 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
| ||||||||
Needs work
editNice work everyone, still needs improvement but it's finally worth looking at...Modernist (talk) 19:22, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
Rembrandt
editAm I the only one who sees a glaring contradiction that this article is about an essentially (and often virulently) Catholic style, yet its main illustration is a piece by a Dutch Protestant? Dahn (talk) 14:34, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
- The Baroque is by no means only a Catholic style & dutch Golden Age painting is classified as Baroque, which is counter-intuitive for some aspects of it, but there we go. If the choice of lead pic informs the reader in this respect, it is probably no bad thing. Johnbod (talk) 03:10, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
- I didn't mean to say that it was only a Catholic art, but that it was primarily a Catholic art - it both supported and was propagated by the Counter Reformation - as the lead accurately states. I also didn't meant to say that the picture should not be in the article, but questioning its coherence in the lead - sure, the Dutch Golden Age may have been a form of Baroque, according to some (I don't dispute their opinion, but it's still an opinion, and it still refers to a particular rather then generic baroque); the main form of Baroque is down there, with Zurbarán or Lorrain and, most of all, Salvator Rosa and the like. Since the article revolves around the "Baroque as Counter Reformation art", it seems anomalous to illustrate this primarily with a painting from the Protestant tradition. It is like headlining the article on the peanut with an image of peanut butter.
- Granted, it's not a big issue, but it caught my eye and I wondered if others felt the same. Dahn (talk) 12:02, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you, Dahn. I do. The Baroque was an ideological phenomenon in which it seems odd to include the Dutch masters. The resolution is to treat Baroque as a posh way of saying "seventeenth-century"; the second paragraph in the lead points in that direction, and that does appear to be how many English-language writers use the term. (unsigned)--Frans Fowler (talk) 12:03, 16 March 2019 (UTC) (Sorry, I forgot to sign)
- Some of the Dutch painters, but there is a good deal that is Baroque about Rembrandt, & even more about the Utrecht Caravaggisti. And generally they are fairly close to Flemish Baroque painting, where the Baroque nature is much clearer. Of course it isn't so obvious with Jan Steen. But Italian painting of the period isn't all altarpieces, there are many Dutch-style genres, as this article may not say yet. Johnbod (talk) 02:42, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
- Thank you, Dahn. I do. The Baroque was an ideological phenomenon in which it seems odd to include the Dutch masters. The resolution is to treat Baroque as a posh way of saying "seventeenth-century"; the second paragraph in the lead points in that direction, and that does appear to be how many English-language writers use the term. (unsigned)--Frans Fowler (talk) 12:03, 16 March 2019 (UTC) (Sorry, I forgot to sign)
External links modified
editHello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Baroque painting. 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:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081211173809/http://www.bartleby.com/65/co/CounterR.html to http://www.bartleby.com/65/co/CounterR.html
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: 5 June 2024).
- 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) 04:32, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
editThe following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:06, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
Absolutism
editThe opening paragraph links to autocracy for Absolutism, was Aesthetic_absolutism meant? 2601:641:482:AA60:FF45:E55E:F160:7C66 (talk) 03:25, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
- I got logged out, this is me signing the above Mathiastck (talk) 03:27, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
- Absolutely not! God knows what that is about. But Absolutism (European history) was meant - I will change it. Johnbod (talk) 15:34, 25 January 2024 (UTC)