Talk:German art/Archive 1

Interwikis
Rather oddly, I can't find an equivalent article in German or French WP, after which I gave up looking. Any interwiki links very welcome! Johnbod (talk) 13:39, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

You are doing a great job with this article. I have also been surprised to see the lack of any equivalent German or French WP articles. There is, however, a very good article in Spanish on German painting. This links to a similar article in Portuguese. I think it might be worthwhile (and legitimate) to link these to your own article. Ipigott (talk) 15:31, 16 December 2009 (UTC) Thanks; it is policy to include all appropriate iw links, so I'll c ertainly add these. Johnbod (talk) 15:43, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I just wondered whether it would be appropriate to mention the Palatine Chapel in Aachen, a UNESCO site, widely recognised for its contribution to Carolingian art. Ipigott
 * The Palatine Chapel is linked, but I am trying to avoid overlaps with Architecture of Germany. I might mention some of the objects in the Treasury if I could work out if they are "German", "French", "Belgian" etc! Johnbod (talk) 15:43, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, on rereading the article I realised there had been a mention of this. But you obviously caught my first edit too. Ipigott (talk) 15:58, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I think this articel is garbage! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.8.17.10 (talk) 07:19, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Der ganze Artikel ist unsinnig, da er sehr unterschiedliche Kulturräume und Epochen als "deutsch" kennzeichnet. Es entsteht so ein uneinheitliches Bild, das zu der Annahme verführen könnte, dass hier keine wesentlichen Impulse für die europäische Kunst ausgegangen wären. So wird dem "deutschen" Rokoko ein viel zu geringe Bedeutung beigemessen. Etwas mehr Wissenschaftlichkeit wäre schon agebracht! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.8.17.10 (talk) 07:32, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Problematic coverage
I have a concern about the coverage of the historically. The article's intro purports to be talking about the art in the entire German-speaking community. But since it is going deep into prehistory that is problematic and, regardless, the article does not stay close to that topic. Discussing the Venus of Hohle Fels, for example, is completely off the article's stated scope. The relationship of the people who made the sculpture is completely unknown and certainly they could not have been speaking anything even remotely similar to German as the language did not exist. The section subsequently makes mention of the Celts in central Europe who obviously were not Germanic. Even moving on into the Middle Ages one has to be careful about defining "German" as a language (or a culture) since the language as a distinct entity from other modern languages of Europe was not clearly defined during these earlier years.

As it stands the article is somewhat pulling together some unrelated threads. The article needs to pick a scope and stick to it. Possibilities:
 * German art - If the article is going to keep its current name then it should really stick to the history of art in the states and cultures that coalesced after the split of the Holy Roman Empire and came to form modern Germany (when exactly is the right start date is debatable but clearly before the HRE discussing "German" culture as distinct from other Germanic cultures is very problematic).
 * Germanic art - This is currently a redirect to Migration Period art which is not really correct. If this article wants to cover the history of art among all the Germanic peoples going back to antiquity then it should use that name, or something similar. "German" really refers to the modern state, and arguably Prussia, but it is inappropriate to use it to refer to the ancient Germanic peoples.
 * Art in Central Europe - If the article really wants to talk about the Venus of Hohle Fels then it needs to be a geographically based article, not a culturally based article. I would debate, though, the notability of such an article.

--Mcorazao (talk) 22:17, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I disagree. The subject includes art produced in the territory of modern Germany at whatever period, as well as some produced elsewhere at certain periods. This is consistent with the approach adopted by similar articles. Johnbod (talk) 22:23, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

German article?
So far there's de:Deutsche Kunst with a reference to the very short(-sighted) Kultur section of the Deutschland article and the Nazi art back then. We should translate this article into German. Cheers, Horst-schlaemma (talk) 19:04, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Danke! This one doesn't get many views unfortunately. "Pintura de Alemania" in Spanish is recommended above too. Johnbod (talk) 21:34, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Sehr gern :) A linking to the Spanish "Pintura de Alemania" would be very welcome here. There's a version in Portuguese, too.
 * I guess this article should be linked in more articles about Germany. But of course it's rather a special interest/minority topic by Wiki standards. Part of the reason is that a German version is missing, which is really strange. The German Wiki is full of Art teachers, professors etc. (insert facepalm here). Cheers, Horst-schlaemma (talk) 11:04, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
 * It's often the big articles that get neglected, and possibly there is lingering reluctance to get into the question of what and where is "German"? Johnbod (talk) 14:06, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

An article does not exist, because "Germany" just exists since 1871. Kein Ami kapiert das. Seufz. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.8.17.10 (talk) 07:34, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Problematic coverage II
I am afraid Mcorazao's concerns from 2009 have yet to be resolved. The article does not really distinguish between the history of art in the areas of modern Germany and art produced by German-speakers from the Middle Ages onward. The political events influencing the art (such as the establishment, fragmentation, and demise of the Holy Roman Empire) are barely addressed and the changes in geographic scope are entirely ignored.

The sourcing is also problematic as many statements and paragraphs are not referenced at all. I am especially concerned that the sections on the 19th and 20th centuries may be unbalanced. The Nazarene movement somehow gets better coverage than their contemporaries but its disbandment is missing, the diversity of styles and apparent decentralization of German art in the rest of the 19th century is only mentioned in passing, Die Brücke and Der Blaue Reiter get a section to themselves while Bauhaus is mostly ignored, the Weimar-era artists and their styles get decent coverage but the succeeding Nazi Art is reduced to a bare bones section on what was forbidden, and the post-war art mentions names of artists with little effort to distinguish between them or whether they were active in West Germany, East Germany, the unified state succeeding them or even abroad.

Do we have editors experienced in German history that can check the article for accuracy and balance? Dimadick (talk) 18:36, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The lead sets out the approach taken on what is "German". Others are possible, but this one is coherent, and the one usually taken. If you are looking for "editors experienced in German history" that won't include Mcorazao, if he's still around. Otherwise there will always be gaps in an article like this, but I don't find those you mention especially serious. Bauhaus was less significant in "art" (if taken narrowly) than architecture and design. Johnbod (talk) 17:07, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:18, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Walter Womacka Sachsenhausen 1.jpg