Talk:Macedonian art (Byzantine)

Renaissance vs Art
According to the Dictionary of the Middle Ages, this is called "Macedonian art". The descriptive "Renaissance" usually infers things beyond just the fine arts. It is similar to Carolingian Renaissance versus Carolingian art. What is the historiography of the term "Macedonian Renaissance", when did it originate, is it still in common use, how is it used?-- Stbalbach 21:46, 14 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I know nothing about its historiography other than that I have seen and read it. A quick Google search only verifies that the term is in use. The Grammar of Architecture defines the period from 843 to 1204 as the Middle Byzantine and calls the first 180 years under the Macedonian dynasty a "golden age," but not, as I thought, a "renaissance." The term renaissance, however, seems appropriate even if the article, at the moment, doesn't move beyond art. Certainly, the Macedonian period saw a rise in Byzantium's military fortunes and an achievement of a certain stability which allowed for the resurgence (or rebirth) of great art. I will, if I have the time and remember, look up something about this when I'm at the university library (soon I think). Srnec 18:46, 15 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Google does not search academic sources, so you'd better search this way. Please move the article back to its proper title. No whimsical moves should be connived. -- Ghirla -трёп-  13:18, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Macedonian art is to Macedonian Renaissance as Carolingian art is to Carolingian Renaissance. One is a sub-set of the other. We have a Medieval art series of articles and Macedonian art is a part of that structure. If you want to make an article on the Macedonian Renaissance that's fine, it would be similar to the Carolingian Renaissance article. -- Stbalbach 13:51, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I've created a new Macedonian Renaissance article. This is really a question of historiography. Its usage is varied and not fixed depending on who is using it. It could mean art, it could mean more. But more so, the term "Renaissance" is problematic as a neutral historical descriptor (it is in fact a pejorative term) - the Macedonians never used or knew of the term "Renaissance" and didn't call their era that, it was invented by 15th century Italians to describe their own era - "Macedonian Renaissance" was first coined in 1948 as an analogy because there are some parallels with rediscovery of classical culture. It's a kind of "vouge" term that some people use. Dictionary of the Middle Ages calls it "Macedonian art" which is a neutral and unambiguous description. -- Stbalbach 14:23, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I voiced similar concerns on Talk:Ottonian Renaissance half a year ago but changed my opinion since then. -- Ghirla -трёп-  14:53, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Ottonian Renaissance needs historiography context also. The DMA has no entry for it so I suspect it is even more of a vouge term - but there is also Ottonian art and Ottonian architecture so things are not bad there. There are a lot of these historiography issues on Wikipedia that need work. -- Stbalbach 23:29, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


 * If either term is a used scholarly term, no matter how rare (I wouldn't say vogue), it may be a candidate for an encyclopaedia article: especially where that encyclopaedia is not limited by the constraints of paper and ink. Thus, Wikipedia may incorporate some information in articles under rarer titles because it can and it's better (in my mind at least) than articles with titles like "Napoleon's invasion of Russia." Srnec 02:03, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Merge back
I don't have a problem with the term renaissance, but the MR article at the moment just does not justify its separate existence, nor can I really see it doing so in the future. I don't think there was a really major literary component to the "renaissance" (not that I would know) and otherwise you are just talking about the art.

I think it would be better to keep the Renaissance title, as it creates less confusion with people looking for ancient or modern Macedonian art (in the sense of actually coming from Macedonia). Paris Psalter & no doubt other pages link to the renaissance page, when the art one would be more appropriate, and a page with both lots of content the best. Johnbod 01:59, 19 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I can see that reasoning. My thought was MR is a historiography article like Dark Ages - the term "renaissance" is somewhat problematic, as explained in the MR article. MA is a more neutral description and fits with the rest of the Medieval art series. MA is a term commonly used by art historians, but then so is MR, depends on the context. MA seems more professional and specific, while MR is more general and popular culture. -- Stbalbach 16:25, 19 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't argue with the first bit (I'm not so sure about the second), although in my experience art historians tend to refer to the "so-called MR" on first mention, then often use the term (you also see that with MA it must be said). But at the moment the whole MR article would fit well as a "origins of the term" or whatever para in the MA article, retitled to MR. One of these days someone will write an article on art from Macedonia (ancient or modern) & then we'll be in disam country. At the moment all the articles on specific objects link to MR not MA, which is not right for a historiography article.   Johnbod 17:08, 19 January 2007 (UTC)


 * That is true, Carolingian art and Carolingian Renaissance were able to split once a lot more material was available. The Dictionary of the Middle Ages has MA and MR as separate (but small) articles. The MR article says "increased interest in classical scholarship" which suggests there is more to it than just art. I guess part of the problem is both articles are stubs, and editors are pointing to one or the other without distinction. -- Stbalbach 04:45, 20 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Well I would be very happy to split again if & when the material justifies it, but the present situation is unsatisfactory. Personally I'm doubtful there is much beyond art, & English WP coverage of medieval Greek literature is understandably less full than that of art, and always likely to be so.  Remember the term was invented by art historians, & within the last 60 years. So I think we should merge now & see how things develop.  Johnbod 15:49, 20 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I kind of cringe at the term MR because it was invented in 1948, but I know it has reached into popular imagination. The links and stuff are all manageable with dabs, I was hoping not to perpetuate a myth and anachronism and keep MR as a historiography article. But whatever you think is best I will not object. -- Stbalbach 13:57, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Proposed page move
This page needs to be disambiguated to Macedonian art (Greek)/Macedonian art (Byzantine)/Byzantine Macedonian art as there is another Macedonian art.  Balkan Fever  08:46, 6 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Done.  Balkan Fever  10:14, 11 February 2008 (UTC)


 * We might also want to point to Hellenistic art, for those looking for the art of ancient Macedon and its successor states. --Delirium (talk) 07:52, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * See discussions above - I still think a merge to M Renaissance is best. Johnbod (talk) 12:25, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Harbaville.jpg
The image Image:Harbaville.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check


 * That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
 * That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. --10:53, 14 September 2008 (UTC)