Talk:Joachim Patinir

Untitled
Wikified as part of the Wikification wikiproject! JubalHarshaw 17:53, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Analysis of a painting
The Analysis of a painting section reads like someone posted their Into to Art History paper. I posted a announcement for now and will look at it more closely soon to see what needs to go and what can stay. Feel free to edit before I get back. --Stomme 15:44, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Although my previous "essay" tag about the analysis of the painting was removed, I think it was still relevant. The text was clearly an interpretive essay of the work. Not bad for beginning art history essay writing, but not really encyclopedic. We don't need to lead into a narrative that slowly reveals the true meaning here. Certainly the removal of "The vivid colors of Patinir’s painting drove my selection of this work, while the intensity really caught my attention" makes it less obvious as such a paper, but It still followed the instructions given by many instructors of art history to discuss the formal qualities—line, color, etc. It goes on to give the wrong definition of repoussoir for this situation and to cite a web museum article that is not a very good source (almost certainly misattributed). Therefore, I rearranged, expanded and edited the write-up. I'm sure there are still some problems, but at least it's not an overly-interpretive mid-level art history essay anymore.--Stomme 17:13, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's better now, thanks. Johnbod 17:54, 6 September 2007 (UTC)