Talk:Neo-Impressionism

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

I'm not an expert on how wikipedia works, but perhaps neo-impressionism and post-impressionism should be merged? Or at least linked to each other? They're all too similar... I just think they may be better displayed as a single article.

I agree, besides that page is just a little too short, if you know what i mean. I was looking at it, and it was absolutely tiny for such a broad subject. Maybe it should be merged with pointilism too, as that's basically the same thing as neo-impressionism. But give all the artists separate page. Its too annoying to have to read pages and pages of stuff you dont need. ps. HELLO!

  • No, definitely not! Post-Impressionism is the by far wider term, covering Synthetism, Symbolism as well as the Nabis group and the late work of Paul Cézanne. The problem is more or less the definition given on this page. --RPD 22:41, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As RPD says they are two different terms, post-impressionism is a general term for a wide variety of European art after the mid/late 19th century, neo-impressionism is a particular style of art that was influenced by impressionism. For instance think about music for an example, we could have "post-classical" music to describe pretty much any style of contemporary music (it came after the classical period) but "neo-classical" is a particular style of contemporary music - namely that which incorporates elements of classical music in modern compositions. The two terms are very different. --blankfrackis 21:15, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Matisse[edit]

I added Le Luxe, Calme et Volupte by Henri Matisse, clearly influenced by Paul Signac and as an example of a kind of pre-Fauvism, Post-Impressionist, Neo-impressionist painting that Matisse experimented with. I am somewhat ambivalent about its inclusion here, though. Modernist (talk) 23:43, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Well, but don't forget that the beginnings of every artist do not necessarily mark his place in art history. For my part, I would be happy to see this Matisse at the end of the text, and therefore pointing to things to come. Not to things already established like Neo-Impressionism. Experimenting with techniques, styles or whatever you want to call it, was always a privilege of newcomers. --rpd (talk) 00:29, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do not double links[edit]

Please avoid doubling links that are already provided in the Post-Impressionism template. Furthermore, lists of artists involved are better supplied with the main text, and not in a "See also" section. --rpd (talk) 09:39, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Groupe des Peintres Néo-Impressionistes[edit]

