Talk:Venetian Renaissance architecture

[Untitled]
Hello Johnbod, thanks for helping with the article but I must challenge both edits. I recently did a certificate course in furniture history involving writing a short essay about the development of styles from the classical (Greek/Roman, but I managed to start from a place called Skara Brae), to the modern day, with the ability to describe them and provide various examples in pictures such as a chair, a door, a window, a table, a room.

Gothic was not about frilly leaves, and this is portal directly, as well as the Doges Palace, argued by some scholars not only to follow the Renaissance, but to precede it, and therefore maybe provoke it. The addition of the stucco freeze is not only an example of the Renaissance, the story goes, but is argued by many, not me, but to be the Renaissance itself as it started to happen. Otherwise Venice was slow to catch up, just like the article, isn't that weird?

I'll explain with examples, see the writing that accompanies from an old book? It says in no uncertain terms, "full of pathetic dignity and repose", and the book which I cited the portal as an example, my god, it goes on about this lack of temperance, and corruption in particular, like a nasty sermon, even describing a fall, all the way through the book, while at the same time describing obvious lavishness and delicate beauty(?right?). It is like he thinks they have all become alcoholics or something. I nearly dropped reading it, because it was like five or ten pages in before he got to the point.

The corruption and fall from perfection he was describing, was the corruption of the Gothic style. It's gradual evolution into the renaissance.

If you would now look to you will see the relevance. The difference between Gothic and and Renaissance was not a matter of switching one for the other, but an evolution between the two, with the portal of San Stefano being an example of the move in its beginning, rather than at its height. Venice led the Renaissance in theory, by beginning, but in practice it took years to catch up with the wild fire catch on of style of Italy.

I assume you believe the portal to represent the more extravagant Gothic style, the florid, but if I were to show you, from the Doges Palace, you'd immediately see the difference, and understand why the older historians talk about the Renaissance architects like they were drunk. I'm not just making this stuff up or ranting out my feelings, right?

Try searching the internet for "leafy gothic". Less than 300 hits, whereas "florid gothic" is almost 12,000, and not a leaf in sight. The only hit on the first page of the 300 that does not refer to kids with painted black eyes is called Art in Renaissance Italy. So it's looking probably right isn't it? It had to evolve from something if it was a gradual onset right? The sources say so also. So I've written the whole thing out here, but that's what I think the point of the article is rather than a journey through personal expression. ~ R.T.G 17:25, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I'm not convinced. I don't need to do random internet searches in an attempt to work out what Renaissance architecture looks like, as I have many books on the subject. Johnbod (talk) 17:37, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
 * You have to refer the sources, John. I'm talking about the evolution of the style. I think you will find that Renaissance architecture skips the evolution in every section! I don't find that surprising. Though maybe I could of structured the article better to put a finer example first, but this was the direct example given and the other picture of the portal from the 1901 book also describes it as a corruption. Did you click the last link I gave of the true florid Gothic window from the Doges Palace? It is far removed from Stefanos Portal and even sombody with little interest would realise they already were familiar with the difference. 17:46, 19 February 2019 (UTC)


 * By the way, are you really saying that changing " Marked with a return to Byzantine styles, the Renaissance was slower to catch on..." was wrong?? Johnbod (talk) 17:51, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I was just following the book regarding Byzantine, I'm not very knowledgeable about Venice at all save for it is wet, but I think the statement about its catching on was also supported by Tafuri, a recent Italian historian reffed at the last in the article, and other sources, because of inequality and war in their society and culture. ~ R.T.G 17:56, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Don't think I am trying to protect my version, John. But I liked the idea of describing the evolution first. That's what I'm pressing for, if you have any ideas... ~ R.T.G 18:05, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Assessment
The criteria for "Start" say "The article has a usable amount of good content but is weak in many areas. Quality of the prose may be distinctly unencyclopedic, and Wikipedia:Manual of Style compliance non-existent. The article should satisfy fundamental content policies, such as Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. Frequently, the referencing is inadequate, although enough sources are usually provided to establish verifiability. No Start-Class article should be in any danger of being speedily deleted." Does this in fact apply to this article?--Johnsoniensis (talk) 11:21, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I think so. It is still being expanded, and "weak in many areas" applies. What's your issue? The ratings (and some of the projects) left on it the last time you passed by were very clearly all wrong. Johnbod (talk) 15:58, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
 * This is not a stub. It's a C waiting for expansion. It's not my decision as I contributed, but it has start middle and end. The prose is all legible and in good ordering. We are coming down with pictures for this subject. It's not the definitive resource, but it tells you already what the definitive source will have in it. Small expansion would make it a B surely. ~ R.T.G 16:37, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree the article now meets C & have (self-assessed) back. Johnbod (talk) 01:48, 22 February 2019 (UTC)