Talk:Romanticism/Archive 2

origin of romanticism
the artikel says that the origin is in europe. but the origin of the romanticism is in germany and nowhere else. later the romanticism became a movement that went beyond the german borders but to understand it you need the knowledge that it starts in germany and did grew there. europe is not precise enough by any means. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.222.128.169 (talk) 18:34, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for you comments see this article:German Romanticism...Modernist (talk) 18:46, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * ok i read the articel "german romanticism" but its not a good source, is it. the only sentence about the time it took place says
 * "German Romanticism developed relatively late compared to its English counterpart". know i would like to know when took the "english ramanticism" place.
 * the whole articel is just a list of persons. what kind of source is that. there is no text with own sources? there isn't even a german articel about "german roman...".
 * the german articel "romantik" (you will guess what it means;) made a distinction between the sub periods. -early romanticism ca. 1795–1804-high romaticism ca. 1815–1848 and late romanticism.
 * representative for the early romanticism are Friedrich Schlegel, Johann Gottlieb Fichte and Friedrich Wilhelm Joseph Schelling. there is even a small french articel. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.222.128.169 (talk) 12:30, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
 * All of the related articles can be improved, if you have sources to add to German Romanticism then do so; The German article is also clearly limited in its focus, leaving out too much information about England the US and other countries; I prefer this article which is broader in scope. This is also of interest Romantic nationalism...Modernist (talk) 13:00, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Voyage of life
I think that having a gallery with all four pics is a bit of an overkill, considering the series has an article. The other four paintings have articles too, but each is mightily important. Amandajm (talk) 13:20, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree. The article seems US-centric as it is, and these pics only reinforce that impression. If readers want to see all of them, they can read the article on the series. Petropoxy (Lithoderm Proxy) (talk) 17:21, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't agree, the series are the masterpieces of Cole's career, are important examples of the movement; are moving narratives that still resonate today no matter what country you live in or what planet you call home; and they should remain, the 3rd of May, the Raft, Liberty, and the Friedrich all have their own articles - perhaps we should delete all of those images too....This article is decidedly not US-centric, the lead image is by a German artist, the Romantic music section contains nothing about the US, this section Influence of European Romanticism on American Writers discusses the widespread influence of European art and philosophy; not vise-versa, the section on Visual art and literature has one paragraph about the US, and of 18 artists work reproduced only 4 are from the US: Church, Bierstadt, Cole and Bingham....Modernist (talk) 19:21, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Pushkin and Romanticism
I'm not sure categorizing Pushkin as the principle exponent of Romanticism is appropriate here. Russian critics traditionally do not regard him as a Romantic, and his status as a Romantic figure has been fraught with controversy ever since the label was first applied to him. D.S. Mirsky sums up the Russian view on pages 79-80 of the Slavonic Review, Vol. 2, No. 4:

''Romanticism has been defined as the poetry of feeling as opposed to Classicism, which is the poetry of wit. In this sense, and in this sense only, can Pushkin be at all claimed for the romantic school. If all feeling is Romantic, Pushkin is a romanticist together with Homer, Euripides, Catullus, Racine and Burns. But if we are to distinguish between feelings, Pushkin's are as certainly un-Romantic. Two things make the true Romantic, a Sehnsucht, a homesickness after an unknown world; and a feeling for Nature, for the Vegetable Universe as Blake called it. Neither of these are present in Pushkin. Pushkin's was a circumscribed world, a world of men, and transcendent, inflexible laws; Nature was nothing to him but a decoration; God, whether He existed or not, was not a living person to Pushkin, only the inscrutable and irrational First Cause of the laws that ruled Man's universe. Destiny rather than God is the master of Pushkin's world. Nor was Pushkin's conception of love Romantic. It was more akin to the love of the great Roman poets than to that of Petrarch, or Christina Rossetti. A human love, however, and capable of an idealisation as pure as that of Raphael. Certain poems of Pushkin idealising a woman -whom we know from his own letters to have been very un-ideal - do in fact remind one of the Fornarina sitting for a Madonna of the Raphael.''