Why is this section heading in French? Modernist (talk) 22:48, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • It's a strictly identifing term for this neo-impressionist group (there are others,too), comparable to terms like Salon d'Automne, Les XX, La Libre Esthétique etc.--rpd (talk) 08:08, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's not as widely used as Salon d'Automne, and Les XX, I've translated it into English. My suggestion is that La Libre Esthétique should also be translated into English, because it isn't a widely known term. You've created an article - mostly in French there, I don't think that makes sense because most readers speak English, and although a percentage of people speak French - it is a minority, and your article isn't for everyone...I'll help you if you can't do it. Thank you....Modernist (talk) 18:06, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I do not think that this is Wikipedia's way to go:
Wikipedia is international, to my opinion
english is our linqua franca, and that's all; if there is no consense on this, I would opt for a split between English and American WP, and continue editing in the European space. But at first, I think you should ask whether there is consense for your point of view.--rpd (talk) 21:53, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have no need to shop around for consensus, I agree with you that English is our linqua franca, but what I am saying is French isn't, but suit yourself, To each his own....WP:UCS sort of implies this isn't a French encyclopedia, but if thats what you need to do....hey you're the expert...who gave us this gem: In the years 1918-1933, people united in Europe to dance on a vulcan, after that one, you can do whatever you want. Modernist (talk) 23:59, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus. Jenks24 (talk) 12:28, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Neo-impressionism → Neo-Impressionism – Both encyclopedic and specialist publications write it the same: Encyclopedia Britanica, as well as The Metropolitan Museum of Art and the Museum of Modern Art in New York write Neo-Impressionism with capital letters (rather than Neo-impressionism). A search of the relevant literature produces the same result, see Google Books by Floyd Ratliff (1992) Paul Signac and Color in Neo-Impressionism, Russell T. Clement, ‎Annick Houzé (1999) Neo-Impressionist Painters: A Sourcebook on Georges Seurat, Camille Pissarro, Martha Ward (1996) Pissarro, Neo-Impressionism, and the Spaces of the Avant-Garde, John Gary Hutton (1994) Neo-Impressionism and the Search for Solid Ground: Art, Science, and Anarchism in Fin-de-siècle France, Catherine Bock-Weiss (1977) Henri Matisse and Neo-Impressionism, 1898-1908. And the list goes on... Coldcreation (talk) 22:20, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There exists a redirect from Neo-Impressionism. It leads to the title said to be in accordance with the Wikipedia naming conventions for capitalisation. However, it leads to a title (Neo-impressionism) the capitalization of which is broadly nonconventional. See for comparison: Post-Impressionism. Clearly Wikipedia:NCCAPS is not applicable for art movements such as the two mentioned above, since Neo and Post are followed by a dash, leading to the word Impressionism, which is quasi-always capitalized. Coldcreation (talk) 22:40, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, on the technicality that A) WP (for whatever reason) treats art movements as proper names, so B) they remain capitalized even after a hyphenated prefix. As long as A remains true, B is also true. For what it's worth, I'd like the either see all of them decapitalized, or all music, film and other genres capitalized (preferably the former), instead of art movements getting a special capitalization pass, but this isn't the place for either proposal.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  09:54, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose on the basis that WP:VAMOS#Capitalization and art movements alludes to MOS:DOCTCAPS#Doctrine as self-referential and champions dictionaries. Would you go to a music label before a dictionary as a source on how to spell Rock and roll? American Heritage, Collins, Merriam Webster, Dictionary.com and Oxford all use lowercase, as they do with impressionism and other movements. Wikipedia's own dictionary, Wikitionary, uses lowercase. Improper names in titles are often capitalized in the publishing world: Rock and Roll: Its History and Stylistic Development (7th Edition), Classic Rock: Gold, The History of Rock 'n' Roll in Ten Songs, Rock 'n' Roll Myths: The True Stories Behind the Most Infamous Legends, etc. Nonc01 (talk) 08:20, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A quick check shows the first example you linked, American Heritage, written Neo-Impressionism with capital letters.Coldcreation (talk) 09:09, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That is completely false, you have made an oversight. The entry for American Heritage (top) is lowercase. Nonc01 (talk) 06:53, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Look to the upper left of your screen at American Heritage. Neo-Impressionism is written in large bold type with capital letters N and I. Further down on the same page you will find: ne•o-im•pres•sion•ism or Ne•o-Im•pres•sion•ism, a late 19th-century French artistic theory and practice, characterized chiefly by the use of pointillist techniques. They essentially write it both ways. Yet further down still it is written: Neo-Impressionism, Pointillism. See also: Art. Recall, this was the example you linked above to show how a dictionary uses lower case. Coldcreation (talk) 17:01, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You are objectively wrong and insufferable, it reflects poorly on you that you would make up something about a page to deny being wrong. The general heading is via thefreedictionary.com itself and has no consistency behind it, as evidenced by them spelling post-impressionism in lowercase. The first entry: "ne·o·im·pres·sion·ism or ne·o-im·pres·sion·ism" is American Heritage and uses all lowercase, including lowercase impressionism in the definition. The second is Random House and accepts either. The third source is Ologies and Isms. You're like talking to a spoiled child. Nonc01 (talk) 20:53, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No need to be insulting Nonc01. The fact is, your link to American Heritage shows Neo-Impressionism written in large bold type with capital letters N and I at the top of the page, and further down the page as well... Coldcreation (talk) 05:47, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh please, don't blame me for your inability to read dictionary entries. The fact is, they are not American Heritage definitions, which was the basis of your argument and now you are deflecting. I tried to tell you politely that you were confused but you are so self-righteous that it never crossed your mind, and you proceeded to be argumentative. I need not say more, anyone reading this and looking at the link will see how foolish you've been. Nonc01 (talk) 06:12, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Neo-Impressionism: Most, if not all, Art History books, and many, if not all, scholarly publications in the field of Art History write Impressionism, Post-Impressionism and Neo-Impressionism. This is not the field of music. This is literature that deals with art and art movements. There is no reason why there should be a standard practice across the board, across all fields. The fact is, the vast majority of the relevant literature writes Impressionism beginning with a capital "I" whether the word is preceded by Neo- or Post-, or not. Coldcreation (talk) 15:54, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There are many others; all I've checked on Google Books starting from the top of the list for "History of art". Coldcreation (talk) 16:28, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here are yet other museums:

