Talk:Western painting

Image overhaul
This article is undergoing a major change concerning imagery per ...Modernist (talk) 13:33, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Images
A template was added to the top of the page claiming excessive or improper use of copyrighted material. The editor who placed the template should indicate which images are excessive and which copyrighted material is being improperly used. Otherwise, the template should be removed.  freshacconci  talk talk  18:18, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
 * It could have something to do with the unacceptably high number of fair use images on the page. I'd certainly say that's a damn good reason for the tag.  S ven M anguard   Wha?  07:09, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
 * You need to explain why the number of FU images is unacceptable, given that virtually all images from the recent period will be in copyright, and the visual nature of the subject, and explain what you think would be an acceptable number to adequately illustrate the period, and why. Believe it or not, this issue has often been discussed before - see the archive. Johnbod (talk) 12:57, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Davis
The image of that Stuart Davis painting is not in use in the gallery or in the article for that matter...Modernist (talk) 13:16, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Western painting. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071106102251/http://www.whistler.arts.gla.ac.uk:80/biog/Dura_P.htm to http://www.whistler.arts.gla.ac.uk/biog/Dura_P.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 09:02, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Rerated; Galleries need links
I've rerated this from B to C class, which is arguably a bit flattering - the text is never great, and often downright bad. Will those adding to the galleries please note that where a painting has its own article, this should be linked in the caption. Most in the galleries do, and we should give a strong preference to those with decent articles to link to. Johnbod (talk) 12:43, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Image removal
Stop removing visual art imagery. The paintings all have fair use rationales and must be seen; and left alone...Modernist (talk) 23:06, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Western painting. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070319123717/http://www.accd.edu/sac/vat/arthistory/arts1303/Rome4.htm to http://www.accd.edu/sac/vat/arthistory/arts1303/Rome4.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081211173809/http://www.bartleby.com/65/co/CounterR.html to http://www.bartleby.com/65/co/CounterR.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081017051233/http://jasonkaufman.com/articles/stuart_davis_american_modernist.htm to http://www.jasonkaufman.com/articles/stuart_davis_american_modernist.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080925010715/http://www.guggenheimcollection.org/site/artist_work_md_109_7.html to http://www.guggenheimcollection.org/site/artist_work_md_109_7.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070313213644/http://www.beyondbooks.com/art11/index.asp to http://www.beyondbooks.com/art11/index.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 14:12, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

