Talk:Nativity of Jesus in art

Nativity

 * pasted here from Johnbod and Amandajm's talk pages

See also:Nativity of Jesus in art


 * Is this on the way? Johnbod (talk) 02:18, 11 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I've made a start. Amandajm (talk) 14:27, 11 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Wow - talk about rabbits from hats! I'll be along some time to add an iconographic descant, but great start! (Though er, "Dark Ages"?). Raphael is finished-ish, btw, if you want to tinker. Johnbod (talk) 14:37, 11 December 2007 (UTC)


 * OK, Johnbo, you can call the murky past whatever you like.... Amandajm (talk) 22:01, 11 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Not if WikiProject Middle Ages catch you at it! Johnbod (talk) 22:06, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

If you are working on that history section, then I'll grub around for moore pics on commons. I know some of the things that I want but havven't located themm yet. I love Altdorffer's pictures. In The one that I chose the Baby looks so delighted with the big pile of coins, the old king is so delighted with the baby, the middle King is grinning all over his ugly face with tears in his eyes, and no regard for the magnificent present he has brought, and the young King loooks so extremely humble and adoring. They most a really remarkable contrast to the arrogance of Durer's Kings (one of which is Durer himself) who are comparing gifts. Amandajm (talk) 22:15, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Goin' great, Mate! Where you have the reference to plays and temporary Nativities, Ill write a description of all the various media that are used to depict the Nativity: sarcophagi, mural, ivory carving, panel and oil painting, sculpture, tableau etc.


 * Great - I've searched through Commons Category:Illuminated manuscripts by century up to the 12th, and through all (I think) the icon cats - slim pickings; we just don't seem to have a painted Byzantine Nativity at all. I don't think there are any Celtic or Insular depictions at all (they just don't exist I mean), but there are German ones from Carolingian on - though the pics up now may be the earliest we have.  I haven't looked at reliefs.  Johnbod (talk) 22:20, 11 December 2007 (UTC)


 * There are a good few later ones at Chaperon (headgear) btw Johnbod (talk) 22:21, 11 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I think that page from the Book of Kells ought to go in, with the explanation that was at the other page that it celebrates the Nativity of Christ in a symbolic rather than pictorial way. Amandajm I'm going to dump this talk on the pages talk page and continue there, OK! (talk) 22:36, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Amandajm (talk) 22:46, 11 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I dunno - it comes next to the nativity in the text, but is a madonna & child. Well, add it & let's see. It is the earliest western M&C Johnbod (talk) 22:41, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I think that in terms of the history of how these things were depicted, it's relevant, with the explanation... Amandajm (talk) 23:02, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Is Bill Egan in there as a representative of Contemporary Art, or of Postmodernism? He's interesting, though - he's actually folk-art, the equivalent of some peasant-artist of the middle ages, not too skilled and not too talented, but pious and compertent and in touch with what ordinary believers want. PiCo (talk) 06:48, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * but no ox I see, which isn't good - Lassie is no substitute .... Johnbod (talk) 06:54, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * And the palm on the left seems to be a coconut - it's great!PiCo (talk) 06:58, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

where we are
Amanda, I'm afraid in your absence I've crashed on in my usual way; hope it's ok (more or less). Joint nom for DYK done. God, I'm fed up with washed out commons images, and insane commons category tangles! Also it really brings home how few straight nativities there are after 1500. But I was delighted to find the 2 sarcophagi with nice sharp pics. You'll see i've mixed the galleries into the text as far as possible, whilst mostly keeping the chronological sequence. I'm not sure about the High Renaissance gallery - is the Doni Tondo really a rest on the flight? And the Leonardo is a bit of a one for conossewers like wot you, I & pi co are, don't you think? Johnbod (talk) 00:21, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Excellent
This is a great article and an excellent example of collaborative editing. Well done and thanks for your work. violet/riga (t) 13:26, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

One capitalization edit (herod to Herod) Bruno (talk) 13:53, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Potential overlap?
I am wondering about the overlap or indeed missed area between this article and Nativity of Jesus in later culture. This article doesn't specify a stopping point (nor should it, in my view); that one says it deals with depictions "outside the fields of the figurative arts" (although its title doesn't make this clear). So what of visual art of relatively recent times? This article has an "after 1800" section, which ends before WW1, i.e. the long 19th century, and the only section after that is folk art, as if no "high art" of the Nativity was painted or sculpted in the last hundred years. (Tate Britain and Tate Modern similarly fall between two stools.) I notice that there is an image of a stained glass window, labelled "modern", that has been pushed down to the notes, for lack of anywhere better to go. I suggest a 20th century section in this article, and leave all other non-figurative representations to the other. BrainyBabe (talk) 18:11, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The "after 1800" section doesn't end before WW1 or at any point, it just notes that the subject becomes increasingly uncommon in "mainstream art". What exactly would one put in a 20th century section?  There is no non-figurative art covered here. There is room for an article on "popular christmas art" which is touched on here, pulling together many specific articles we have, but that is really a different subject.  I don't see the overlap with the other article myself. Johnbod (talk) 18:42, 27 December 2008 (UTC)


