Talk:Anthony van Dyck

Van Dyck beard

Is this van Dyck the person after whom the beard style that involves a goatee with a mustache named? If so, can someone find a citation and add it, here, possibly with a link from goatee? Thanks. -Harmil 15:35, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Could be, because he was the prominent portrait painter of an age when this type of beard was very common. I don't know however. Piet | Talk 09:28, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

There are websites where this is claimed, however I do not know how reliable any of them are.--Filll 12:30, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Reviving this issue after more than a decade, I think this source plus this source are enough to demonstrate the frivality of this issue and to exclude the claims from this article. Completely unsourced and without any notability having been established. Philip Cross (talk) 07:25, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Well I guess Bendor Grosvenor has a somewhat highfalutin reputation to think of, but he just says it's trivia. I'm not sure why he would be expected to provide any source. And arthistorynews.com also doesn't really offer an opinion on veracity, it just says its trivia? So frivolous yes, but might still be based on truth? Martinevans123 (talk) 07:47, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Actually the British Museum does/used to link to WP on FAs on their objects, & I think the Brooklyn Museum repeats many artist bios, & other museums do the same. In a long article the beard is certainly worth a mention, and the fact is certainly true. I'm gratified he doesn't find anything else to gripe about in the content, except what seems to be a maybe about one date. I'm sure he looked. The National Galleries in London and DC also use "van" not "Van". Trivia would be giving more coverage than we do to rediscoveries by him & Phillip Mould like the Portrait of Olivia Boteler Porter (just a SA). We leave that to the BBC. Johnbod (talk) 08:13, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

I discovered today that the Tate also does this for some artists, such as Paul Nash. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:10, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

That is what Grosvenor is complaining about, with some justification - he thinks they should be providing gainful employment to art historians. Johnbod (talk) 22:18, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Beard? schmeard!... dahling. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:49, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

In a thoughtful rebuttal to Dr Grosvenor, Matthew Lincoln, a former writer of artist biographies, says he's just fine with the Tate using Wikipedia for its own. It's worth a read. KalHolmann (talk) 23:25, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Yes, that's very sensible. Johnbod (talk) 15:36, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

I added one sentence to the lead with proper citation, which includes a quotation to establish notability of the artist's social influences beyond painting, including the beard. Such influence, for an artist, is not trivial. KalHolmann (talk) 17:53, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

So I guess it should also be copied somewhere into the main body too. The source could then be omitted from the lead? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:00, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

At the suggestion of @Martinevans123:, I added a new section to document van Dyck's social influence, including the beard, and moved the citation from the lead accordingly. KalHolmann (talk) 18:24, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks very much. I think it's a real imrpovement. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:02, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

I've trimmed somewhat. Hardly the most reliable source if they think van Dyck was Dutch! Johnbod (talk) 22:15, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

@Johnbod: Anthony van Dyck was born in Antwerp (1599). As I understand it, after the Fall of Antwerp in 1576, Antwerp became the capital of the Dutch revolt (1568–1648), which led to the independence of the Dutch Republic (1581–1795). That was the predecessor state of modern Netherlands and the first nation state of the Dutch people. If true, this would strongly suggest that van Dyck was, at the time of his birth, Dutch. Please tell me where I've gone wrong. KalHolmann (talk) 22:45, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Suggest you read those articles again, and Fall of Antwerp. Johnbod (talk) 22:54, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

@Johnbod: I politely asked you where I went wrong. Is this really the best you can do? Please show a little courtesy to one of your fellow editors, who is striving in his limited way to improve this article and, by extension, Wikipedia. KalHolmann (talk) 23:01, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

And I showed you where you went wrong. A little less over-sensitivity please. Johnbod (talk) 02:15, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

@Johnbod: you have shown me nothing except dismissiveness. A little less condescension please. KalHolmann (talk) 02:22, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Anyway, how about just removing the part about the beard from the WP:LEAD section? it is undue prominence and adds to Wikipedia's reputation for fascination with WP:POPCULTURE references that are trivial side issues. It could be mentioned later on, but definitely isn't leadworthy stuff.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 12:45, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

