Talk:Quattrocento
Latest comment: 7 years ago by Edelseider in topic Why does "Proto-Renaissance" redirect to "Quattrocento"?
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||
[Untitled]
editThis 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- At least in English, Grünewald is fully Renaissance, and van Eyck "Early Netherlandish painting". Johnbod (talk) 16:27, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- At least in English, Grünewald is fully Renaissance, and van Eyck "Early Netherlandish painting". Johnbod (talk) 16:27, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