In fact, the two literary figures that closely bracket Pushkin (Zhukovsky and Lermontov) are usually both considered to be more Romantic in the western European (i.e. this article's) sense of the word. I strongly feel that if Pushkin is to be mentioned in connection with Romanticism, the article should at least take stock of the fact that his Romantic status is extremely problematic among critics, and has virtually always been so. Szfski (talk) 00:18, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * By all means improve the article by adding what you can add with references. It seems to me that Pushkin does belong, although some critics are split as to whether he was or wasn't a Romantic. However if there are other Russian Romantic writers that you can add then please add them...Modernist (talk) 03:41, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Capitalization?
The word "romanticism" alternates between a capital R and a lowercase one throughout the article. Which one is more appropriate (for U.S. English, if applicable)? User:Fraxtil (talk) 19:18, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Romanticism during the Industrial Revolution
It is important to note that during the Industrial Revolution romanticism was used to both support and despise the progress made during that time. For example Claude Monet's painting "Arrival of the Normandy Train", portrays the invention of the train in a celebrated manner. Monet's use of color and beautiful detail of the train station indicate it's importance and contribution to society at the time. The train is shown ready for action with steam blowing and a group of anxious passengers ready to board. An example of art in oppostion to the techonological advancements of the Industrial Revolution would be Mary Shelley's "Frankenstein" which can be interpreted as a warning to society that if man tries to play the role of god that things could potentially end badly. I felt that the art work, particularly the paintings, included in the article were not explained that well in regards to what the artist was trying to portray emotionally, and why specific subjects were chosen in the artwork. It would also be helpful to note the specific characteristics that the artwork had during this time in comparison to medieval art and in what way did it break the norms. ~pep student VB —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.4.158.99 (talk) 07:43, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Unattributed block quotes
There are large unattributed block quotes in the section on Romantic Literature. Not easy to find where it's from on the internet. They should either be attributed immediately or removed, as it's plagiarism otherwise. Unfortunately removal would devastate the section, which needs major work. Rpworth (talk) 02:22, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * the quotes were from the Norton anthology; I paraphrased and added a cite. Rjensen (talk) 04:04, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Omissions
I suppose no article on Romanticism is going to please everyone, and this article, as far as I can judge, is a reasonable overview. The bits I found missing are the great influence of Byron on continental Europe, and Twain's scathing views on what he considered to be the dire influence of Scott (which I assume refer more to his poems than his novels). --MWLittleGuy (talk) 15:26, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism
I have noticed that this article is particularly subject to vandalism, and rather unimaginative vandalism at that. Can it not be protected in some way? Martin Wyatt (talk) 21:18, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

This seems to me to get it right.
http://academic.brooklyn.cuny.edu/english/melani/cs6/rom.html

It was an international movement. I don't know if "revolt" is the right word. The origin of the word is "Romance" (from romanice to speak in the Latin way), originally meaning literature that was written in vulgar Latin, i.e., by extension the vernacular, spoken language of the people, including women (rather than in learned Classical Latin or Greek of the schools). Such works were Medieval Epics, ballads, fairy tales, and lyrics, which had been rather looked down on in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, when literature and the arts were supposed to be didactic above all and to strictly imitate classical models. The prose romance is the ancestor of the novel, which became the great literary form of the Romantic period, and which you didn't need to have studied classical literature in order to read (or write). Mballen (talk) 16:33, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Romantic authors
The list of romantic authors has been deleted (not by me) and then reinstated. It seems to me that it would be better deleted, as it is highly selective and debatable. To illustrate this, I would say that Jane Austen should be excluded, because, if not actually classical, she is in a category of her own; while Scott and his French successors, such as Hugo and Dumas, should be included. The list also contains comparatively minor figures (but not, for instance, Beddoes). The section on romantic literature gives enough examples to indicate the sort of writer who might be included. --Martin Wyatt (talk) 19:46, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