Coldcreation (talk) 07:28, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak oppose. It's true that the majority of major museum websites and art-related publications favor capitalization of many common art terms. But some important ones, like The National Gallery, do not, and are none the worse for it. A google search for books quickly turned up exceptions—including one book Coldcreation mentioned above which, allthough it uses title case in the title, does not capitalize the term in the body text: Pissarro, Neo-Impressionism, and the Spaces of the Avant-Garde by Martha Ward, 1996, [seen here]. Some others are Japan & Paris: Impressionism, Post impressionism, and the Modern Era, Guth et al. 2004, seen here and The Invention of Art: A Cultural History, Shiner, 2001, seeen here. Books in the field of art history that use lower case for names of art movements are fewer than those that use upper case, but they exist.
A standard English dictionary should be considered authoritative as to spelling and orthography: neither the OED ("neo-impressionism, n." OED Online. Oxford University Press) nor Webster's capitalize this term.
WP:TITLEFORMAT, which has the force of a policy, not a guideline, says "The initial letter of a title is almost always capitalized by default; otherwise, words are not capitalized unless they would be so in running text." And as we have seen, neo-impressionism might or might not be capitalized, even in specialist literature. WP:CRITERIA recommends that an article title be consistent with the pattern of similar articles' titles. That we have an article named Post-Impressionism is the fault of this long-ago edit by a well-meaning newbie, made with no prior discussion; one of these articles' names should be changed and I'm not sure it's this one. I second what SMcCandlish said above: it might be better to discuss the policy in a different forum.
The current name of this article is correct according to the dictionary, and is consistent with many scholarly publications and Wikipedia's MOS. If it isn't broke, there's no need to fix it. Ewulp (talk) 11:02, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You bring up some interesting points Ewulp. However, when you write "according to the dictionary" you overlook the fact that many dictionaries also write Neo-Impressionism with caps. Several examples are linked above. And, when you write "many scholarly publications" you seem to overlook the fact that many scholarly publications write Neo-Impressionism with caps (see links above). It shouldn't be overlooked either; the overwhelming majority of major museums in the United States write Neo-Impressionism or Neo-Impressionist. Here is yet another example: Masterpieces from the Philadelphia Museum of Art: Impressionism and Modern Art. Note that caps are used for "Neo-Impressionist" in the body of text. And here too. Coldcreation (talk) 17:50, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A few more examples of Neo-Impressionist written with caps (see body of text): The Phillips Collection. And The National Gallery of Art and The National Gallery of Victoria. Coldcreation (talk) 17:50, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You will also see various art movements given lowercase treatment in today's featured article Hilda Rix Nicholas, including post-impressionism. Nonc01 (talk) 06:32, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
When I write that "according to the dictionary" lower case is correct, I am saying that no standard English dictionary I've checked says that this term requires capitalization—as "Freudian" does, for example. The Merriam-Webster entry for neo-impressionism is spelled with lower case ("neo–im·pres·sion·ism - noun, often capitalized N&I") and the term is defined as "a late 19th century French art theory and practice characterized by an attempt to make impressionism more precise..." Note the lower case "impressionism" there—Webster's acknowledges that neo-impressionism is often capitalized, but makes the uncapitalized spelling the primary spelling. The American Heritage entry for "Freudian" shows what a definition of a word that requires capitalization looks like; if you examine that page you will see that the term is capitalized every time it appears.
I did not overlook the facts I am alleged to have overlooked; I started off by saying "It's true that the majority of major museum websites and art-related publications favor capitalization of many common art terms", and said "Books in the field of art history that use lower case for names of art movements are fewer than those that use upper case", and "neo-impressionism might or might not be capitalized, even in specialist literature". These remarks fully acknowledge that, yes, art terms such as this one are capitalized in the majority of art museum websites and art-related publications.
FWIW, the NGA website, as I mentioned earlier, does not capitalize the term; the link provided in Coldcreation's post above (here's that link again) shows the titles of exhibitions in title case, so "Neo-Impressionism" is capitalized as are most other words in the titles ("First Loan Exhibition", "The Landscape in French Painting", "Renoir - Cezanne and their Contemporaries", etc.) The link on that page to "Postimpressionism" leads to this NGA page, in which the text spells impressionism and postimpressionism with lower case.
The current spelling of this article's title is correct; capitalization is also correct. I like this passage from Garner's Modern American Usage (2009; p. 131): "the standards—in capitalization more than in other aspects of written English—lie in house styles .... Yet some general conventions offer helpful guidance. The most important is the modern trend away from capitalization, resulting in a minimalist rule: unless there's a good reason to capitalize, don't." "Romantic" and sometimes "Symbolism" need capitalization to avoid ambiguity, but neo-impressionism doesn't. Wikipedia's house style per MOS:DOCTCAPS says: "Philosophies, theories, movements, doctrines, and systems of thought do not begin with a capital letter, unless the name derives from a proper name". As "neo-impressionism" is not derived from a proper name, our MOS indicates that the term should not be capitalized. This article's name has been stable since its creation in 2004 and I don't think there's a compelling reason to change it. Ewulp (talk) 07:15, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom and supporters. Still most common in good RS. Johnbod (talk) 22:24, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified (February 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Neo-impressionism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:11, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Used a part of the lede to another article, page of citation needed[edit]

I have used part of the lede of this article in an edit at History of anarchism. [4] (attribution given at edit summary) I will need the number of the specific page though, if you can help, I 'd be thankful. Cinadon36 (talk) 07:09, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Neo-Impressionism&oldid=1204238236"