Talk:Night in paintings (Western art)

Format for image captions
I just tagged the captions of some images by potential categories, knowing that I'll need to format them correctly.

I'm assuming that the correct format like this: Rembrandt, The Night Watch or The Militia Company of Captain Frans Banning Cocq'', 1642, Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam

artist + title + year + current location (if known). Before I work on formatting all of them, is that right?--CaroleHenson (talk) 14:52, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, and the gallery should eventually be organized chronologically...Modernist (talk) 14:56, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok, cool. Thanks!--CaroleHenson (talk) 15:05, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

It looks fantastic, well done everyone and thank you very much! -- RexRowan  Talk  09:09, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Modern images
Maybe go here for some modern ones? But not sure how famous those artists are though. -- RexRowan  Talk  17:03, 25 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Yep, we definitely need more modern images. I don't know what would be the best. I would be good to let the artists in the crowd weigh in - or perhaps wait and see what I come across as I start writing. What do you think?--CaroleHenson (talk) 17:28, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
 * There's some images in my head but I can not recall the artists names, how about people like Picasso and Dali? -- RexRowan  Talk  17:43, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Please only include highly notable works from the 20th and 21st century - currently we are using a Magritte, a Hopper, a Bellows, a Rousseau, and a Howard Pyle and an anonymous graffiti. In my opinion the Pyle and the graffiti are unnecessary, although I think they they can stay...Modernist (talk) 17:45, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Recent works like the Hopper and the Magritte, require Fair use rationales (I added)...Modernist (talk) 17:46, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Images
One or two works per artist is plenty...Modernist (talk) 17:50, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I added this guy, Jack Vettriano, his night paintings are good but commons doesn't seem to collect them. -- RexRowan  Talk  19:51, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Is this a mis-spelling? Josef Rebell should it be Joseph Rebell? Anyway, his night paintings are good. -- RexRowan  Talk  19:57, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't know. I'm guessing, though, that if commons doesn't have any of his works already, he's not going to pass the notability test.


 * Maybe for the moment we should stop adding any new images to the Western art article. There's definitely not a shortage. And per Modernist, who I implicitly trust on this kind of thing, we've got all we need. What do you think?--CaroleHenson (talk) 20:39, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Until something great appears - it is fine as is...Modernist (talk) 21:10, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Vija Celmins is known for her night sky paintings, but they need copyright permission to use; Peter Young also made night sky paintings , but permissions are needed as well...Modernist (talk) 21:22, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
 * ok, thanks!--CaroleHenson (talk) 21:31, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Rex, are his paintings PD? You can create a commons category. Ryan Vesey 21:34, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Vettriano is about 60 and absolutely not PD. Johnbod (talk) 10:32, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Plan of attack
Hi,

I'm plunging in the best I can - although it may appear akward at times. I thought I'd sum up what I'm doing and if anyone thinks it's going off track from general approach for VA articles - or there's a better way to do it, then feel free to chime in.


 * I'm filling in the information that is already here on WP, in many cases cited, so that I don't reinvent the wheel.
 * The goal is for each artist to talk about:
 * what movement they were a part of,
 * how their style and/or movement impacted how they presented night
 * what is noteworthy about their work as a night in paintings selection
 * Although each section needs more, pointed information - there is also some tightening up of wording to do
 * For a bit the white space will be a bit akward, but it will come around. For some reason white space is the bane of my existence. I think, though, that as the article progresses working out the extra white space will be well managed. The approach being the row on the right with thumb sized images and placement of single or multiple images so that it looks pleasing by not too much negative space.

So, right now I'm looking at what we have here online - then will be exploring what's on the internet. Thankfully what I've found published before is extremely well summarized in the WP articles. Great kudos to folks who have written the articles thus far.

I'd like to get this done before diving in very deep with the Night in paintings (Eastern art) (one thing at a time is good).

