Talk:Neoclassicism

Neutral Point of View
This article as a whole appears to violate the Wikipedia policy of Neutral Point of View. It reads as though it was copied directly from a textbook hostile to Neoclassicism as a form of art. The writing style suffers from a non-objective, judgmental tone, making aesthetic evaluations for the reader instead of allowing the reader to make them for himself.

For example: "It is hard to recapture the radical and exciting nature of early Neoclassical painting for contemporary audiences; it now strikes even those writers favourably inclined to it as "insipid" and "almost entirely uninteresting to us."

This quotation from art critic Kenneth Clark is confusingly cited, giving off the impression that he is speaking for Wikipedia as an objective judge, though the opinion of a man whose whose work was published in 1976 should hardly be considered as representative of twenty-first century students and laymen. The quotation would be better found under a section which includes views and opinions on Neoclassicism, not as a description of Neoclassical painting.

Also: "In American architecture, Neoclassicism was one expression of the American Renaissance movement, ca. 1890–1917; its last manifestation was in Beaux-Arts architecture, and its final large public projects were the Lincoln Memorial (highly criticized at the time), the National Gallery of Art in Washington, D.C. (also heavily criticized by the architectural community as being backward thinking and old fashioned in its design), and the American Museum of Natural History's Roosevelt Memorial. These were considered stylistic anachronisms when they were finished."

I don't think the parenthetical comments are necessary in this section and in fact represent a breach of NPOV. It reads as though these buildings were (and remain) sad aberrations, ignoring the fact that Neoclassicism had been long established as the style for Federal buildings, dating back to the time of Jefferson and Washington. This is nowhere mentioned in the article, but should be, as Neoclassicism was the style of choice for the American founding fathers in order to tie the new republic with its models in Greece and Rome. The fact that these buildings were criticized by modernist architects would be relevant in a reception of Neoclassical architecture section. Though, to this should be added, for balance, the fact that the Lincoln Memorial was ranked seventh on a list of America's Favorite Architecture https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/America%27s_Favorite_Architecture from a poll conducted in 2006-07, while the Jefferson Memorial, built two decades later (1939-43) ranked fourth. Bernini123 (talk) 17:28, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't think that Mengs's critical or public reputation has improved in the slightest since the 1970s; it has probably sunk still lower (among the few "twenty-first century students and laymen" who have actually ever heard of him). Johnbod (talk) 19:06, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
 * And? Is Wikipedia an encyclopedia or an editorial?  In an article on Neoclassicism, the reader is looking neither for eulogy nor denigration of artists but for information.  The word "insipid" is a value judgement.  I would have a similar objection to a Wikipedia article that called a building "ugly" or a person "stupid" in the authoritative Wikipedia voice.  The reader may make aesthetic judgements for him or herself.  Frankly, Mengs's critical and popular reputation in the present day is irrelevant.  Was Mengs important in the development of Neoclassical painting?  Certainly, mainly through the promotion of Winckelmann.  That's all that needs to be said. Bernini123 (talk) 22:40, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
 * "insipid" is Kenneth Clark's word, given in quotation marks, and referenced to him. Johnbod (talk) 04:19, 10 March 2023 (UTC)