RfC on problems with adding significant artists
Why are significant artists of the Dutch Golden Age not represented? You can't add all the painters that were of significance to art history, but considering the representatives of Italian, Spanish and French art, surely the painters from the Dutch Golden Age are far from being adequately represented (only 3 of them are included!). So why is adding Jan Steen problematic? He's regarded as one of the major painters of the baroque. The same goes for Gerard ter Borch, Pieter de Hooch and Gerrit Dou. They were highly important painters, especially for the development of genre art. Then the exclusion of landscape painting and marine painting, which got a massive impulse in 17th century Dutch art. Why are painters like Jacob van Ruisdael or Meindert Hobbema - who are generally considered to be two of the greatest landscape artists - not included? The same goes for Willem van de Velde the Younger, a major innovator in the genre of marine painting and a massive influence on J. M. W. Turner. Considering the painters who are represented in the article (many of whom are not at all 'major' painters), the painters from the Dutch Golden Age are far from being adequately represented. Why can't we change this? Max Eisenhardt (talk) 22:28, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm ok with Jan Steen, Jacob van Ruisdael, and Pieter de Hooch...Modernist (talk) 23:05, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Why only those three? Gerard ter Borch for instance is a more significant artist than De Hooch. Ter Borch stood at the cradle of the genre of interior scenes in 17th century painting (which was a massive influence on Vermeer). And why not the innovators of the still life genre? Willem Claesz. Heda was a highly important innovator and one of the greatest still life painters. The same goes for Gerard van Honthorst, who was the main representative of Utrecht Caravaggism and one of the most important Caravaggisti in Europe. Similar artists from French, Spanish and Italian caravaggism are also mentioned, so why not Van Honthorst? I can also mention Judith Leyster now, who is extensively discussed in Gardner's Art Through the Ages. They evidently thought she was significant enough to be included with added imagery, so why are we not doing that on Wikipedia? I don't understand why you're making such a problem out of this while so many relatively obscure artists are mentioned in the article. Max Eisenhardt (talk) 00:05, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Judith Leyster should definitely be included along with Jan Steen, Jacob van Ruisdael, and Pieter de Hooch...Modernist (talk) 00:23, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Why not the others? Most of them are more significant than many of the painters who are currently represented in the article. Max Eisenhardt (talk) 00:32, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
 * You reverted my contributions several times and demanded a discussion on the talk page. Now that I organized one, there isn't coming any constructive reply and dialogue from your side. What exactly do you want? Van Honthorst is, like Leysters, extensively discussed in Gardner's Art Through the Ages. Just like Willem Claesz. Heda. Meindert Hobbema isn't mentioned, but Aelbert Cuyp is. So why can we only mention one landscape artist from the Dutch Golden Age. Again, why do you find including these artists so problematic? I see a lot of other artist included who are far less important to art history (think of Copley, Gros, Matejko, Chardin etc.). A little more reaction would be nice. Max Eisenhardt (talk) 20:19, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
 * As I said I'm ok with Hals, Rembrandt, Vermeer and Judith Leyster, Jan Steen, Jacob van Ruisdael, and Pieter de Hooch can't you read? The Dutch Golden Age is linked and covered well enough, it does not require more than 7 artists...Modernist (talk) 02:50, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I have read it, you don't have to be so aggressive, I just don't agree with you. Like I pointed out above, Van Honthorst is just as relevant as Leysters, the same goes for Ter Borch and Heda. My question, again, is why are you finding this so problematic? I don't think the Dutch Golden Age is covered enough without these artists. Max Eisenhardt (talk) 09:19, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Perhaps a compromise is an idea? In my opinion still lives and Utrecht Caravaggism should be represented. Just like genre painting with Ter Borch. Perhaps Frans Post and Avercamp are a bit too much and not relevant enough. Gerrit Dou is perhaps also a bit too much genre art. Would that be a compromise? Max Eisenhardt (talk) 21:48, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Name your inclusions...Modernist (talk) 03:10, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
