Talk:Italian Renaissance painting

Merge?
No, don't bother suggesting it. This is a Top Importance article that simply doesn't exist. I'm about to write it and it will be 2 million megabytes long. Neeed coffeee! --Amandajm 08:15, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Proto-Renaissance, 1290-1335.
Just one question, since somebody will inevitably ask: what about 1335–1400? We can't just blame the Black Death for everything or fall back on Latent Gothic, and we should be able to account for Orcagna, the Spanish Chapel at Santa Maria Novella and the frescoes at the Camposanto in Pisa. And that's just painting (which is this topic). Those are all very much a part of any survey of the Italian Renaissance, and I'd vote with rounding Proto up to the end of the century since what happens after 1400 is completely different. Just a suggestion... --Stomme 10:55, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd probably agree with that. mais (talk) 14:47, 21 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah, OK!


 * Clutter! re your discussion page -- are you referring to my poetic prose by any chance? You lay hands on my descriptions and I'll be mortally wounded. How about you start with the intro and add whatever you think is necessary. mais is working on a summary of Florence at the beginning of the quattrocento.


 * You wanna do Spanish Chapel, and so on, or is that me? The question is, can you imitate my poetic style, or are you going to shove in crudities like "roughly translated"?
 * We also need some Historiography. How do we know so much about some of these guys and so little about others? What are the sources? Which painters have reliable biographies? To whhat extent is Vasari reliable? Ghiberti is one artist who can be tracked through official documents, including tax statements etc. This could be enormous if we're not ccareful.

--Amandajm 02:08, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Thinks: I hope this person realises I'm joking!

Charming addition to the article
LOL Amandajm  —Preceding comment was added at 02:35, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Vasari
I personally think this article should mention Vasari's role in dividing up the Renaissance into different periods and also note his role in increasing the stature of certain artists, though I could conceivably see such things being better suited for an art history article. What do you all think? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Weygander (talk • contribs) 04:36, 13 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree that a section on Historiography would be a good addition to the article. Amandajm (talk) 07:20, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

A praise
English wikipedia must be praised for it is almost complete in what concerns Visual Art: it includes even entries about a large number of italian painters of medium or minor importance. A lot of these ones lack in italian wikipedia! That shows that often foreign people are more familiar with our great past culture than us Italians: unfortunately. Vir Italicus —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.16.243.126 (talk) 09:48, 8 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Thankyou for this comment! Amandajm (talk) 09:12, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Though one should point out that many are written by Italians, like User:Attilios in particular. Johnbod (talk) 11:54, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Raphael
I edited the section on Raphael but it was put back. Am I the only one who thinks that the following sounds as if it were making fun of Raphael and belittling him? "Over and over he painted the same plump calm-faced blonde woman and her succession of chubby babies, the most famous probably being La Belle Jardinière, ("The Madonna of the Beautiful Garden") now in the Louvre. His larger work, the Sistine Madonna, used as a design for countless stained glass windows, has come, in the 21st century, to provide the iconic image of two small cherubs, which has been reproduced on everything from paper table napkins to umbrellas." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.99.129.37 (talk) 00:02, 9 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Read the rest of what it says about him. It details his major works, the altarpieces, papal portraits, frescos, School of Athen's. It's all there in the article.
 * But his general worldwide popularity rests on his Madonnas, for which he used the same woman as a model repeatedly. There is a Raphael pic of that woman and her babies in almost every major collection that I can think of. They have been reproduced over and over as cheap lithographic household Madonnas, they have appeared in many illustrated bibles, they are reproduced as stained glass windows. Every gallery that owns one, produces a postcard of it. The sixth image Madonna of the Grand Duke is the benchmark image for every Christmas card and plaster statue. Today it looks like the normal standard image of the Virgin Mary, but it wasn't when Raphael created it. Raphael brought real humanity to his depiction of the "Madonna and Child". No religious work of art, with the exception of Leonardo's Last Supper has had anything like the the general popularity of Raphael's Madonnas. (In this case it is a corporate popularity, because he produced so many of them.) As for the cherubs in the Sistine Madonna, like the Vitruvian man, and Michelangelo's David, they have taken on a life of their own.
 * Amandajm (talk) 01:43, 9 February 2010 (UTC)


 * But is it really necessary to use words like "chubby" when talking about Renaissance art? The first sentence I quoted is the one I find most irritating.

