Talk:Luminism

Untitled

I suggest a split in two distinct articles: Luminism (US) and Luminism (Belgium). Karl Stas 11:51, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Since "US" as an adjective is troubling and euphemistic, it might be better to title the split-off pages Luminism (Hudson River school) and Luminism (Impressionism) or Luminism (American art style) and Luminism (Belgian art style). Alternatively, the article could be about luminism itself in painting, not particular schools or philosophies. -Acjelen 03:32, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

I have discovered that the early work of the Dutch painters Jan Toorop, Jan Sluijters and Piet Mondriaan has also been described as "luminist", so Luminism (Belgian art style) would not be appropriate either. Karl Stas 10:00, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

I looked up the article Painterly. It does a good job of being about the subject and not just the term. I would suggest that article as a model for a single integrated Luminism article. -Acjelen 15:28, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't think luminism can be defined as a general concept in painting. Both currents don't seem to have much in common either. The Hudson River School is not impressionist, not even pre-impressionist, while Belgian and Dutch luminism are neo-impressionist. Of course, light is important in the painting of both schools, but there doesn't seem to be an obvious stylistic likeness. You cannot give a general definition of luminism that would apply to both. I would opt for splitting the article in Luminism (Impressionism) and Luminism (American art style). Karl Stas 22:25, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

That looks fine to me. -Acjelen 17:33, 7 October 2005 (UTC)