Talk:Aert de Gelder

access to the vaticans censored artworks
can someone clarify? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.191.233.148 (talk) 10:42, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Yeah it is nonsense. There is a cult that wants to pretend that UFOs are represented in art from before .... I don't know, whenever.... and that vatican is supressing information. this is an example of one of the many political and agenda driven efforts to storm wikipedia with misinforamtion and disinformation to support dialogues in other places. The artists work stands on its own as for how historically important it is and the multiple examples of his work within the article shows his direction and painting philospohy. Therefore... tada, I removed the disinformation and replaced it with hopefully something sensible and worht reading. It should be anotated better, but it is just a start. It is better than reducing this great artsists works to UFOs, and conspiracy theories by a bunch of wackos. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.57.23.82 (talk) 18:44, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Deception
Inciendetly, just a s a fact, the citation for the otherworldly objects was cited at

http://global.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/227948/Aert-de-Gelder

Where is says NOTHING about UFOs in his paintings, or any other paintings

QUOTE: Aert de Gelder, Aert also spelled Arent   (born Oct. 26, 1645, Dordrecht, United Provinces [now the Netherlands]—died Aug. 28, 1727, Dordrecht), the only Dutch artist of the late 17th and early 18th century to paint in the tradition of Rembrandt’s late style.

De Gelder spent his life in Dordrecht, except for a period of time about 1661 when he was Rembrandt’s pupil in Amsterdam. His biblical paintings—e.g., Scenes from the Passion (c. 1715)—feature warm colour and atmospheric light. In his portraits—e.g., The Family of Herman Boerhave (c. 1722)—his bold, broad manner of brushwork and surface texture contrasts markedly with ... (100 of 144 words)

You have to watch these nut cases because everything you read now on wikipedia has to be viewed with a suspicous eye as to who is the author and what is their agenda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.57.23.82 (talk) 18:52, 24 January 2015 (UTC)