I don't agree, & certainly would not like to do this as a response to silly blogosphere posts. The lead is too short generally, & needs expanding - a quick sentence at the end would then be less prominent. Johnbod (talk) 14:02, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

At least he was never notable for eating hamsters in a pub? Not unless Bendor Grosvenor tell us, any way. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:59, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Although I've never actually watched one of his programmes on TV, I do follow Grosvenor's blog, and to be honest Twitter feed, and agreed with him. (I also like Sugababes early singles if we are being honest). However its a matter of context; the sentence then was a disjointed and tacked on statement; have tried to contextualise it in the broader arc of his influence over the years, and it sits easier with me now; though I wouldn't bother having it if it was up to me - hipster nonesence. Ceoil (talk) 21:58, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Worth having if only show the correct spelling (though really it should be "Vandyke beard" I'm inclined to think) in case people are tempted to believe Grosvenor's mistake. Johnbod (talk) 00:34, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

If you get past the lead, the rest of the article is wonderfully written, and very insightful, which alas has been lost in all this. Ceoil (talk) 00:47, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Relationship to Rubens

I've reverted to previous description of van Dyck's relationship to Rubens, using Brown's catalogue of 1999 as source. Notwithstanding the younger artist's precociousness, he was a teenager, not yet a peer of Rubens', and is described as a pupil as well as his primary assistant. Rubens referred to van Dyck as his 'best pupil' (without actually naming the younger artist) in a letter to an ambassador to the Hague, sans irony, in an attempt to sell him a painting. JNW 01:14, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Not too sure about this; he was a free master of the guild from Feb 1618, so could not really be anyone's pupil from then on. He is described as one of R's "discipelen" in a 1620 contract though. There is a school of thought that really was a pupil of R say 1613-15, but little evidence for this. I accept the irony is wrong in relation to that letter, though I have a memory of something there, but not this one presumably. I'm happy enough as it stands, though the whole article needs going over. Nothing in my source (NG Flemish catalogue, Gregory Martin) about a workshop with Breughel btw. I should have looked at something before editing of course.

What date is the letter? Johnbod 01:41, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

• First thing first: I'm glad you're working on this. I added some here a few months ago, but this is an entry in great need of expansion. 'Hard evidence' of collaboration with Rubens exists from 1617. You are right that van Dyck registered as an independent master on Feb. 11, 1618; yet the letter from Rubens to Sir Dudley Carleton is dated April 28, 1618, wherein Rubens refers to a painting for sale for 600 guilders, 'done by my best pupil', and retouched by R. In Brown's words 'Not only did he follow the typology of Rubens' figures, he also imitated his master's style....Van Dyck was active in Rubens' workshop both before and after he was registered as a master painter...He could not have hoped for a better master or role model'.

No doubt Rubens recognized the young painter's greatness (as did everyone else, it seems), so it is not unlikely that he may have at some time used the word 'pupil' ironically, but initially theirs must have been a master/pupil relationship...though what an interesting dynamic that must have been. In 1615 or 16 the boy set up an independent workshop with his friend and contemporary Jan Brueghel the Younger, possibly because van Dyck's father's business was failing, and he needed to earn a living (this last, nearly verbatim from Brown). JNW 02:28, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok - That must have been a wierd dynamic as Breughel was born 1601 - Beavis & Butthead paint masterpieces heh heh! I'm clocking off for tonight but will probably return. Johnbod 02:38, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

• You gave me a good laugh. Take care, JNW 02:41, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Is this his painting?

File:Shirleys.JPG. I am reading an article in TE and it implies - but is not very clear on that - that those paintings are his.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:57, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Having seen them in the exhibition, I would think it highly unlikely. The catalogue (p. 49) says he was painted 3 times, including by Van Dyck, but that is not this one, which is "unknown artist" (and dated c 1628, when Van D was not in England). Apart from the wonderful clothes, the figures are pretty stiff. Johnbod (talk) 19:13, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Van Dyck did paint this couple, and he painted Shirley in the same ambassadorial Persian cloak. These are inferior to the Van Dycks, in my opinion, but extremely interesting. I don't think anyone knows who painted them, but most certainly not Van Dyck. qp10qp (talk) 19:22, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! Do we have the vDyks paintings of them on Commons? We may want to create a Commons gallery for Shirleys... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:27, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Sir Robert Shirley and his wife, Lady Teresa Sampsonia, by an unknown hand