 * The Dutch Golden Age is in my opinion also a time where - under the influence of the market - painterly genre's were brought to new heights and sometimes established. My point was to represent those genre's. In any case, I was thinking about Gerard van Honthorst (Utrecht Caravaggism), Judith Leyster (an important female artist), Jan Steen, Pieter de Hooch, Gerard ter Borch (the latter stood at the beginning of a tradition of interior genre scenes), Jacob van Ruisdael (landscape painting), Willem Claesz. Heda (still lifes) and Willem van de Velde the Younger (marine painting). That excludes at the end Hobbema, Avercamp, Dou and Post. Max Eisenhardt (talk) 10:52, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep in mind these articles are overviews. We don't include every artist from the Dutch Golden Age which is already linked as are all the artists linked as well. I'm ok with Hals, Rembrandt, Vermeer Judith Leyster, Jan Steen, Jacob van Ruisdael, and Pieter de Hooch; we can't include everyone...Modernist (talk) 21:41, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Who is 'we'? This is just your opinion against mine. I thought you agreed on a compromise. In any case, I'm aware that these articles are overviews, and that's exactly my aim: an overview of what happened during the Dutch Golden Age. In the same way that there's an overview of the Italian Renaissance. The amount of Italian Renaissance artists that are included are absurd in comparison to other moments in art history, especially Dutch Golden Age painting. Max Eisenhardt (talk) 23:15, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
 * We refers to the many visual arts editors who have worked these articles over many years. As I said the Dutch Golden Age is already linked; and all the artists are linked as well. I'm ok with Hals, Rembrandt, Vermeer Judith Leyster, Jan Steen, Jacob van Ruisdael, and Pieter de Hooch; we can't include everyone...Modernist (talk) 01:45, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
 * And they all agree with you? If you're not open to a compromise, then why a discussion? You said that not everyone can be included, but I never wanted to include 'everyone'; like I said: representations of major genres ought to be included. There are currently 17 different painters from the Italian Renaissance/Baroque. That stands in no comparison to 7 painters from the Dutch Golden Age. In my view, Gerard ter Borch, Heda and Van Honthorst should definitely be included. Like I pointed out, Van Honthorst is extensively discussed (along with imagery) in Gardner's Art Through the Ages (he's the central figure of Utrecht Caravaggism), the same goes for Willem Claesz. Heda, who was one of the most important still life painters. Max Eisenhardt (talk) 23:53, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
 * One reason there are more painters from the Italian Renaissance/Baroque than from the Dutch Golden Age is that the first category spans roughly three centuries, while Dutch Golden Age painting spans one century. In a survey-type article such as this one, many artists who are given considerable attention in Gardner's Art Through the Ages are not represented by images, which may be why the Mannerism section lacks key figures Pontormo, Bronzino, and Rosso Fiorentino. Other Italians left out are the Carracci, Guido Reni, Guercino, Domenichino, Veronese, Barocci, and Piazzetta. Likewise major Northern artists Memling, Grünewald and Cranach; vedutisti such as Pannini, Guardi, Canaletto, Bellotto, and Hubert Robert; and entire schools such as the Danube school, Nazarene movement, Biedermeier painting, the Pre-Raphaelites, the Danish Golden Age, and the Macchiaioli. We can't include everyone in a survey, and selections are made for different reasons. Some of the selections could be better—the 19th century section has more painters from the Polish school than from the English, Spanish, and Italian schools combined, and no women artists at all; this may need adjustment. The desire to have even rows plays a part in the editorial process, as jpgs tend to be added or subtracted in groups of four. Ewulp (talk) 03:14, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
 * First of all, the Italian Renaissance/Baroque is represented from Fra Angelico to Artemisia Gentileschi. That's of course not 3 centuries but roughly 2. The Dutch Golden Age lasts only 1 century, so 17 to 7 is simply not in proportion. If you check which painters are represented, then you will find a discrepancy there, for instance: three painters from the Venetian school. Everyone knows that Titian is the most important figure of that school of painting, than why add Giorgione and Bellini? I have no problem with their inclusions (since they are of course very significant artists), but why can't something similar like Dutch genre painting not be represented by three important artists as well? What Titian was for the Venetian School, Vermeer was for Dutch genre painting, then why not add Gerard Ter Borch to the list as well (what Bellini and Giorgione meant for Venetian painting, Ter Borch meant for genre painting)? Ter Borch was also an important influence on Pieter de Hooch.


