Talk:Philippe de Champaigne

Low-importance artists
Because this is a fairly unknown painter it needs to be presented well. People are not going to look after him and his works on commons if they only see a couple not so good paintings of him. They classify him as a por painter and move on. Most people don't go to commons at all. Ex-Voto de 1662 might be an important painting because it depicts his family but it is not a very well done painting, technically is quite poor. So is Cephalus and Procris in a Landscape, compare with his other paintings. Hafspajen (talk) 12:32, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Ex Voto of 1662 is widely acknowledged as one of his masterpieces, as can be confirmed by entering Philippe de Champaigne masterpiece into either google or google books; it should not have been deleted, particularly as it was at that time the only one of his paintings actually mentioned in the text of the article. Cephalus and Procris in a Landscape is weak but useful as an example of his early style; readers might wonder what Champaigne painted before he reached his forties. Ewulp (talk) 04:04, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I changed the date 1640 to from 1640 onwards for the influence of Jansenism- presumably Champaigne read Jansen's book when first published in 1640, but couldn't have had any opportunity to come into contact with Jansen's ideas before that date. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 06:18, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Is it Philippe de Champaigne or Philippe De Champaigne (with capital "D"), since hi was not a member of nobility? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.67.216.60 (talk) 03:25, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Is the missing "i" in "Champaigne" in the quote "Truly, I should not look to find his portrait By the grave hand of Philippe de Champagne." intentional? 136.169.55.159 (talk) 16:57, 3 March 2024 (UTC)


 * It's a typo. I've fixed it. Masato.harada (talk) 11:41, 29 May 2024 (UTC)