Sir Robert Shirley by Van Dyck

Lady Shirley by Van Dyck

Some nine years later ... yes, we do (now) have images of the Shirley portraits by Van Dyck [bottom pair]. Here they are. They owned by the National Trust and displayed at Petworth House, apparently.[6][7] As was said before, the top pair are clearly not by Van Dyck. 213.205.240.178 (talk) 14:05, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Antwerp

"small and declining city of Antwerp" Declining by all means , but it was one or two generations earlier European number two. At the beginning of the 16th century Antwerp accounted for 40% of world trade — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elegast (talk • contribs) 11:23, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Private collection

I've removed the following passage: The private collection of Mr. James Stunt has a fine example of works by Van Dyck, including "The Cheeke Sisters" which is the last remaining double female portrait by Van Dyck in private hands. Mr. Stunt lends many of them to museums, including the Huntington museum in California.

...as promotional in tone, partially a copyright violation or close paraphrasing of its source, and containing an unsourced claim re: its being the last privately owned double female portrait. That claim doesn't really have significance in an encyclopedic article, unless someone is attempting to use Wikipedia to publicize the collection. Also unclear is whether this private collection merits mention in a section on van Dyck devoted to major museum holdings; I'd suggest that multiple sources are needed. The account that has been re-adding this content here appears to have a COI history with regard to Mr. Stunt. Further thoughts will be welcome--if there's a consensus that a sentence about the collection belongs in the article, then it ought to be included in a neutral and well-sourced fashion. JNW (talk) 23:53, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree; the tone was inappropriate, and—given the context—any mention of a private collection would need substantial support from reliable third-party sources. Ewulp (talk) 00:40, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Agree Johnbod (talk) 02:45, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Firstly thank you for your comments and opinions. The reference to the painting being the last of its kind in private hands is:

I can provide further references if need be.

I have written a more neutral text here, for inclusion on the Van Dyck page under the heading "Collections", please bear in mind "Collections" includes both Public and Private Collections: Works by Van Dyck also exist in international private collections. One such example is James Stunt’s personal collection of British Old Master Paintings, which, amongst other works by Sir Anthony Van Dyck, includes the late double portrait of two women, titled ‘The Cheeke Sisters’. The painting, (illustrated), is known to be the last of this subject by the artist in a private collection.

Additionally, online references to important works of art sold on the open market (and now in private collections) are essential aides to future Art Historical Research, since there are few up-to-date records of paintings which are owned privately and therefore largely inaccessible to research. Consider the significance of this from the Researchers' perspective: stating that a work is 'Whereabouts Unknown' is unsatisfactory, incomplete information, as opposed to my intention to include this kind of information in order to make it accessible, with the full consent of the owner.

Secondly, regarding your point about promotion, please let me clarify. The purpose for including the comments about James Stunt's Art related activities is to encourage wider Philanthropy in Art, which is in itself noteworthy. The gentleman concerned in the article is a rare breed in the world of Art collecting as there are precious few persons of his young age, active in contribution to the the funding of Art Historical research, Exhibitions and promotion of Old Master Paintings, in this particular case Portraiture by one of the leading portraitists of the time. Good examples of Philanthropy in Art such as this are noteworthy and must be set in order to encourage more young people in this manner. Since Mr. Stunt's involvement in Philanthropic activities has increased i think it would be appropriate for Wikipedia to grant him his own page. I have the references and links for these philanthropic activities (such as Mr. Stunt being a major sponsor of Internationally acclaimed Exhibitions of Old Masters).