 * The same goes for Gerard van Honthorst. Why are Caravaggisti like Artemisia Gentileschi and Jusepe de Ribera included, but not someone like Van Honthorst? He was the most important figure of Utrecht Caravaggism, a major Caravaggisti, and also a major influence on other Caravaggisti (such as Georges de la Tour).


 * Last but not least, I'm implying of course significance. For instance, like I pointed out with regard to Willem Claesz. Heda, he was a major innovator of the still life genre and also a massive influence on generations after him (Chardin for example, who happens to be included in this survey). You can say a lot about the Biedermeier school or the Danish Golden Age, but not that they were particularly innovative. It seems to me that this article is very much centered around southern European painters. Especially those from Italy and in lesser degree from Spain and France. Max Eisenhardt (talk) 00:13, 20 August 2017 (UTC)


 * If we count the Italian Renaissance as starting c. 1400, which is the conventional starting point, and Baroque turning into Rococo c. 1700, that's three centuries. Salvator Rosa, among artists represented here, was active into the 1670s. The ratio of 17 to 7 seems about right.


 * One of the reasons Artemisia Gentileschi and Jusepe de Ribera are included is probably to give some attention to women artists and artists from Spain, otherwise rather thin on the ground in this section of our article. I would favor adding a still life painter, whether Willem Claesz. Heda or another. We have no image of animal painting after the "Pre-history" gallery, so maybe Frans Snyders would be a good choice. Ewulp (talk) 02:38, 20 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Why not Van Honthorst and Ter Borch? By the way, I'm not only talking about the Dutch Golden Age, also the Early Netherlandish painters are not enough represented. I don't understand why so many early Italian Renaissance artists are represented, and artists like Hans Memling, Hugo van der Goes or Dieric Bouts are excluded. The same goes for German Renaissance painters like Matthias Grünewald and Lucas Cranach. If it's a matter of representation alone, then one artist from let's say the Venetian School would have been enough. Instead the Venetian School is represented by 3 artists. Why can't this also be the case with Dutch Genre painting? Max Eisenhardt (talk) 12:34, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
 * As you have been already told this is a survey article we don't mention everybody; those live links are in the article. Read: WP:IDON'TLIKEIT...Modernist (talk) 12:50, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
 * As you have already been told: I don't want to mention 'everybody'. Where did I even say that? This article is in my opinion too much focused on Italian painters. Like I pointed out, the amount of Southern painters versus Northern painters are simply out of proportion. To put it more concrete with an example: why Jusepe de Ribera and Gentileschi and not Gerard van Honthorst? In other words: why southern Caravaggisti and not northern Caravaggisti? The same goes for Venetian School painters versus Dutch genre painters: why Bellini and Giorgione and not Ter Borch? The representations in this article are not appropriate. Max Eisenhardt (talk) 15:55, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Just simply name your would be inclusions...Modernist (talk) 21:46, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I agreed with yours, my only additions would be Van Honthorst, Ter Borch and Heda. Max Eisenhardt (talk) 22:49, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I suggested a likely answer to the question about Ribera and Gentileschi yesterday. Heda is a good addition; I'm less convinced that we need ter Borch, worthy though he is. With the proposed addition of Leyster, de Hooch, Ruisdael, and Steen, we will have four Dutch genre paintings plus Rembrandt, Ruisdael, and Hals. If we add Heda, there are eight Dutch Golden Age painters; for comparison, we have four examples of the Venetian school, and four examples of Italian Baroque painting.


 * Because this article is an overview, the images are mostly the works of artists familiar to the general public, who are often represented by familiar works: Mona Lisa, The Birth of Venus, The Garden of Earthly Delights, etc. One crude measure of how famous an artist is may be an ngram result like this one or this one . Also see this one: . Lesser-known artists of great historical importance are included for balance, but the emphasis is on the familiar.


 * Artists who are included in the galleries should be mentioned in the text; Honthorst isn't, and neither is Utrecht Caravaggism. If he is to be re-added, a line should be added to the text for support. One point in favor of restoring the Honthorst image is to add another religious painting to the mix—at present the images in the Baroque and Rococo gallery could give a spectator the impression that religious painting was out of fashion during this period. But Georges de La Tour (who is mentioned in the text) is a better choice, being better known. Ewulp (talk) 01:38, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Agreed. The main problem with the article over this period is the lack of text. The choice of images within artists is also often wierd - a self-portrait for Titian? We have I think 19 images from the Greco-Roman tradition, from which hardly anything survives, and really nothing of its major works, vs only 24 for Renaissance & Mannerist.  Italian 17th century painting, out of fashion to be sure, is almost unrepresented - only Artemisia Gentileschi and a Salvator Rosa self-portrait.  There's no German painter between Albrecht Dürer and Friedrich.  And religious painting is severely under-represented (after the Middle Ages). Johnbod (talk) 15:00, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree with both Ewulp and Johnbod that we need more text and essentially more historical coordination and historical correlation...Modernist (talk) 16:07, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Why do you want a German painter between Dürer and Friedrich? It's like finding a Dutch painter from the 18th century. There simply wasn't a significant Dutch painter in the 18th century, in the same way that there wasn't a significant German artist between Dürer and Friedrich. Likewise, I don't understand this obsession of including female artists. Sure, Leysters and Gentileschi are great and ought to be included, but Gentileschi is not a lot more significant than van Honthorst or de La Tour.


 * The fame of an artist shouldn't be decisive in my view, although I agree that it's not entirely irrelevant. The problem with ngram results is that they're subject to matters that don't necessarily relate to painting. For instance, if you look at the ngram results of Gerard van Honthorst vs. Artimisia Gentileschi, you'll see that Gerard van Honthorst was actually a more quoted artist for most of the 20th century, that changed from the 70s onwards. The reason for that is of course obvious: the interest of feminists in the biography of Artemisia Gentileschi. Although it relates to her work, you can't say it's all because of her artistic merits (although she's of course a very great artist). My point is: Utrecht Caravaggism was a very important influence on many artists, other Caravaggisti such as Georges de la Tour, but also major artists like Rembrandt; Van Honthorst as its most important figure should therefore be included. Gerard ter Borch has a similar status for genre painting, the fact that Giorgione is quoted more is of course obvious: the Italian language is far bigger and more influential. I would agree if most people want to exclude him, but such an important influence on De Hooch and Vermeer (and therefore indirectly on French followers up until the 19th century) should be included.