 * It is an interesting question. The "Renaissance and after" section of text states: "The subject becomes surprisingly uncommon in the artistic mainstream after the eighteenth century, even given the general decline in religious painting. Popular religious depictions have continued to flourish, despite the competition from secular Christmas imagery." And the final image given in the "After 1800" gallery is from 1912. A lot hangs, as you suggest, on what counts as "mainstream" art; clearly folk art does not, but what about artwork produced by professionals for the commercial market?  At least some of the current artists are Christians and approach their work in the spirit of devotion; that may not affect the quality of their work in the eyes of the observer, but it does mean it is not solely a money-making venture. Likewise, at least some of the artists appear to be art school graduates, and make their living through their art, Christian and otherwise; we are not dealing with naive art. Arguably, what they produce is the most  "mainstream art" of the 20th/21st century, since it is the most likely to be circulating through the mainstream of life, touching people now. That's one way of looking at "mainstream".


 * I did a Google image search on nativity + 20th century and got about 41 000 Ghits. Many are irrelevant, but there are some interesting examples such as "The Nativity" by Jon McNaughton, produced within the past couple of years.  I have learned of The British Association of Iconographers, one of whose members, a monk, produced Nativity work for sale here. I also searched Flickr with the same string, and got 30 hits, including several stained glass windows and, intriguingly, something entirely unidentified that looks more like a Banksy than anything else.  Mid-century artist William Kurelek produced a whole series of paintings that were gathered together as A Northern Nativity. So there is creative, modern visual art to document.


 * You throw the phrase "popular Christmas art" into the mix. What do you see as covered by this? Christmas cards? Church decorations, including the cribs/creches/Nativity Scenes?  Presumably any such article would also have to include all the secular Christmas imagery too --  reindeer, jollity, Dickensian fireglow. Could be interesting. Oh -- to clarify -- I agree there is no overlap with the other article now, in substance, but the potential exists for there to be.  The title strikes me as an awkward one ("in later culture" -- later than what?) BrainyBabe (talk) 23:43, 27 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Of course there are still Nativity works produced, but it still seems to me - compared say to the Crucifixion - a surprisingly rare subject in the 20th century. I can't think of any depictions by major artists. Given how popular it was in earlier centuries, and how important many of the works were, I think the balance is about right. I'm sure one could expand both the 19th and 20th century sections considerably, but not as easily as the earlier centuries. User:PKM has just done some new articles, which I will add to bring the story on a bit (to Burne-Jones). As to the popular art, "Christmas art" would I suppose include the lot, but one could restrict it to the religious subjects. There's certainly an article there, but I won't be writing it. I agree the title of the other article is odd, but i know what they mean - literature, music & electonic media, & I can't think of a short enough alternative. The hatnote does the job well enough I think. Johnbod (talk) 00:10, 28 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree that the 19th and 20th century section/s should be expanded. The 18th century works could be sectioned with the Baroque under the heading Baroque and Classical. Amandajm (talk) 01:05, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Well I'm fine with that so long as it isn't just a trawl of what comes up from Google. Johnbod (talk) 15:08, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

more examples
The Nativity by Sawai Chinnawong. Nalini Jayasuriya, The Three Magi (2002). Examples in The Christian Story: Five Asian Artists Today, the 2007 exhibition at the Museum of Biblical Art. BrainyBabe (talk) 17:11, 28 February 2010 (UTC)


 * We don't have a picture of it to show. It is probably copyright. Amandajm (talk) 01:21, 1 March 2010 (UTC)


 * We cannot show the works, but we can mention them, and other C20-C21 examples, such as the 20 nativity paintings by Kurelek. BrainyBabe (talk) 07:00, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * See section above. Johnbod (talk) 12:24, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Bit that makes no sense
The section headed "Early Christianity" begins "The earliest pictorial representations of Jesus' Nativity come from sarcophagi in Rome and Southern Gaul of around this date." It's the first sentence of the section, and the last sentence of the previous section is about the Renaissance. So what date is "this date"? --Andreas Philopater (talk) 18:22, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Nativity of Jesus in art. 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/20090326170616/http://www.tau.ac.il/arts/projects/PUB/assaph-art/assaph2/articles_assaph2/09Pinson.pdf to http://www.tau.ac.il/arts/projects/PUB/assaph-art/assaph2/articles_assaph2/09Pinson.pdf

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) 18:42, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Disagree
I disagree with arbitrarily having my changes removed https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nativity_of_Jesus_in_art&type=revision&diff=932338322&oldid=932329306

I added 2 of the most famous Bible illustrations depicting the Nativity. One is from Gustave Dore, the other is from Julius Schnorr von Carolsfeld. Both Bible editions have been some of the most important published and are reproduced countless times. --GoogleMeNowPlease (talk) 04:59, 25 December 2019 (UTC)