I look forward to hearing all of your comments on these points. Kerkyra22 (talk) 13:28, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't think so. That the painting was de-accessioned by LACMA not long ago, & last sold (before Stunt) as "studio of..." doesn't help. Your first go was a WP:COPYVIO of the Hall Gallery link I see. The only collections mentioned are publicly accessible ones which "have splendid examples of all phases of his portrait style", and it should stay that way. It is not Wikipedia's function to act as a repository for provenance research; Getty and others do that. Johnbod (talk) 13:53, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Johnbod, the fact that LACMA de-accesioned it not long ago and it and that it carried a name of "Studio of" at one point has no relevance today, as the Current Art Historians of today have given it the full backing and that is what is important, otherwise known as a "rediscovery", all in the line of updated and current factual information which is crucial in the Art world. And this makes the importance of the painting and its subject even greater. Another note is that to carry the line of "have Splendid examples of all phases of his portrait style" is subjective and people should be made aware that their are other examples elsewhere, the fact that one owner of a private collection is willing to show openly that he has such works is a positive. Getty provenance does not carry updated and current provenance and "others" do not either, so you are incorrect in that statement and i am not suggesting that Wikipedia be that either. I look forward to other comments. Kerkyra22 (talk) 14:29, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

As the article says, there are large numbers of works in private hands, many accessible to the public. We don't even mention the famous group in the Double Cube Room at Wilton House, though perhaps we should. Johnbod (talk) 14:43, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Also please bear in mind Johnbod, in your reference to a Copyright Violation, you are incorrect as i went to the extent of gaining the consent and authority to use the content referenced for any use by the creators of the texts. Kerkyra22 (talk) 14:46, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Johnbod is correct, we should include the paintings in Wilton house and i am more than happy to provide this as the current Earl of Pembroke is a personal friend of mine.Kerkyra22 (talk) 14:50, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

However, this has now changed the subject in hand, so please can i have some on topic comments, thank you.Kerkyra22 (talk) 15:05, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

At the risk of belaboring several points, there are two inextricably connected issues. The first is whether mention of this private collection benefits the biography of Anthony van Dyck--on this count I'm dubious, since I believe the party that benefits from mention here is Mr. Stunt. This leads to the second issue, which is at the heart of the WP:COI and WP:PROMOTIONAL concerns, with multiple instances of copyright violation (merely procuring consent from the creators isn't adequate, but assuming that consent has been granted via proper channels the matter of the text being promotional in tone stands). Kerkyra22's edit history indicates a strong interest in promoting Mr. Stunt, as in the above statement The gentleman concerned in the article is a rare breed in the world of Art collecting as there are precious few persons of his young age, active in contribution to the the funding of Art Historical research, Exhibitions and promotion of Old Master Paintings, in this particular case Portraiture by one of the leading portraitists of the time. Good examples of Philanthropy in Art such as this are noteworthy and must be set in order to encourage more young people in this manner. Since Mr. Stunt's involvement in Philanthropic activities has increased i think it would be appropriate for Wikipedia to grant him his own page; that's really what this is about [8], [9]. Though the biography was redirected to that of Mr. Stunt's wife, mention of Mr. Stunt's collection has entered several artists' biographies, including those of Peter Lely and Godfrey Kneller. The air of advocacy at best and public relations at worst colors this discussion. JNW (talk) 23:36, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you JNW for your diplomacy and evaluation of these two points. In your first point, i disagree, as with Mr. Stunt's ever growing collection of various different portrait artists continues as well as other artists, there is a notable interest here for public knowledge of the collections whereabouts, the promotion here, in this particular case, is for both understanding, to the public, of a noteworthy collection and activities of a certain individual, which in the end promotes current Art Historical education and the addition to the information about a great past artist and the works he produced. Am i not lead to believe Wikipedia is a font of knowledge and that all notable and noteworthy facts and any educational and informative details is its main goal? On the second point, am i also not lead to believe that Wikipedia articles on individuals are created due to notable activities? Kerkyra22 (talk) 07:14, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

What you can be led to believe is that Wikipedia is not a venue for the promotion of private collectors or collections. If you can provide multiple reliable sources, WP:RELIABLE, that support the subject's notability, then an article can be resubmitted on Mr. Stunt. Until then, it's not recommended that his name be added to articles about major artists. JNW (talk) 13:06, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

