Talk:Winter landscapes in Western art

[Untitled]
Parts of the Winter in Impressionists is based on the lead part in the article The Magpie - by Hafspajen (talk) 00:27, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Content from The Magpie (Monet) that got into article by mistake has been now removed. Hafspajen (talk) 01:15, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

, you were right, I forgot about that one. User:Sca/sandbox. I was a note that I made in the draft about your article and it made its way into the article somehow. We had merged that article from three different sandboxes, here it was User:Sca/sandbox. It does say to: (Except for the material in parentheses, these are all direct quoets.). It just got into the article somehow. Removed now, but I credited you on the talk to. Hafspajen (talk) 00:50, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Impressionists
The last sentence in the Impressionists section is not a complete sentence.

Also, as I was reading and copy-editing, I felt that, while the lead is good, and sections here and there are good, generally I lost sight of the topic of the article -- winter in painting. The article seemed to go off in a tangent about landscape painting, and plein-air painting, but no longer mentioned winter. Discussing the changes in landscape painting is fine, but I think more details about winter landscapes in particular are needed. CorinneSD (talk) 01:54, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I needed a litle bit of cheering up after the mess above. We are talking about snow all the time. The article before it was called Snow in Western art. Somebody made a comment that icebergs are not snow. I am not going to write it again this time concentrating on winter. If anybody can feel harppier, I can maybe move the article to Winter and Snow in Western painting - but I am afraid that thus somebody will soon get his way here telling - Winter and Snow in Westen Art is Way Too Complicated! added Hafspajen (talk) 01:58, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

ADDED: The depiction of winter landcapes involving depiction of snow is the article's central subject'. Hafspajen (talk) 02:11, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

I really like the article title "Winter in Western Art". I think there is a lot more to winter than just snow. I really like the way you connected the changes in climate (temperature) to the topic. I think the article is fine from the beginning to the end of the second paragraph in Winter in Western Art. In the remaining paragraphs in that section there is no mention of winter, no connection between landscape painting and winter, and I think there should be. The Impressionists section is fine except for that incomplete sentence I mentioned at the beginning of my earlier comment, above.

I say "fine", but don't you think there may be too much information about the changes and development in landscape painting (especially in Romantic landscape painting)? Doesn't that belong in a separate article about landscape painting? There are certain things that make this article special and different. I'd like to see anything you can find about:


 * how the development of new pigments and their use by Impressionists made winter landscapes different


 * how painters went about painting winter landscapes, and which artists did what:


 * made sketches (or photos) first, then painted indoors;


 * painted completely outdoors (plein-air), and any special techniques or equipment that was used (for example, if it was as cold as described in the article, how did painters stay warm enough to paint?);


 * personal accounts of artists about their experience of painting winter scenes;


 * a comparison of specific outdoor landscapes as to how snow and ice were depicted, which colors were used, etc. CorinneSD (talk) 02:33, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

I just revised some sentences in the first paragraph in Winter in Western Art. I have a few things I wanted to ask you about or point out:

1) You have the word "series" three times in one paragraph, and I think that's too many times. Which one (or two) could you remove or change?

2) You mention "effets de neige" in the second sentence and again in the last sentence. Shouldn't those be closer together?

3) In the third sentence you mention "Three other painters who painted winter landscapes but less frequently were...", so that means the artists mentioned in the previous sentence painted more -- or many -- winter landscapes, but you don't say that. All you say is that they "started painting" winter landscapes. I think you should change "started painting" to "painted quite a few winter landscapes", or "painted many winter landscapes".

Maybe I missed it, but I didn't see any mention of English painters. Weren't there some English painters who painted winter scenes? CorinneSD (talk) 03:00, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Corinne could you please wait a little until I am ready. I am not finished yet. Hafspajen (talk) 03:06, 15 December 2014 (UTC) Can't concentrate on five things. Hafspajen (talk) 03:07, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

OK:

1) No, I don't think there is too much information about the changes and development in landscape painting. There was NO LANDSCAPE PAINTING to talk about before. We could though add MORE about Romanic WINTER landscapes in that section, yes.