The Galician-Spanish writer Rosalía de Castro should be included in the list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.111.155.172 (talk) 07:55, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

simple contextual study, help!
can someone please help me with the following questions on Romanticism in context of art. when (to date and form)

Where?(place of origin/key places)

Who?(key names or firgures)

Why?(influences, concepts and reasons) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.96.13.215 (talk) 10:06, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Runge and captions


Captions first - the MOS is artists first - I cannot agree to any other captioning of an artists imagery. I cannot agree to using an artists work without giving that artist credit...

Runge - Johnbod that detail is ugly and god awful, tasteless and pointless - if you want to include Runge then leave the painting I added - at least it doesn't suck...

As far as your comment that this article is crap - its beneath my dignity to respond except to say where were you for the last 4 years?..Modernist (talk) 22:41, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
 * By the way - edits: 268 Modernist; 120 Johnbod as of this writing...Modernist (talk) 22:47, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
 * And what text did you add? That was certainly crap. I think we both know you just did the pics, which I have very largely not altered, although Church is well over-represented. They are actually the two versions of the same Runge painting - mislinked by you - and I have to disagree, as does Novotny in the Yale History, who gives a full page to the same detail. The whole thing does not work well at thumb size, & is frankly a bit too wierd. The detail is touching & effective at thumb size. This is not a visual arts article, and it is most important to make clear the subject of a painting, which your changes often make unclear. Please don't quote WP:VAMOS at me, as I wrote most of it.  Johnbod (talk) 23:04, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
 * In this instance edit count means nothing. Johnbod is making a very impressive leap in forwarding the article and should be encouraged and abetted. calm down. Ceoil (talk) 00:04, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
 * As far as your additions to the article text - I applaud you for your excellent work...Modernist (talk) 04:20, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Now what about the images? I've added the pictures above. The detail shows the baby who is the central figure of Runge's most ambitious and important work, which in the article makes a good contrast in terms of themes (childhood innocence, visionary optimism) with the Friedrich and the Delacroix above.  The whole of the small version makes the central figure of the baby almost impossible to see and unfortunately recalls to a modern viewer at small scale a Late-Victorian light fitting, or that's my view - see above for Modernist's. In the article compare my version with Modernist's.  What do other people think? Johnbod (talk) 14:23, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Frankly not only do I prefer the artist's entire painting to the use of a detail (an ugly one at that) as a lede image (or one of several) but - having looked at every wiki article in every language on this subject I could find only one that included Runge's work . I think we are better off with a work by William Blake (see above) in that position in our article...Modernist (talk) 15:00, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
 * If you find Runge ugly that is your problem - most Victorian critics would have agreed with you, and said the same and more about Blake. We are supposed to base our artcles on WP:RS not what the Serbian Wikipedia does, and the failure of both text and images to represent what good RS mean by Romanticism was a big problem that is still far from overcome - landscapes remain greatly over-represented for example, and many are romantic but not Romantic. The Blake image would be better than the current one in the big gallery but like most of our few Blake images is a poor murky scan, and shows a subject that is hard to relate to without getting into Blake's personal mythology, which the article on the series starts to do. The general drift of the Runge is I think clear enough, & very relevant to general Romantic themes. I'm hearing a lot of WP:OWN here. You had the article largely to yourself for four years, and I find it significant that at the time of writing it has received no Page ratings at all, despite the fact that it must have received well over a million views since the feature was introduced. We are seeing that people typically give highish ratings - ie use the feature to express approval. As I say, let's see what other people think. Johnbod (talk) 17:25, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Interesting that the article now has between 94 & 99 ratings for the various headers, with decent scores - all in the last 22 days. Johnbod (talk) 02:59, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * It's a good thing you listened to me about Blake and Runge...Modernist (talk) 10:43, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I wasn't aware I had! The article is still in the process of change, & the original Runge would be greatly preferable imo. We still need more history paintings. Johnbod (talk) 12:29, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * For what its worth - you aren't hearing WP:OWN you are hearing my opinion, fallible perhaps but valid more times than I can count. I'm issuing my advice here, just that...Modernist (talk) 21:13, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
 * All right, I'll jump in, sorta - because I looked at this page and considered it, briefly, before deciding to work on a page that was smaller in scope. I'm not crazy about too many images in the lead, so as a compromise - maybe do without the Runge? The problem with the baby is that I agree with both of you. The full image  does remind one of a Victorian light-fitting, and the crop is a little odd b/c it doesn't link to the full image for context. This coming from a reader who knows nothing about the artist, so I have no preconceptions, fwiw. Blake is so complicated that I don't think he works well as a lead image, to be honest, though that is a great Blake! Also, Johnbod, I've picked up a few books at the library and will try to help adding refs to the lit sections - if that's okay. Truthkeeper (talk) 20:48, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Music section
Maybe we should eliminate it altogether if no one comes forward with references and relevant text...Modernist (talk) 02:39, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't quite think we can do that. People will only start adding it back. Johnbod (talk) 12:30, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * If nothing develops soon we should begin to eliminate and reformulate. I've pretty much ignored that section for years...Modernist (talk) 12:44, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll see what I can do. I've made a start by debunking the claim that "all the standard music encyclopedias" endorse the view that musical Romanticism starts abruptly on 1 January 1801 and continues unabated until 1900, but this requires explanation of the three major conflicting streams of thought in the academy. Watch this space.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 17:40, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Vandalism
I forget why I started watching this page, but the amount of vandalism it attracts, compared with other pages I watch, is getting ridiculous. Is it not possible to protect this page against interference, except by editors with a history of making constructive alterations? --Martin Wyatt (talk) 19:17, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

