Talk:Quattrocento

Italy Low‑importance

	Italy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Italy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Italy 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.ItalyWikipedia:WikiProject ItalyTemplate:WikiProject ItalyItaly articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Visual arts

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

[Untitled][edit]

This term is often used to refer to this period, so it would be worth having at least a short article to explain that much rather than just redirecting searches.

Why does "Proto-Renaissance" redirect to "Quattrocento"?[edit]

What about the transitional phase from Northern Gothic to Northern Renaissance? I was forced to delink the term here but in fact I shouldn't have had to if the current definition of "Proto-Renaissance" wasn't so restrictive. --Edelseider (talk) 16:09, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree a short article is needed really. I think the term is used rather imprecisely, with a range of meanings. Some might say, I suspect, that Trecento is as good a redirect, if only Italy is considered. Johnbod (talk) 04:02, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, See here. In fact say 1280 to 1400 seems to be the norm - I'll change the redirect to Italian_Renaissance_painting#Proto-Renaissance_painting. Judging by Google the term is mainly used for Italy, at least in English. Johnbod (talk) 15:37, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's very strange, a bit as if art history was still stuck in the time of Ruskin and all those great German masters like "Grünewald" had not yet been rediscovered! --Edelseider (talk) 16:07, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

At least in English, Grünewald is fully Renaissance, and van Eyck "Early Netherlandish painting". Johnbod (talk) 16:27, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

But the early paintings of Grünewald are very much anticipating Renaissance but not yet fully there, see for yourself: File:Matthias Gruenewald-Coburger Tafel-Abendmahl.jpg. And the same is true of Holbein the Elder, of course. --Edelseider (talk) 16:30, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a case of seeing for myself, but seeing how RS in English normally use these inevitably subjective style-labels. Plenty of northern provincial painters didn't properly absorb Renaissance developments until well after 1700. Johnbod (talk) 16:44, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, and I hope you didn't misunderstand me: I don't blame you for the views of English art history (in fact, I don't blame anybody), I am just wondering. --Edelseider (talk) 17:12, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]