Any thoughts or concerns?--CaroleHenson (talk) 00:15, 26 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I think it goes too far in the direction of giving a potted art history of the whole of Western art; the Giotto section in particlar is not great, and you don't really need to go there. The article should include somewhere early on a distinction between interior scenes, where the time of day can actually be hard to guess, and exterior ones.  Hell, where it's always "night", was also important for a period - Pieter Brughel and Hieronymous Bosch should be mentioned (the same goes for the Eastern article). In Tenebrism and allied movements, very dark scenes don't always mean they are to be understood as set at night. For candle-lit scenes, specialists after de La Tour were Gottfried Schalken, Joseph Wright of Derby, and about contemporary with de la Tour Trophime Bigot.  El Greco did a few too.  I'd treat the candlelit scene, with the candle prominent in the picture space, as a single theme, also mentioning the Utrecht Caravaggisti. Johnbod (talk) 10:49, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks for the input, that helps and makes sense!--CaroleHenson (talk) 14:28, 26 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Ok, I finished the clean-up/copy edit to remove the unnecessary info. Please feel free to copy edit if you think there's more that needs to be removed. If you make a change to a section or two - I'll likely get your drift and can take it from there or any other needed edits.


 * Now I'll start adding information, with your direction in mind.--CaroleHenson (talk) 18:15, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Long TOC
Just wondering: Is anyone else thinking that it would be better to remove the sections for the artists and put their names in bold, like this: ;Artist name

The downside is that the artist's names won't be listed in the TOC. Thoughts about that?--CaroleHenson (talk) 00:19, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
 * If you want to shorten the TOC you could add to the page. Ryan Vesey 00:30, 26 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, how smart are you! I've totally forgotten about the limit. I'll put it in and see how it goes! Thanks!--CaroleHenson (talk) 00:35, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I just fixed this, I apologize for my error. Ryan Vesey 00:36, 26 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Yep, I think that looks better! Thanks!--CaroleHenson (talk) 00:40, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Century vs. movement
Is there a preference for whether the article sections should be structured by century of art movement?--CaroleHenson (talk) 01:12, 26 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I'd say format by art movement. While the date a piece is created can have an impact, the movement is much more important to it.  Within the movements, I could see the artists listed either by date or alphabetical order, but I think the broader organization should be by movement. Ryan Vesey 01:30, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Question, if the article was organized by movement, would there be a gallery for each movement or should a gallery remain on the bottom? Ryan Vesey 01:31, 26 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Movement does seem to make sense.


 * I don't know about the gallery.


 * I'm concerned about the article getting too complicated. I think it's a good idea to take a pause and see where we're at - and where the article should go directionally. Maybe I've been off-course.--CaroleHenson (talk) 01:36, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Complicated

 * Why have this person Tivadar Kosztka Csontváry representing the 20th century? Makes no sense - the article is getting too complicated...Modernist (talk) 01:16, 26 August 2012 (UTC)


 * And I'm trying to sort out who Baldassare de Caro is. There's no article about him in wikipedia and not a lot on the web.


 * Should we delete both of those folks?


 * What do you mean about the article is getting too complicated? Should I stop what I'm doing and regroup?--CaroleHenson (talk) 01:29, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes delete those that you can't find info on. The format is getting very difficult to navigate. I like the idea of centuries - art movements can get too crazy - they often overlap; the century structure should be fine and so far its coming together well...Modernist (talk) 01:37, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Will do. If we solve the issue of removing the two people we've brought up - and anyone else that does make sense, does that solve the issue of being complicated? Or is there something else that's making the article complicated?--CaroleHenson (talk) 01:39, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
 * As far as galleries go - the one at the bottom is fine. We can add smaller ones for each century and that might be a good answer to the complications...Modernist (talk) 01:41, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, that's easy enough to do. I've removed the 2 people we talked about.
 * Is there anything else that should be addressed to make the format / article better?--CaroleHenson (talk) 01:45, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
 * You're doing a big job adding text - we gotta figure out how to incorporate the imagery with your text, shouldn't be too hard...Modernist (talk) 01:50, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok, Well how about if I move ahead with text. Did I make things more confusing by putting the images back in the right hand border? I made the change so that it should just take one "undo" to reset everything back to galleries under the artists. Should that be done?--CaroleHenson (talk) 01:53, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I think your text is terrific and the images can go in the individual galleries that I made. We can raid the bottom gallery and add to the century galleries and create a 20th century one when we are ready. My only problem is Turner is a 19th century figure whose painting is so early that he's in the 18th century gallery, oh well...Modernist (talk) 02:21, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Ok, sounds good. Looks nice!--CaroleHenson (talk) 02:25, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Some of these volcano ones are magnificent! Volcano_School -- RexRowan  Talk  21:04, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Recent images
Here are the recent additions to images - are all of these notable? What of these add something new to the article - in terms of technique, etc. than has been in the article?