No Ayn Rand?
Ayn Rand had a wealth of opinions and observations (very well justified and researched observations- not just random ravings) about the subject of Romanticism. See her book The Romantic Manifesto

In any case, why is she not worthy of inclusion here? 24.146.206.133 (talk) 06:41, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
 * several thousand scholars in Europe and the US have devoted their lifetimes to studying Romanticism, and we have space here for fewer than 100 of them. We pick the ones most often cited, and Rand does not make the cut. Of the 150,000+ books on books.google.com that have "Romanticism" in the title, only five mention her. Rjensen (talk) 06:48, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Gratuitous tags
Instead of adding gratuitous tags - try adding the necessary edit, I mean who are you kidding with your last edit? , Try googling the book if you want more information...Modernist (talk) 17:09, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for adding the required information...Modernist (talk) 17:10, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Can we leave JK to get on with it for a while, & see what it looks like when he's finished. Johnbod (talk) 17:12, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * OK with me, lets see...Modernist (talk) 17:14, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Which was my "last edit"? (I have made five or six in the past half an hour.) If you mean the tag I added to the incomplete book citation, you ought to be aware of two things: I placed that tag so that I could quickly relocate the item after going to see if it really existed (the title suggested it could be a hoax, but it isn't). Second, you reverted several other edits, in which amongst other things I had moved "Further reading" items into the "References" section, after having cited them in the body of the text. Kindly refrain from automatically reverting edits that you have not carefully read, or that you do not understand.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 17:33, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I added the diff you asked for above. You tagged the music section in March, , , and left them for others to fix; you were asked to fix them a few weeks ago and you didn't; you are in the music project and its your so-called expertise but instead you have continued to add tags to the article - that is until I have brought it to your attention. You deleted the entire music section - not I...Modernist (talk) 18:18, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I did not delete the entire music section, as you can see by looking at it. I only deleted the unreferenced material. That did leave only two paragraphs, it is true, but sometimes it is necessary to clear the ground before beginning major construction. It may have escaped your notice, but the 19th century is a big and complicated place, and as it happens it is the least interesting part of history to me as a music scholar. Consequently, it takes me a little longer to get up to speed than if it were, say, the 15th century, where I am already passably familiar with the literature.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 19:07, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Two months ago you tagged the music section, , , and you weren't just marking the spots so you can fix them or were you?..Modernist (talk) 18:21, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * No. I was marking them in order to offer an opportunity to whoever had written those glib, oversimplified, and in parts quite inaccurate paragraphs the opportunity to document where the content came from. I consider this to be more polite than just blanking the material, and I think Wikipedia guidelines concur with this procedure. I suppose one could think of it as a "warning shot across the bow". I generally try to give editors a couple of months before deleting the material, but sometimes I forget I have left those markings, and so it takes longer. Do you suggest I should shorten the time, in order to expedite matters? If so, what is reasonable? One month? Two weeks?