is a fairly unknown painter it needs to be presented well. People are not going to look after him and his works on commons if they only see a couple not so good paintings of him. They classify him as a por painter and move on. Most people don't go to commons at all. Ex-Voto de 1662 might be an important painting because it depicts his family but it is not a very well done painting, technically is quite poor. So is Cephalus and Procris in a Landscape, compare with his other paintings. Hafspajen (talk) 12:32, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ex Voto of 1662 is widely acknowledged as one of his masterpieces, as can be confirmed by entering Philippe de Champaigne masterpiece into either google or google books; it should not have been deleted, particularly as it was at that time the only one of his paintings actually mentioned in the text of the article. Cephalus and Procris in a Landscape is weak but useful as an example of his early style; readers might wonder what Champaigne painted before he reached his forties. Ewulp (talk) 04:04, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I changed the date 1640 to from 1640 onwards for the influence of Jansenism- presumably Champaigne read Jansen's book when first published in 1640, but couldn't have had any opportunity to come into contact with Jansen's ideas before that date. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 06:18, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Is it Philippe de Champaigne or Philippe De Champaigne (with capital "D"), since hi was not a member of nobility? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.67.216.60 (talk) 03:25, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Is the missing "i" in "Champaigne" in the quote "Truly, I should not look to find his portrait By the grave hand of Philippe de Champagne." intentional? 136.169.55.159 (talk) 16:57, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