 * In my view the significance of a painter for the development of art history is an important criterium, in that light I don't understand the inclusion of all these obscure Polish and French artists. Last but not least: I agree of course that more text needs to be added, but the first thing that needs to be done is to get rid of putting southern Europe at the center of everything, this is really absurd. Max Eisenhardt (talk) 20:11, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Cranach and Adam Elsheimer are more significant than some of the Dutch names that have been bandied about here. Johnbod (talk) 01:48, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
 * That depends on which painters you're talking about. I agree of course (like I did above) with Cranach being a very important artist and someone who ought to be included. Elsheimer is - although good - in many ways a flawed artist. Cranach was predominantly a portrait painter whose fame relied on the people he painted (mostly German & Dutch reformers and humanists). In any case, I'm not against including Cranach, like I've stated clearly above: also artists like Matthias Grünewald and Lucas Cranach ought to be included. Again, what's important for me is the significance of the artists. Adding artists like Élisabeth-Louise Vigée-Le Brun, Maurice Quentin de La Tour, Jean-Baptiste-Siméon Chardin and Joshua Reynolds over someone like Van Honthorst, Heda or Ter Borch is ridiculous. Max Eisenhardt (talk) 13:17, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
 * To be clear Jean-Baptiste-Siméon Chardin was an early, important and crucial influence on Henri Matisse see:. The other artists mentioned also were important inspirations to later generations...Modernist (talk) 15:04, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
 * So were Gerard van Honthorst, Gerard ter Borch and Willem Claesz. Heda (what would Chardin be without him?). And that's my point: why aren't those artists included as well? Why is this entire article centered around southern European art? The same goes for Early Netherlandish art and German art. How come so few of it is represented in comparison to Italian, Spanish and French artists? Max Eisenhardt (talk) 15:19, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Excuse me? The 3 artists you mention (lovely as their work is) had no - no affect whatsoever on important 20th century art, sorry...Modernist (talk) 15:26, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
 * What are you talking about? Where did I say they were? You talked about 'important inspirations to later generations'. The work by Ter Borch, Van Honthorst and Heda was an important inspiration to later generations of artists. For example: Georges de la Tour's work was unthinkable without the work by Van Honthorst. Chardin's work was equally unthinkable without the achievements of Heda and other Dutch still life painters. The same goes for Gerard ter Borch and the influence of genre painting on 19th century French art. And by the way, 'no affect (sic) whatsoever'? If you talk about this amount of influence, the effect is per definition there. Last but not least: could you please stop editing the article while we're still having a discussion about this issue? Max Eisenhardt (talk) 15:44, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
 * And you can reference all your claims?..Modernist (talk) 15:59, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Are you serious? A quick search: 'The idle play of children was a favorite theme of Chardin who was a great naturalist among painters. In this canvas of about 1734 he drew inspiration from the seventeenth-century Dutch genre tradition, for both the format and the subject.' (http://www.metmuseum.org/art/collection/search/435888) or 'His major sources were the domestic genre of 17th-century Dutch Art.' (https://www.nationalgallery.org.uk/artists/jean-simeon-chardin) or 'Chardin spent time in the studio of Noël-Nicolas Coypel studying 17th-century Dutch and Flemish painting, whose influence is evident in his early still life.' (https://www.museothyssen.org/en/collection/artists/chardin-jean-baptiste-simeon).


 * And Van Honthorst? What about: 'As Sterling has emphasized, Honthorst's representation of this theme appears to have been of importance for Georges de la Tour (https://books.google.nl/books?id=sNvyCAAAQBAJ&pg=PA155&lpg=PA155&dq=as+sterling+has+emphasized&source=bl&ots=56i_FuZ_yW&sig=oSAsinrnyLKWEwuxSn9C6SXOKJw&hl=nl&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiltdrdnevVAhWNJlAKHduEA-cQ6AEIKjAA#v=onepage&q=as%20sterling%20has%20emphasized&f=false) or: 'The Dutch were masters of genre painting, which embraced many elements of quotidian life—including the daily bodily search for parasites. La Tour very well could have gotten the idea for his flea-hunt from Dutch examples; indeed, some of his other paintings indicate an acquaintance with Netherlandish art. For example, he utilized another Dutch genre subject in his Payment of Taxes (1618-20). Furthermore, La Tour often included in his night scenes a candle with an eclipsed flame, a signature mark of Honthorst’s work. The parallels are tantalizing, if not conclusive. They simply offer circumstantial evidence that La Tour was familiar with Dutch art and, in all probability, its tradition of painted flea-hunts.' in: (http://etd.lsu.edu/docs/available/etd-04112007-165514/unrestricted/Bergeron_thesis.pdf).