2) ABOUT NEXT:
 * how the development of new pigments and their use by Impressionists made winter landscapes different


 * how painters went about painting winter landscapes, and which artists did what:


 * made sketches (or photos) first, then painted indoors;


 * painted completely outdoors (plein-air), and any special techniques or equipment that was used (for example, if it was as cold as described in the article, how did painters stay warm enough to paint?);


 * personal accounts of artists about their experience of painting winter scenes;


 * a comparison of specific outdoor landscapes as to how snow and ice were depicted, which colors were used,


 * Sure, sounds GREAT. It sounds like a very interesting way of develping this article further. But not tonight, I was working TOO MUCH on this as it is.

- Corinne left some thoughts here, I fixed some of it. What do you say about the rest, the word "series" three times in one paragraph, and mention "effets de neige" in the second sentence and again in the last sentence ....? Hafspajen (talk) 16:50, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

3) About ENGLISH LAndscape: You might need to ask Sca. This time it was his selection of the art. I imagine thre is Turner of course. Hafspajen (talk) 03:59, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

 Except for one image of a painting by Church, there are no American artists represented in this article. Why not include the Grant Wood and Winslow Homer paintings shown here? They are different from the other paintings. Also, I wonder if you can you find a nice painting by an English artist. I counted seven artists that are represented by more than one painting in the article, which is fine, but if you need space, you could remove one or two of those. CorinneSD (talk) 02:42, 16 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Changed to Snowy Landscapes in Western Art. Hafspajen (talk) 16:40, 15 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Haffy is writing the article, not me. All I did was to come up with the theme last summer, and collect a gallery of paintings. Now all I'm doing is trying to punch Haffy's English (his third language) into shape for grammar and syntax.


 * As I've told Hafs repeatedly, I am not an art historian. As far as I'm concerned, anyone is free to do additional editing, add additional paintings, etc. But let's give Hafs a chance to complete the text first. Sca (talk) 16:03, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Now stop telling me that, will you. Hafspajen (talk) 20:47, 16 December 2014 (UTC).

Title
The title should be lowercase. However, I believe the original title ("Winter in Western Art") was much better. Viriditas (talk) 20:44, 15 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I agree on both points. CorinneSD (talk) 02:25, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I am not going to move it back, because Winter in Western art can be without snow too, it can be an interior where people are looking out, it can be even Christmas themes ... like people dancing around a Christmas tree.  Winter landscapes in Western art it is now, and hope now everybody is satisfied. Hafspajen (talk) 02:35, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh. O.K. CorinneSD (talk) 02:43, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Placement of quote
You have the blockquote now in "Romantic landscape painting". I have two questions:

1) I wonder why you cut off the quote at the point that you did. If you want to make the point that is made in the "Techniques" section that the new, portable tubes of paint made plein-air painting easier, you need a little more. If that point is not important, you need a little less.

2) It seems to me that the main points in this quote illustrate statements in the "Techniques" section more than they illustrate statements in the "Romantic landscape painting", especially if you add a little more to the end of the quote as I mentioned above. CorinneSD (talk) 02:33, 16 December 2014 (UTC)


 * For the timeline. Romantic landscape painting was much different from Impressionism. They did not used tubes, nor did they used colored shadows or lived at the same time period. Monet lived from 1840 –  1926, while Caspar David Friedrich  1774 – 1840. Until the time of the painters of the Barbizon school in mid-19th-century France, it was normal practice to execute rough sketches of landscape subjects in the open air and produce finished paintings in the studio. The guys who did that were the Romantics ( sort of from 1800 to 1850).   Who execute rough sketches of landscape subjects in the open air and produce finished paintings in the studio. Impressionists go from the 1870s onward. And the Barbizon school was kinda in between the Romantics and the Impressionists.  Hafspajen (talk) 02:40, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
 * If it feels unclear, feel free to add it to article. Hafspajen (talk) 02:50, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

O.K. I understand now that the quote is really mainly about the Romantics. It goes on to explain how they painted (sketch outdoors, finished painting indoors) and says that this was really "a matter of convenience" due to the way they had to make their own paints prior to the invention of the tubes. However, this point is not made clearly because you cut off the quote. Aren't there a few more words you could include about the paint that would really make clear why it was more convenient for them to complete their paintings indoors? CorinneSD (talk) 02:51, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I am not sure people would be able to access it - the Britannica online if they don't have an account. But it can be explained anyway Hafspajen (talk) 03:03, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Plein-air painting, in its strictest sense, the practice of painting landscape pictures out-of-doors; more loosely, the achievement of an intense impression of the open air (French: plein air) in a landscape painting.

