Talk:The Angelus (painting)

Comment
In this article, "a prayer" is referenced (the Angelus, of course). Clicking on "Angelus" brings up a French history, not an explanation of the thrice daily call to prayer known by that name. It seems to be from a book and not from a Wikipedia page which is usual.

Having recently read a description of that sequence of prayers-Matins(6AM), Prime(Noon), and Compline(6PM)-which are still done in Vatican City and in Ireland at many convents and monasteries, I think the word highlighted (Angelus) should take the reader to a page or site which explains the prayer. JeanEva Rose (talk) 02:13, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your input. I myself was a bit confused by the Angelus page. After reading your comment I see that you have a point. But this comment belongs on that talk page, not this one, so I'll post your message there. Jane (talk) 08:20, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Historical context missing

 * At first, the painting was interpreted as a political statement, with Millet viewed as a socialist in solidarity with the workers

From the standpoint of 2022, the original context is missing. The academic art world at the time was dominated by the wealthy, conservative ruling class who were losing their control over emerging contemporary art forms, which increasingly challenged the status quo and every aspect of art that was taken for granted up to that point. To quote our article on academic art: "Academic art was first criticized for its use of idealism, by Realist artists such as Gustave Courbet, as being based on idealistic clichés and representing mythical and legendary motives while contemporary social concerns were being ignored". This partly explains why being a socialist in solidarity with the workers was considered a criticism. Academic art had intentionally ignored social concerns in art to further the values of the ruling class, which produced an idealized form of art which emphasized hierarchies and unbroken chains of power legitimatized by hereditary rule, instead of representing reality as it really was--a democratic and shared reality that once seen in contemporary art, was the death knell of conservative academic art, which never recovered from its decline. To make it even clearer, the conservative practitioners of academic art weren't interested in portraying the real world with real people who had real concerns and worries. They wanted artists to paint an unchanging, idealized world based on nostagia for the past. This was and remains the essence of conservatism to this day. Simply saying that the painting was political and criticized for being socialist isn't enough. Viriditas (talk) 00:24, 25 November 2022 (UTC)