You say that Wikipedia is not a venue for the promotion of private collectors or collections, but in five seconds i find on Wikipedia the promotion of a Philanthropist called Eli Broad and his collection of 28 works on the page of Jeff Koons and on the same page Dakis Joannou and now i have looked further there are many more examples to the absolute opposite of what you have just stated. Kerkyra22 (talk) 14:31, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Additional references for Mr. Stunt are here: This Courtauld Institute is one of the top museum/academic institutions in the world as you probably well know, please look at Lead sponsor. He has also just paid for the entire exhibition at the Huntingdon entitled, Gainsborough's Cottage door; An insight to the artists last decades.Kerkyra22 (talk) 14:31, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS isn't an argument for inclusion, and moving forward I'd suggest--even though his significance is inherent to inclusion in an article such as this--this isn't the page to continue a discussion on Mr. Stunt's notability. Again, you're welcome to resubmit a biographical article with reliable sources. But nothing argued here dispels the impression of promotional intent. JNW (talk) 14:39, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Regarding your comment from 23:36, 5 October 2013 (UTC), about my paragraph "The gentleman concerned...." you totally misunderstood my point. This text was explaining the issue. I shall resubmit a biographical article with reliable sources. Kerkyra22 (talk) 15:00, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

In that same paragraph you wrote, "The purpose for including the comments about James Stunt's Art related activities is to encourage wider Philanthropy in Art". A laudable goal, but Wikipedia is not a soapbox (see WP:PROMOTION). The Anthony van Dyck article is not a proper platform for a campaign to encourage philanthropy, or safe driving, or daily flossing—it's a compendium of encyclopedic information regarding the artist and his work. You are welcome to argue here that the James Stunt collection merits a mention in this article; if the case can be made using proper sourcing it may prove acceptable. But in cases like this the judgement of neutral editors takes precedence over that of an editor with a conflict of interest. In this edit summary you identify yourself as having sold paintings to Mr. Stunt. See WP:COS: "If you have a personal connection to a topic or a person, (such as being an employee, familial ties, or other relationship), you are advised to refrain from editing articles directly, and to provide full disclosure of the connection." Ewulp (talk) 01:35, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Once again, i have to explain that this was answering a comment directly questioned to me on this page posted by the previous user. Kerkyra22 (talk) 06:23, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

References

sourcing and sourcing for analysis and commentary

Per WP:BURDEN any content that is challenged cannot be restored without a reliable source provided as a citation. period.

All analysis and commentary is required to have a source , with attribution of the analysis generally also required WP:OR / WP:NPOV.

Tagging might be a step before removing, but inline citations is a REQUIREMENT before restoring. (you may also wish to read up on WP:NPA-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:10, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

The problem is your concept of "POV" is fundamentally flawed, and your edits have long verged on or represented trolling, as the endless series of warnings and complaints that make up the entirety of your talk page show. That is why your removal of referenced content just gets reverted. Johnbod (talk) 12:54, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

I will again remind you of WP:NPA. Where has my removal of "referenced" material been reverted? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:07, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

2013 discovery of lost £400,000 Van Dyck

"The work discovered on the show is a portrait of a Magistrate of Brussels which is believed to have been painted as part of the artist's preparation for a 1634 work showing seven magistrates which was eventually destroyed in a French attack on Brussels in 1695." [10] Not sure if the find is sufficiently notable for addition to the article. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:36, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

My take is that it's minor news for van Dyck, but belongs in the article on Antiques Roadshow as the most valuable painting ever discovered there. JNW (talk) 15:49, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, and one of its most valuable items. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:52, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Does this painting still exist?

Belisarius Receiving Alms; From the picture at Chiswick, attributed to Sir Anthony Van Dyck

It is mentioned in Goethe's novel Elective Affinities as a famous painting, not a print.

Probably it was later established that Van Dyck was not the author. 82.177.40.227 (talk) 15:16, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

A year later ... yes, indeed it does still exist, but not at Chiswick House. It is now in the State Music Room at Chatsworth House, to the left of the famous door with the trompe l'oeil violin. See the image (as usual, the V&A's engraving reverses the composition). And it is now attributed to Luciano Borzone, e.g.: [11] 213.205.240.207 (talk) 12:21, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. Yes, that webpage says this: "The majority of the paintings here in the State Music Room belonged to the 3rd Earl of Burlington and formed part of the inheritance of the 5th Duke. To the left of the violin door is the Blind Belisarius Receiving Alms, once believed to be by Anthony van Dyck, but now attributed to Luciano Borzone (1590–1645)." Martinevans123 (talk) 12:33, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Capitalization of van

