Talk:David Teniers the Younger

The village Semster
I have read that there should be a painting of Teniers, in private hands somewhere in the UK. It should be called "The Village Semster" and may be mentioned in John Smith, A Catalogue Raisonné of the Works of the most Eminent Dutch, Flemish and French Painters, London: Smith and Son, 1829-42. It is more then probably the village of Zemst, Belgium. Does someone have a key where i could admire this painting? --Alcid (talk) 18:19, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Early Work
Who are the subjects of "we do not think it correct ..."? Shouldn't this at least have an attribution, although it looks to me like an opinion rather than a fact. Dawright12 (talk) 09:26, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

The whole article reads more like a personal appreciation of Teniers than an encyclopedia entry - for example, phrases such as "Truth in physiognomy, distribution of groups, the beautiful effect of light and shade, command our warmest admiration", "there is no doubt that a considerable number of earlier productions would have been sufficient to immortalize his name", "His touch is of the rarest delicacy, his colour at once gay and harmonious." There is also (as noted by Dawright12) a complete lack of attributions for any of the statements made, even the basic facts of his birth and death RichWA (talk) 09:20, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Victorian connoisseurship
When this creaky text, which bears the imprint of Victorian connoisseurship, is recast with fresher views, Teniers posthumous reputation should become a section.--Wetman (talk) 16:42, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

"...two sons and two boys"
Under the heading "Life: Court painter in Brussels", the fourth paragraph, sixth sentence, reads "The couple had four children, two sons and two boys." I suspect that the editor who added this intended to say either "two sons and two daughters", or "two boys and two girls", since "sons" and "boys" are the same. Can anyone clear this up? Bricology (talk) 06:33, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Edit warring
Another editor has offered no explanation for their edit which eliminates several useful internal links, garbles some sentences, and creates other problems. Examples: this article is in, which is appropriate—any reliable source will confirm that Teniers is a Baroque painter or a painter of the Baroque period. Per WP:CATV, "It should be clear from verifiable information in the article why it was placed in each of its categories", but this edit eliminates the relevant text while retaining the category. Any reader not versed in art history is probably better served by a reference to "genres such as history painting, genre painting, landscape, portrait and still life" than by the proposed "genres such as history, genre, landscape, portrait and still life" ("genres such as genre" may puzzle some). The Apshoven jpg visually supports the nearby text; why cut it? "The peasant genre, the tavern scene and scenes with alchemists and physicians" seem better described as subjects than as themes. The last sentence in the first paragraph of the "Influence" section should not begin with a lower case letter. I'm a little indifferent about elimination of the sales record, but it is sourced, and the IPs give no rationale for removal. One or two other changes are sensible and I've incorporated them. Ewulp (talk) 05:37, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Gallery paintings
"Antwerp artists Jan Brueghel the Elder and Frans Francken the Younger were the first to create paintings of art and curiosity collections in the 1620s."

This phrase confuses the reader, Jan Breughel comes from Brussels. 81.247.183.86 (talk) 20:58, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

It would work better like Antwerp based artist