 * Or Ter Borch and his influence on for instance Manet: 'The young Eduard Manet (1832-1888), who, due to his marriage to a Dutch wife, traveled to Holland more than once, also made some references to the Dutch tradition in his work. Intimate picture such as Madame Manet at the piano recall the works of Dutch interior painters like Metsu and Ter Borch. (in: https://books.google.nl/books?id=ZPhLoy0FICMC&pg=PA146&lpg=PA146&dq=french+art+ter+borch&source=bl&ots=s1z7Ghkp0G&sig=UyIuuQSsaWDNXsKRJxQEvmgmQkE&hl=nl&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjinI_Bn-vVAhWIYlAKHTG5B7EQ6AEIazAP#v=onepage&q=french%20art%20ter%20borch&f=false). An entire book is written on this subject too: https://books.google.nl/books?id=hFINAQAAIAAJ&q=gerard+ter+borch+manet&dq=gerard+ter+borch+manet&hl=nl&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiJq62Tn-vVAhXIfFAKHblcDdcQ6AEIKjAA. Max Eisenhardt (talk) 16:26, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Reference those specific artists like Gerard ter Borch and 2 or 3 others. We do not include everyone as I mentioned we link to the art movements like Genre painting...Modernist (talk) 17:42, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
 * What are you talking about? 'Reference those specific artists'? I just did. I gave you multiple sources. And stop talking in terms of 'we'. There is no 'we', there's only you who doesn't agree with this, and so far you haven't given one substantiated argument in this discussion. Max Eisenhardt (talk) 17:49, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Excuse me? What planet do you live in??????? We - relates to me and other editors including Ewulp and Johnbod who do not agree with you read WP:CONSENSUS. Seems pretty clear that you are obsessed - so read this:WP:STICK and either properly reference your would be inclusions or buzz off...Modernist (talk) 17:55, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Again this aggression, multiple question marks and telling me to go away. Perhaps it's my turn now to throw around some shortcuts: WP:AGGRESSIVE & WP:HOSTILE. It should be reminded that we're trying to have a discussion about this on your instigation, and now you're telling me to 'buzz off'? And are you seriously telling me I should read something? Why don't you start by reading what other people in this discussion are actually saying? To begin with what Ewulp wrote: I would favor adding a still life painter, whether Willem Claesz. Heda or another. That's not exactly 'we', now is it? Ewulp also stated: Artists who are included in the galleries should be mentioned in the text; Honthorst isn't, and neither is Utrecht Caravaggism. If he is to be re-added, a line should be added to the text for support. To which Johnbod said agreed. Seriously what the hell are you talking about? You demanded a discussion and right now we're trying to have one. My question was why you're not giving any arguments? I gave you several sources wherein the importance of Van Honthorst, Ter Borch and Heda is made perfectly clear with regard to their influence. I could say the same about other artists who aren't included (Early Netherlandish artists, many German artists and Flemish artists). Like I said, the overall choices in this article are weird and do not reflect the importance on art history. Max Eisenhardt (talk) 19:47, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
 * What about Reference those specific artists don't you understand?..Modernist (talk) 19:55, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
 * After extensively supplying you with sources, you're asking me 'reference those specific artists'? What are you talking about? With regard to Ter Borch I referred to the passages in Dutch Art: An Encyclopedia. They refer to Ter Borch in the light of Manet and also with regard to his influences on Chardin and other 18th century French artists. Max Eisenhardt (talk) 22:53, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Paula Radisich in Pastiche, Fashion, and Galanterie in Chardin's Genre Subjects: Looking Smart also highlights the influence of Ter Borch on the work of Chardin. By the way, did you also demand these kind of references for the great Aleksander Gierymski? Or the even greater Karl Bryullov? Max Eisenhardt (talk) 23:00, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Regarding Honthorst, I concluded by saying Georges de La Tour would be a better pick. If we are to add another four jpgs I think some good candidates would be Heda, Snyders, Reni, Pietro da Cortona, Canaletto, Georges de La Tour. And eight rows of images are plenty until more text is written—the galleries shouldn't be grossly disproportionate to the text, which is poor form and makes navigation awkward. Ewulp (talk) 04:28, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
 * After having read this entire thread I have come to agreement with the arguments laid out by Modernist. There is no historical reason to favor Dutch artists over others. The article appears well balanced as is. Over at Commons I was forced to write up a multitude of deletion requests against Max Eisenhardt for uploading copyrighted images of another Dutch artists by the name of Kees van Dongen: See here. Those uploads, coupled with edits to this article (and others) by this user, leads me to believe that bias is playing a dubious role in his/her decision making process. Nationality should not be a deciding factor, but rather, the artists' historical role in shaping the history of art. Even so, it is unreasonable (if not impossible) to mention all those artists involved in the process. Therefore, limiting the discussion to the most important ones appears crucial.Coldcreation (talk) 11:21, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Which arguments by Modernist were so good in your opinion? I honestly can't find any argument whatsoever, let alone a good one. The only thing I'm reading is Modernists opinion on which artists should be included or not; but that's not an argument, that's simply stating your opinion. Also, saying I'm biased because I wanted to include some pictures by Kees van Dongen? What kind of argument is that? I know the Dutch painters very well, that's where my expertise is (talking about WP:GOODFAITH by the way).