--CaroleHenson (talk) 21:09, 26 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I am removing most of them. I think we have pleny of imagery post 16th century. We can use earlier imagery or spectacular later stuff - maybe...Modernist (talk) 21:25, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks so much! That helps contain how much I have to write about!--CaroleHenson (talk) 21:28, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi Carole, I added those paintings, sorry to have cause confusion. I thought you could use them wherever fit. Next time I shall list them here first. -- RexRowan  Talk  08:54, 27 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Not a problem, I think we've just hit critical mass. There becomes a point where the reader will hit an overload threshold for taking in so much info.


 * On the Eastern art site: If you want to take a look at the images I showed you - that would be great. As I said, just because I found them doesn't mean you have to add them. Do you mind looking at those and seeing what of them would add something to the article that isn't presented there now - something unique about the composition - or a culture not well represented? That would be incredible!--CaroleHenson (talk) 09:12, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Of course, I had a look at them. Haven't got much clue whether they are important. Will read through the artists' bios, many of the paintings don't even have infos. I may put them up in different time lines and we can then deduct. -- RexRowan  Talk  09:24, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Does that mean you think there are still paintings you want to add?


 * I think we've got quite enough here, but if you find something tht you think is quite unique and notable and really should be in the article, sure after you've determined that it is notable and is unique (covers an aspect of night in paintings not already explored), sure put them here to sort out if they warrant being added. At this point, I would think it would really have to be a unique aspect not already covered to warrant being added -- but of course, that's just my two cents.--CaroleHenson (talk) 14:52, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Merger proposal
I propose merging Nocturne (painting) into Night in paintings (Western art). I think the content in Nocturne (painting) is already explained in the context of Night in paintings (Western art) and a merger would not cause any article-size or weighting problems in Night in paintings (Western art) where this content is almost duplicated, and a redirect can employed for Nocturne (painting) Jamesmcardle(talk) 23:27, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support: Use of the term nocturne by Whistler and a few other artists to describe their night scenes hardly justifies a separate article. Whistler, Richard Pousette-Dart and others have also liked the term symphony for some paintings, but we certainly don't need an article for Symphony (painting). Ewulp (talk) 01:12, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support though it is rather surprising how little overlap there actually is. The merge should be done carefully. I don't think everything illustrated in both articles actually is a night scene. Johnbod (talk) 02:11, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support In my opinion both articles can be improved, although I like both articles for their unique and somewhat unconventional character. I agree with the above that the merge must be done carefully...Modernist (talk) 02:31, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
 * As mentioned..., if this is merged it should be done very carefully with full information and applicable images included. In this case maybe it would be better if the nominator and others first create a draft article showing the results of a careful and detailed merge. Both pages seem fine as stand-alone pages, and improvement of both without a merge may be the best option. Randy Kryn (talk) 09:17, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
 * A merged draft is a good idea. I think having two articles is a clear FORK, though one that came about by accident as far as I can see. You could just about make a case for keeping a trimmed-down 'Nocturne (painting)' just covering say 1880-1930 or something, but on the whole a full merge is best imo. Johnbod (talk) 13:35, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Having worked on both articles I can live with both of them continuing. As I mentioned, a merge if handled correctly can work; however I like Randy's idea of a draft article first...Modernist (talk) 16:13, 3 May 2023 (UTC)


 * What's happening here? Johnbod (talk) 05:33, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
 * we were all waiting for you to carry out the merge ;) Anyway, ✅ Klbrain (talk) 20:08, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Me? I was waiting for a draft, per the close. Johnbod (talk) 12:41, 17 July 2024 (UTC)