Removal of a template
I have just removed the template which is called Art in Italy or Italian art or Italian painting or some such. I cannot locate the page of the template itself.

The template, which was already very long, has recently been expanded by the insertion of a great number of images causing it to extend a further six inches down the page. These generic templates essentially offer links to other, different articles and do not have direct bearing on the substance of the article itself. Templates of this type work well when they are horizontal and at the foot of the page. When they are vertical they take up the space that is usually used for illustrating the article. In the case of an art article, these illustrations are vital, and this huge template forms a very destructive intrusion. If someone could take the info and make a horizontal box, it would be to good purpose. As it is it is a continual obstruction to the article itself.

Amandajm (talk) 16:29, 4 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Do you mean Art of Italy? I would like to have it placed in the article. Just because it's big is not a reason to remove it. --Scriberius (talk) 07:16, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Changes

 * "..... the lives of individual artists and their personal styles overlapped the different periods."
 * Why is the word "personal" included in this sentence? Is it superfluous?
 * Response: the reason that it is there is that some artists conformed closely to the style of their youth, perhaps falling behind in old age. Other artists followed their own personal style to an extent that they rarely conformed to what was going on around them.  Botticelli is a prime example. When his work changed stylistically, which it did, it remained highly individualistic. It was a "personal" style that overlapped the general stylistic boundaries and had to do with the nature of the man and his beliefs, rather than the fact that he maintained an older manner while younger artists moved on.
 * I hope this clears up any misunderstanding of the reason for the inclusion of this word.  Amandajm (talk) 05:54, 3 December 2013 (UTC)


 * "The lives of both Michelangelo and Titian extended well into the second half of the 16th century. Both saw their styles ........ adapted by later painters to form a disparate style known as Mannerism,...."
 * Why the "both"?  Is it entirely redundant, or is a useful point being made here?
 * Response: Michelangelo and Titian both lived to be nearly 90 (or in the case of Titian, perhaps over 90). This was unusual.
 * The two artists were contemporaries working in entirely different styles, media and locations. They were not associates. But they were both, as individuals, highly influential, not only on their younger contemporaries, but on the direction of the art of painting. They were the two "Grand Masters" who by 1550 were in a different class to every other painter around them, in terms of notability.  They were both so highly regarded that each was given the Freedom of the City of Rome.
 * So what we are looking at here is not simply that two individual artists lived into the second half of the 16th century, (no doubt hundreds of artists did that), but that both the most notable artists of the early- to mid-16th century continued to be influential for a very long time.
 * Hence the use of the word "both" to emphasise the uncommon nature, and the significance of the fact. Hope that this helps! Amandajm (talk) 06:52, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Italian Renaissance painting. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120920044914/http://shop.getty.edu/products/florence-at-the-dawn-of-the-renaissance-978-1606061268 to http://shop.getty.edu/products/florence-at-the-dawn-of-the-renaissance-978-1606061268

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 00:03, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Time Period of High Renaissance
This article (both in its intro and in its detailed text) has the High Renaissance beginning in 1475 and including Ghirlandaio and Botticelli. This is totally inconsistent with other articles on wikipedia and appears to be totally unsupported by art historians. The High Renaissance began with da Vinci, either in 1490s in general, or in 1498 with the Last Supper, and was followed by Giorgione, Michelangelo, Raphael, Titian and later works of Bellini. The current text seems to definitely need revisions. Will someone do it or should I?

Este family of Ferrara. Cosmè Tura's
There is a specific section of Cosme Tura and this one set of paintings he did. This painter is rarely mentioned in any art history books. It seems his presence here was just the whim/personal preference of someone. I proposed to delete his section.
 * Oppose that! Seriously, read more (and better) art history books. Johnbod (talk) 22:43, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

I propose to add more details about the greatest painters of the early Renaissance as the article currently has for artists of the High Renaissance. Informed analysis (talk) 20:01, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Really? The balance seems about right to me, and the whole article is pretty long now. If anything is done, the first thing would be to add back Cosme Tura! Johnbod (talk) 22:43, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:46, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Cathedral (Parma) - Assumption by Correggio.jpg