 * Furthermore, calling this article balanced is of course complete nonsense. Everything is centered around Italian art and northern art is absolutely not proportionately represented. You stated: 'Nationality should not be a deciding factor, but rather, the artists' historical role in shaping the history of art.' Isn't that exactly my aim? I thought you 'read the entire thread'? Then you should've read that that's exactly my argument all along (I said: 'In my view the significance of a painter for the development of art history is an important criterium'). The fact that no representative of the highly influential Utrecht Caravaggism is included, the fact that there's no representative of Dutch still life painting, is in that light ridiculous. This hasn't got anything to do with nationality, but with 'the artists' historical rol in shaping the history of art'. Also, how does that criterium relate to Aleksander Gierymski? Or Karl Bryullov? Or many others in this article. Max Eisenhardt (talk) 12:12, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Coming late here, but the self portraits bother me too - minor works for both van Eyck and Titian. But all this and the above avoids the larger problem that, imo the article is hopelessly imbalanced in a bias towards the mid 20th century. Ceoil (talk) 23:22, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes to that. Starting about 1900, the level of detail steadily increases, far beyond what is needed in an overview like this. Much of the detail should be moved to the separate articles, and there's quite a lot of redundancy and overlinking. Ewulp (talk) 03:36, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I'll take that on, if there are no objections, except I'll cut rather than spin out. My main concern is the TOC bias. Ceoil (talk) 14:07, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
 * To Aleksander: you had some initially valid general point, but I don't agree with your latter "respond in kind" argument and perhaps you have overshot and your request is now incoherent; can you reformulate. Ceoil (talk) 12:06, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Large tracts of this page are nonsense - and should be cut out. Ceoil (talk) 21:42, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Noting that have trimmed down a fair bit of text, and Modernist has address a many of the image issues. Ceoil (talk) 07:43, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 11:07, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Josef Albers's painting 'Homage to the Square', 1965.jpg

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 11:22, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Robert Mangold's acrylic and pencil 'X Within X Orange', 1981.jpg

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 11:53, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Newman-Who's Afraid of Red, Yellow and Blue.jpg

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:07, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Oil painting "New England Elegy" at the John F. Kennedy Federal Building, Boston, Massachusetts LCCN2010720575.tif

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion: You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:22, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Robert Rauschenberg, Tracer, 1963 11 20 17 -sfmoma (40482628341).jpg

Cueva de las Manos c. 550 BC?
I'm interested as to where this exact date came from. Wanting help finding where this date came from. Tyrone Madera (talk) 18:14, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:09, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Piet Mondriaan, 1939-1942 - Composition 10.jpg

Article balance
The balance of this article is absolutely terrible. The section on the twentieth century takes up almost half the article. Several individual sections of the twentieth century portion are larger than the entire section on the renaissance. In no possible telling of the history of art is that a reasonable allocation of space. Hochithecreator (talk) 01:43, 14 April 2024 (UTC)