Until the time of the painters of the Barbizon school in mid-19th-century France, it was normal practice to execute rough sketches of landscape subjects in the open air and produce finished paintings in the studio. Part of this was a matter of convenience. Before the invention of the collapsible tin paint tube, widely marketed by the colour merchants Winsor & Newton in 1841, painters purchased their colours in the ... (100 of 281 words) This is all you can read if not logged in. Hafspajen (talk) 06:03, 16 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Oh. CorinneSD (talk) 15:58, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Romantic landscape painting
1) Upon careful reading, it seems to me that in the first paragraph of the section Winter landscapes in Western art, and the first sentence of the second paragraph, there is some repetition of ideas. I wonder if it could be made more concise. (In order to do this, you would have to take some words out and consolidate, or combine, some sentences. Let me know if you need help

2) The second sentence of the last paragraph in this section is as follows:


 * Leading members of the Düsseldorf School advocated "plein air painting" and tended to use a palette of relatively subdued and muted colors.


 * (a) I wonder why "plein air painting" is in quotation marks. That suggests that it wasn't really plein-air. If it was really plein-air, the quotation marks should be removed.


 * (b) Throughout this article, "plein-air" is hyphenated; here it is not.


 * (c) I believe "plein-air" is linked earlier in the article so I don't believe it needs to be linked here.

CorinneSD (talk) 16:49, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Corinne you are a real Sherlock Holmes. Never noticed it. Hafspajen (talk) 19:12, 16 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Another question is, should plein-air be italicized as a foreign phrase? I gather it's accepted in English usage among art historians, but I'd never seen it in general English usage. Sca (talk) 22:07, 16 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm pretty sure it is accepted in English because I've heard artists using the phrase and haven't seen it italicized, but I guess a look at some sources would confirm this one way or the other, or maybe Hafs knows. Hafs, what about my first point, above? CorinneSD (talk) 23:09, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Sure, go ahead, Hafspajen (talk) 23:40, 16 December 2014 (UTC).
 * Hafs, what do you mean, "Go ahead"? Do you want me to work on making the first paragraph of the section Winter landscapes in Western art, and the first sentence of the second paragraph, more concise? CorinneSD (talk) 23:53, 16 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I'll work on it, but first I have to ask you something. In the middle of the first paragraph of the section Romantic landscape painting is the following sentence:


 * Later, between 1780 and 1820, winter subjects again become popular.


 * This sentence does not seem to go with anything here. It seems unconnected to the sentence before it and the sentence after it. Most importantly, you haven't said that winter subjects had lost popularity before this period, so saying "winter subjects again become popular" doesn't make sense. What were you referring to? Does this sentence perhaps belong somewhere else? Or is there something missing before this? CorinneSD (talk) 00:36, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Have to check. Hafspajen (talk) 01:47, 17 December 2014 (UTC)


 *  I see you fixed that sentence with the Tres Riches Heures, but in the process you reverted all the work I had done on the paragraph below that. Did you really intend to do that? CorinneSD (talk) 02:41, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
 * No sorry. Rever yourself and fix that sentence. My mistake. Hafspajen (talk) 02:44, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