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Please be patient with me for asking what may be a stupid question. In searching for the Wikipedia rule that applies to capitalizing van Dyck, I learned that van is a very common prefix in Dutch surnames, where it is known as a tussenvoegsel. That page in turn advises: "According to Dutch language rules in the Netherlands, the tussenvoegsel in a surname is written with a capital letter only when it starts a sentence or is not preceded by a first name or initial." The Wikipedia article on Capitalization similarly states: "In Dutch, all particles like van…in a surname are capitalized unless a given name or initial precedes it." Our BLP's lowercase usage when van is preceded by a first name conforms to this rule; accordingly we have Anthony van Dyck, Antoon van Dyck, and Frans van Dyck. However, where I become confused is our lowercase usage when van is not preceded by a first name. By my count, we have 24 such instances. What is there about the rule that I fail to understand? KalHolmann (talk) 00:36, 16 September 2018 (UTC) The "In Belgium" section there might help. As I keep pointing out, van Dyck was never Dutch. Johnbod (talk) 02:40, 16 September 2018 (UTC) A good job Van the Man isn't Belgian, I say. Martinevans123 (talk)

Beards..... and cigars

Well, we seem to be getting a bit beardie- centric friendly in the lead section lately. I'm quite dismayed there's no mention of the cigar in particular the image used on the small tin. But I always thought he was more of a Capstan Full Strength man. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:40, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Even as a joke, that's an absurd comment. The lead mentions beard only once, which is hardly "beardie-centric". KalHolmann (talk) 15:55, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

I have adjusted the absurdity for you, just in case you wanted to risk a laugh. Van Dyck cigars were very popular in the UK in the 1970s. Is that an image of Anthony on the tin? Martinevans123 (talk) 16:04, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

If you object to a single mention of beard in the lead, please just say so and state your rationale for its removal. I find this British "humour" tiresome. KalHolmann (talk) 16:12, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Very sorry that you find "this British "humour" tiresome". What flavour of humour would you like to offer? Perhaps Dutch? I'm perfectly happy about the beard in the lead. I was merely pointing out that van Dyck's influence seems to also extend to cigars. Or were they named after someone else? I think the reader deserves to know. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:15, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Considering that the beard gets barely a sentence in the article, it seems unnecessary to have it in the lead. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:23, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

The beard is a signature token of van Dyck's influence on popular culture. Few painters have such an effect. If Wikipedia is to be just another dry, scholarly source for information on this colorful man's life, restricting his legacy to purely artistic matters, the beard should be removed. But, please, let's not compete with professional curators in trying to bore our readers; they have a centuries' long head start. KalHolmann (talk) 16:39, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. And, just to spell it out, Grosvenor's claim (lazily repeated by various online "journalists") that the reference to the beard is misspelled is just wrong - the beard is most often "Van Dyke" or "Vandyke", which was a typical spelling of the name in the 19th century. Johnbod (talk) 16:46, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

It is a clear structural flaw to have the beard in the WP:LEAD when it is given only a passing one sentence mention later on. Why the beard and not the collar as well? The mention is the "Legacy" section is quite sufficient. I'm tempted to remove it from the lead because it isn't leadworthy material, but it is likely to be put back by someone who wants to show that they are not being told to do by that nasty man, Bendor Grosvenor.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:55, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Please resist your temptation to remove it until a consensus emerges here that the beard does not belong in the lead. Also, please resist your guesswork as to the motives of editors who wish to retain the beard in the lead. Thank you. KalHolmann (talk) 17:00, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

I've got no objection to the beard in the Legacy section. It just isn't WP:LEAD stuff when it is worth less than one sentence later on. It's obvious that battle lines have been drawn over this because of Bendor Grosvenor's criticism. So to get back to policy: "The lead should identify the topic and summarize the body of the article with appropriate weight." Van Dyck is a famous Flemish painter, the beard isn't famous enough for a mention in the lead.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:12, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

