Talk:Court painter

Requested move 14 July 2019

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: no consensus for any change at this stage. Can be re-opened with a new RM if a suitable title is determined in future. (closed by non-admin page mover) Steven   Crossin  Help resolve disputes! 08:27, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Court painter → ? – The article does not discuss only court painters or painting. "Tapestries, porcelain or pottery, silks and other types of object" are mentioned, as well as carpets. Among artists, "calligraphers, miniaturists, binders and other crafts" are mentioned, and Court sculptor redirects here (because I had nowhere else to redirect it to). The current title is thus not precise enough but I cannot think of a good alternative. The natural choice, Court artist, is a disambiguation page. Surtsicna (talk) 21:49, 14 July 2019 (UTC)


 * I would lean toward keeping the current title. I think you could say that the article's current content is essentially about court painters, and the fourth paragraph [now "Designers for other media" section] is just bringing up a related topic to provide some context. But would be curious to hear thoughts of who added the paragraph in question (and the one before it). Colin M (talk) 22:37, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I have considered that too but it then occurred to me that absolutely nothing is said about sculpting or court sculptors (check what links there), which made me think that the article can be expanded in many more directions. The current title might just be hindering that expansion, as people perceive the topic to be painting and refrain from adding more about tapestry making or pottery or other forms of art. At the same time, people cannot create new articles for these topics because, as far as I can tell, there is no such thing as a court weaver or court potter, etc; rather, they are all subsumed under "court artist". Surtsicna (talk) 22:54, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see what you mean. In that case, how about moving to Court artist with a hatnote link to Courtroom sketch? I don't think it's a difficult WP:PTOPIC decision, since the other meaning is much more likely to be called "courtroom artist" (or "courtroom sketch artist"). Colin M (talk) 02:02, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
 * What about "court artisan"? Gets around the disambiguation, too. Primergrey (talk) 02:42, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
 * A solution in search of a problem; leave it as it is. "Court painter" is a recognised term, but "court artisan" isn't, nor is court sculptor really. The point about the 4th paragraph [now "Designers for other media" section] is that typically part of the duties of the court painter was to supply designs for any royal workshops making stuff in other media - as the para says. The requirement for court sculptors was much lower, typically tied into major construction programmes, where court painters were kept busy supplying endless copies of official portraits as political & diplomatic gifts.  The article can easily be adapted to cover court sculptors too.  A royal workshop would be nice, to cover other media - Surtsicna, perhaps you'd like to do that? Johnbod (talk) 03:33, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
 * If that's the intended meaning of the 4th para, it might be clearer if "court artists" were replaced with "court painters". Colin M (talk) 04:40, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
 * It's what the para clearly says, but I have added a header to make this still more clear. Johnbod (talk) 17:26, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
 * k, maybe I'm mentally feeble, but when I read Often court artists worked on the designs for [tapestries, porcelain or pottery, silks and other types of objects]., my first thought is that you're talking about a more varied group than just painters. The next clause talks about carpets reflecting developments in style found in other media such as Ottoman illumination, which again makes it sound like we're talking about more than just painting. Again, if the paragraph is really meant to be talking about court painters, why not change "Often court artists" to "Often court painters"? Colin M (talk) 17:46, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
 * "Illumination", whether Ottoman or other, is a form of painting (as in miniature painting, mentioned at the top). Since court artist, redirects here via the disam page, I think artists is fine. It turns out we have Category:Court sculptors with 23 members, vs Category:Court painters with c 382 (incl. subcats). Johnbod (talk) 17:56, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I've gone with "court painters and sculptors" as sculptors were sometimes more suitable, as with 18th-century European porcelain. Johnbod (talk) 16:43, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I am not sure about "court artisan", but "court sculptor" does seem like a recognised term. Are you suggesting moving this to Royal workshop or creating a new article? Surtsicna (talk) 10:12, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is more so, though there were lots more court painters. I'll work sculptors in here. It seems the Germans have a word for court artisan (Hofhandwerker), which I didn't know, but they would still be better covered at Royal workshop. I was suggesting a new article - it shouldn't be here. We have a number of individual articles on royal workshops and factories, from Europe across to China, but a general topical one would be good. Jingdezhen porcelain, Meissen porcelain and Gobelins Manufactory are large and late examples.  Johnbod (talk) 13:53, 15 July 2019 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The list
While we are looking at this article, the list is not very satisfactory, filled up with Portuguese (here) and Danish appointments, and with some very dubious information - eg including Titian, who took care never to become one. I think it should be trimmed to a shorter, more selective list, with a link to the 316 artists (+ subcats) in the category. Johnbod (talk) 16:43, 15 July 2019 (UTC)