.:::::.OK, reverted to where you were but now I don't know where that sentence was. Hafspajen (talk) 02:52, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
 * If you go back step-by-step in the revision history, you'll see it, but maybe that sentence is not needed now. I've noticed that you mentioned the Tres Riches Heures several times in different places; maybe it was too many times (but that's not the reason I took it out; it's because it was not a complete sentence and I couldn't figure out what you were trying to say). CorinneSD (talk) 03:05, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Title II
How about Snowscapes in Western Art — ?? Sca (talk) 22:04, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I am not moving it once more, dear Sca. This title thing is just too much. Then I presumably have to go over and write snowscape instead of snow everywhere, and some bright guy will come by and point out that it is not a common name, and .. there will be no end to the new complications. It was called Winter landscapes in Western art for one peaceful day now ... and that would be the fifth name change by now. Considering that it was created 20:59, 14 December 2014‎...  Hafspajen (talk) 22:10, 16 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Sca, I know the article was your idea, but I'd just like to say that I like "Winter landscapes in Western art" better than "Snowscapes in Western art". I think a lot of people would be puzzled by the word "snowscapes". Also, the word "landscapes" is important because winter landscapes seem to have been an integral part of the new landscape genre. CorinneSD (talk) 23:12, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
 * OK, I can accept that, no prob. Sca (talk) 00:28, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Title III
If you are excluding the Canadian Group of Seven with their huge body of winter landscapes, and in fact all North American artists who have depicted such scenes, the title should be ( … ) in European Art. In any case, terms like Western and Eastern in contexts like this are deprecated, and more specific ones such as Asian, Polynesian etc. are preferred. I will refrain from weighing in on what ( … ) should be. Awien (talk) 13:39, 18 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I think, "Western" is not a problem because this is a more or less a homogeneous culture. ("Eastern" would be a problem because, e.g., Indian and Chinese cultures do not have that much in common.) --Cyfal (talk) 09:21, 19 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Agreed about "more or less homogeneous". It's more that the issue with the term "Western" as such is that it's Eurocentric. As far as the title of the article is concerned, "Western" is too broad in any case if North America is excluded. Yours from Canada, Awien (talk) 13:54, 19 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Ah, I see below that North America is yet to come. I had got the impression that it was considered outside the scope of the article. Makes more sense now. Awien (talk) 18:23, 19 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Maybe as non-native speaker I'm missing the nuances of such expressions... For me as descendant of the cold war times, "Western" also has strong connotations of the shared culture of USA, Canada, Western Europe, Australia and the like. Apart from the missing Eastern Europe, this is (or should?) be the scope of this article, as I understand Hafspajen? --Cyfal (talk) 21:23, 19 December 2014 (UTC)


 * No, you're absolutely right that that's the way "Western" is usually used. The problem is that it implies that Europe is the centre of the world, because "Eastern" and "Oriental" are in relation to Europe - the shortest route to Asia is east. From Vancouver, Canada, on the other hand, the shortest route to Japan is almost due west. I just find it more inclusive and/or respectful to avoid implying that the so-called "West" is the centre, when in fact it's all relative. As for the scope of the article, there seems to have been a miscommunication - I got the impression that Hafspajen didn't plan on including North America, but it turns out that he does. Cheers, Awien (talk) 22:55, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
 * (adds) I meant to say, though, that it's hard to see what other term would work here. Awien (talk) 01:49, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Content change
Rewrite: ''Some of these works involve religious or even fantasy landscapes, but paintings with snow as a theme are mostly landscapes. They are often painted plein-air, with the artist using the thin, gray light of winter to create an appropriate atmosphere and illustrate the effect of light reflected off snow. Because frequent snowfall is a part of winter in northern European countries, depiction of snow in Europe is essentially a northern European theme.''

All this is rather wrong, the way the sentences follow. It gives the impression that most winter landscapes are painted plein-air, witch they are not. It gives also the impression that they generally are painted in Europe. Changed. Hafspajen (talk) 08:58, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Soon
More Hudson School will be added and some other stuff too. Probably not this week or two. Hafspajen (talk) 13:58, 19 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Well, maybe it is better to move it to European Winter landscapes - unless someone else will add the American part. Hafspajen (talk) 17:20, 20 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I was making the suggestion as a backseat driver - I'm afraid I have neither the time nor the expertise to do the North American part or even contribute significantly. Awien (talk) 20:41, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Captions
I've noticed that there is some inconsistency in the captions of the images in this article. Most have the name of the artist first, followed by a colon (which is not WP style), followed by the title of the work in italics. At least two, the February painting and the Frederic Edwin Church painting, have the title of the work first, in italics, followed by a comma, followed by the name of the artist. Those, at least, follow WP style regarding punctuation. See Manual of Style/Visual arts. Be sure to read the last paragraph of that section where it says, "Note: some editors prefer...". Also look at the example caption at the bottom of the page.

I prefer the title of the work (in italics) first, followed by the name of the artist, rather than the name of the artist, followed by the title of the work. I think most readers – average readers – find reading the title as they look at the work both interesting and helpful. The name of the artist is of secondary importance to them. For experts, it is probably the other way around. However, I'll go along with whatever is agreed upon. After the order is agreed upon, the punctuation needs to be fixed, removing the colon and adding a comma. Corinne (talk) 01:08, 27 August 2015 (UTC)