It has been in the lead for years, surviving several rewrites. Consensus here still favours it, despite the arrival of editors drawn by the blog complaint. Incidentally, the beard article gets not many fewer viewers than this one. Johnbod (talk) 18:06, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

You still haven't explained why something that is worth less than one sentence in the main body is worth a mention in the WP:LEAD.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:27, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

WP:UNCHALLENGED (I knew there had to be a WP:SOMETHING for that!) isn't the best argument, but consensus will be what it will be. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 05:39, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

I don't have any strong feeling about the need to keep this in the lead section, but the argument that the beard is "worth less than one sentence in the main body" seems to miss the point. Two entire paragraphs of the "Legacy" section describe various things named after van Dyck, most having to do with styles of dress. Not many painters have so many things named after them. This might reasonably be summarized in the lead, using the Van Dyke beard as the best-known example. Ewulp (talk) 23:04, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

We have a surfeit of would-be comedians in this thread, and pip-pip they're enjoying their prattling cleverness. Jolly good show, and all that. But there's a serious issue underlying all their tomfoolery. Grosvenor's criticism latched opportunistically onto our alleged misspelling of the Van Dyke beard—which wasn't a misspelling at all, of course. What he really objects to is Wikipedia's incursion into the snooty world of British art museums. Men like Grosvenor are zealous guardians of privileged culture. Wikipedia, by contrast, represents the democratization of knowledge. To him, we are barbarians at the gate. To me, he is a blackguard. KalHolmann (talk) 23:52, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

I think what he is really doing is acting as a union rep for art historians - over the summer the National Gallery advertised 4 jobs for young art historians to rewrite the (very) short online descriptions of their works, and that is what he wants the Tate to do - they are his main target. His blog is widely read by such, & no doubt they will appreciate this. As a leading popularizer of his area of undoubted expertise (he is never off tv here, mostly in the hunt-for-an-undiscovered-masterpiece show genre), I don't think he can really be accused in the terms you use. He is not one to shrink from vulgarity. Johnbod (talk) 00:20, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

I do hope that Bendor Grosvenor doesn't read this thread. It will confirm that some people have drawn battle lines over the beard in the lead section for largely personal reasons, rather than policy. There is a long standing tendency to give references of this kind excessive weight, such as here.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:44, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Those can be dealt with:[12]. I kind of hope he does read this talkpage, I'd like to hear his comment on the thread below. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:19, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

He may well be following it - see here. That'll show the OED etc - they're just "wrong"! Johnbod (talk) 13:08, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Haha, what a funny pseudonym. I guess that doubly proves it, then. I do hope someone will be able to add that image to S. S. Van Dine (assuming it's not in breach of copyright, of course). Martinevans123 (talk) 13:17, 19 September 2018 (UTC) p.s. but great to see that clip of the penguin routine from Moiry Pappins

Oh dear, prattling cleverness. I'm sure we don't want that. But not much chance of any would-be's ever progressing with you about, Kal. A shame though that the thread, which was intended to be about cigars, has been hijacked for a discussion about Bendor Grosvenor. Not sure if middle market cigars are part of any "zealously guarded privileged culture" or not. Pip-pip. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:51, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Media mention

I'm not sure we should have this template at the top, especially in this form. This is a 4th-hand internet version of the story, clearly Grosvenor via the Art Newspaper, introducing new mistakes as it goes. The Art Newspaper is a rather more reputable source than artsnet, that actually has a dead tree version, and if anybody is quoted it should be them, sloppy and inaccurate though their reporting was.

Btw, Grosvenor is not very clear, but I now think that when he says (about here) "The one on Van Dyck misspells his name, and tells us the highly important fact that the Van Dyck beard is named after him", it is "v" not "V" he is complaining about, at least as much as "Dyke" vs "Dyck"; he uses "V" himself. But "v" is clearly the standard today, the Getty Union List's "preferred" one of the 20 variants they list, and used by most major museums etc. The National Gallery's bio manages to use both in some 200 words, but "v" is their standard. Johnbod (talk) 18:31, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Tend to agree. Even though, as you suggest, The Art Newspaper is a notable publication. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:33, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