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 19:02, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I suggest you read what I've written above - stop your habit of tagging articles unless you can add valid referenced material yourself...Modernist (talk) 19:45, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Alright, let's just leave Jerome to get on with adding new stuff. Johnbod (talk) 20:03, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * FWIW the music section was pretty much intact since 2005 until being tagged in March and deleted today by an editor who claims to have musical expertise but who did not add a single reference only complaints and lists of names...Modernist (talk) 20:23, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Just so that we understand each other correctly: When I tag a paragraph or sentence as unreferenced, I do not do so for no reason, as you seem to think. Consequently, if another editor decides to remove the tag but does nothing to rectify the situation, I must assume that he just forgot to remove the offending material. That is why I deleted those paragraphs today. If this is contrary to Wikipedia policies or procedures, then please point me to the relevant documents. I don't have any idea what you are referring to when you say I have added "lists of names", unless you mean the numerous references I have added as "Further reading", in preparation for the revision of the text now under way. I have not noticed any constructive contributions from other quarters, so kindly just let me get on with it.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 21:58, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Get on with it, so far all I see added is a list of books and scholars...Modernist (talk) 22:11, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh, yes? You mean like the addition of André Grétry to the discussion? Or the correction of the "monolothic" conception of music historians' approach to Romanticism? Look, if you have got the chops and want to contribute, then by all means do so. Otherwise, we can all do without the sniping from the sidelines.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 22:40, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * It takes time to do a section on a big topic properly & I think we should let Jerome run with it for a while. Johnbod (talk) 00:33, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Look if Jerome does the music section my hats off to him, it'll be a huge change from his dropping tags all over the place...Modernist (talk) 01:06, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Wagner
Is this worth discussing - Das Judenthum in der Musik and shouldn't we include these guys Giacomo Meyerbeer and Felix Mendelssohn too?..Modernist (talk) 12:15, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Not sure whether the Wagner thing is relevant to music, though the New Musicology would insist that it is of the utmost importance. Mendelssohn and about 300 other names ought to be included, of course. Meyerbeer is already there, though only as the object of Wagner's scorn.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 15:31, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Why don't you add this to that section?..Modernist (talk) 15:46, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * You seem to think I am reluctant to do so. Why are you in such a hurry?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 16:53, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * No rush...Modernist (talk) 16:54, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * This link List of Romantic-era composers looks interesting also. Take your time...Modernist (talk) 17:04, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for calling my attention to this, which will be a useful list to cross-check as work progresses. A quick glance shows that it assumes the pre-1975, non-Blume paradigm, but it will be no less useful for that reason.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 17:07, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Greek love
Is there a consensus on adding 1000 words on Byron & homosexuality? I think not. Rjensen (talk) 07:02, 4 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Nope, no consensus. There was no tag here for discussion (and checking the article of origin, there was no target for the link to discussion) and this feels like unwanted material is just being dumped here.--  SabreBD  (talk) 07:47, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Indeed. There is a whole string of these moves from that article. Johnbod (talk) 14:21, 4 June 2012 (UTC)