@Johnbod: You accurately quote but misinterpret Grosvenor, who is clear enough. As you point out, in referring to the beard, he capitalizes V just as we do. At the same time, however, he corrects our spelling from Dyke to Dyck. Grosvenor faults our spelling, not our capitalization. KalHolmann (talk) 19:26, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

No, that's what I'm saying. He always capitalizes, which is "wrong" (insofar as it is meaningful to talk of a "correct" spelling at all). It was always unclear what he meant, but initially I thought as you still do. But now I've changed my mind. Johnbod (talk) 19:59, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Both the OED and Chambers 20th Century Dictionary use Vandyke for the beard. DuncanHill (talk) 19:37, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Indeed - you might add that to the beard article. Johnbod (talk) 19:59, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Along Occam's razor, I would concur with @KalHolmann:. The spelling of Dyck as Dyke was the "mistake" Grosvenor refers to. It's the most obvious and simple explanation. -- GreenC 01:35, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Hahaha, Occam's razor applied to beards, *lol*. Are you one of these would-be's, GreenC? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:06, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

I bare-ly know what you mean. -- GreenC 01:20, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Link to the Signpost mention of the Tate issue: Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2018-10-01/In the media 213.205.251.57 (talk) 13:30, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

This is new (sort of). It is Bendor Grosvenor saying basically what he has said before on the issue. It is in the October 2018 edition of The Art Newspaper.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 14:38, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

If he is still saying the same things and hasn't bothered to read the Wikipedia talk pages, or emails, comments etc.. he is either incompetent about his own story developments, or stirring the pot. -- GreenC 01:20, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

" He sent some of his own works, including a self portrait (1623) with Endymion Porter, one of Charles's agents Rinaldo and Armida (1629), and a religious picture for the Queen." This is unclear.truthordare (talk) 17:18, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Sorted. Johnbod (talk) 17:37, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Capitalization continued

Peter Ormond, I'm curious about you statement: "V in van Dyck is not capitalised". What makes you say that? Jay D. Easy (t • c) 20:55, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

It just isn't, usually in English. Have you read Van_(Dutch)#Spelling_conventions? - of course VD was Flemish, quasi-naturalised as English, but has been famous in English for so long he has built up his own convention. Johnbod (talk) 21:06, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

"Flemish Baroque artist"

I separated the link in the first paragraph, "Flemish Baroque artist", into two separate links, a Flemish link and Baroque artist link, for consistency's sake, since Van Dyck was not considered part of the Flemish Baroque but rather part of the larger Baroque movement, though a Flemish-born artist. It's an important distinction, and one that is upheld everywhere else on Wikipedia. This change I made was undone as an "unorthodox view." If it is an unorthodox view, it is one held by most other Wikipedians. For instance, on the Old Master page, Van Dyck is listed under the Baroque movement category, as he should be, and not under the Flemish and Dutch Baroque category. Same goes for the summary box on the right side of the page. I will make the change once more, and if it is undone again, I will leave it alone. I am not a Wikipedian and will respect the decision of those with experience here. But I think it goes without saying that Wikipedia should be consistent in its categorizations and classifications. This is the only page that describes him as a member of the Dutch/Flemish Baroque movement (and it's not even consistent within this page), while everywhere else he is described as a Flemish-born member of the larger Baroque movement. If you all decide to designate him as a Flemish Baroque movement artist here, I hope you will go through the rest of Wikipedia and make those changes elsewhere as well. I don't think that's the most accurate way to describe him, as it would be for Rubens or others, but it's not black-and-white, and what matters is consistency. MayaUnbound (talk) 05:32, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Well, you have reverted yourself here, but as I have reverted you in the article with a "see talk", I may as well explain why. You perhaps found that art history books do not make this distinction. Of course vD spent much of his career abroad, probably following the fat commissions, but he is a pupil/close associate of Rubens, and very much in the Flemish tradition, though able to adjust his style for local tastes in Italy and England. Wikipedian references do not count as WP:RS, but I will go through the ones you mention. Our Flemish Baroque painting, mostly written by a Belgian art history prof many years ago, mentions him 8 times, & treats him as a part of that school, as do all RS I have seen. Johnbod (talk) 20:11, 19 January 2024 (UTC)