Talk:Beaux-Arts architecture

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

List of students[edit]

I am not happy with this subsection [or whatever] "list of students of Beaux-Arts architecture" What does it refer to, Folks who were students at the École des Beaux Arts - Arts in Paris? Aren't we all here "students of Beaux-Arts architecture?" But I don't know if all these folks went to svhol there. Any ideas before I go and do something rash? Carptrash 01:35, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lists are made by those unable to set the names in any context or relate them one to another, rather as timelines are made by those who cannot grasp the larger themes of history. Any context you can give these names will be an improvement over a list. ...and then we'll all come along and second-guess you...--Wetman 07:58, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My impression is that the Beaux-Arts architecture style was popularized by a select few. The intent of this list is to name those early progenitors of the Beaux-Arts style. Also, I vehemently disagree with your assessment of people who make lists. It is the English majors of the world who insist on extraneous prose when a list suffices to convey information. MPS 15:01, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A quick look at any of "my" articles will prove to anyone that I was never an English major. And I do like lists. However they need [opinion] to be pretty clearly titled, so I added a new title and look forward with eager anticipation to what you folks make of and do with it. Carptrash 16:08, 9 March 2006 (UTC). Oh yes, what do you all think of red ink in lists?[reply]

Fridiloin Heer[edit]

I just Googled this architect and discovered that:

  • So, i should do a smash-&-grab article on him to get rid of the red ink, even though he does not appear to fit our list?
  • remove him from the list?
  • drink yet another cup of coffee? Carptrash 16:22, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
For the sake of wikipedia you should make a stub article about him. You need not mention B-A but can instead say that he was an architect born ___ died ___ and major works were _______. I abstain fron discussing whether this is B-A or not. MPS 16:35, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. I did a quickie on Heer, anad corrected the name in the list. Gebhard, in the buildings of Iowa addresses the B_A thing and i will get to that later, but am being kicked off the computer by my lovely partner. Carptrash 16:45, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why so America-centric?[edit]

I wonder whether this article should be so U.S.-centered. Take a look at the Britannica article on the same subject. They discuss Gare du Nord (1861-65), which "showed brilliantly how a language ultimately inspired by the triumphal arches of ancient Rome could lend an appropriate monumental emphasis to a major metropolitan railway terminus"; Library of Sainte-Genevieve (1843-50), which WP treats in the article on Neo-Grec, although the facade of this building is inspired by Alberti's Malatesta Temple; Palace of Justice, Paris (1857-68), hailed by Britannica as "a major expression of Beaux-Arts ideals"; and, most importantly, Charles Garnier's Grand Opera (1862-75), "widely regarded as the climax of 19th-century French classicism". Further examples of the Beaux-Arts Architecture discussed in the Britannica are New Sorbonne, Grand Palais, Gare d'Orsay, and Pont Alexandre III. That's what a truly international encyclopaedia should aspire to - to trace the roots of any given style. Judging by our page, Beaux-Arts architecture was a purely American development. That's why WP is just a regional (American) project if compared to the global Britannica. --Ghirla -трёп- 19:42, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps Britannica is just Eurocentric nya nya nya. MPS 04:34, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think that the Amercentric nature of this article, and others as well, is a reflection of who is willing to take time to contribute to it. The Yanks are not removing info posted by others, we're just writing about what we know, which is American architecture. Carptrash 16:11, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's a reflection of who is contributing, not necessarily of who is "willing to take the time", there's 300,000,000 americans for 60,000,000 brits, everything else being equal, you can expect a contribution from 5 americans for every brit, and that's of course even more unbalanced for other nationalities. Not a criticism, it's the way things are. Anyhow, I think the issue raised was valid, it would be a shame if this article about Beaux-Arts didn't cover France, so I'll tag the article with a {{globalize}}, hopefully, that will draw people who may know a little more about the subject than I do. The article could do with being expanded anyway. Equendil Talk 23:14, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm with you here. Thanks for the {{globalize}} tag, which is a new one on me and one that I will try and toss into a few other articles that I contribute to where it might be useful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carptrash (talk • contribs) 23:46, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Burnham[edit]

Does he belong on the list of architects? Cornell Rockey 14:46, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think so. Certainly his city planning stuff is pure Beaux-Arts. Carptrash 16:06, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Beaux-Arts architecture today[edit]

I nominated the article New Beaux-Arts architecture for deletion a few days ago (copy here) on the basis that it is not a recognised genre, however I suggested on the talk page (copy here) a new section in here titled "Influence on modern architecture" which would be more suitable in my opinion. The author seems to have been reluctant to edit anything after his article was proposed for deletion though. Since I think his article was genuinely interesting if not quite appropriate as an architectural genre, maybe someone here might want to take care of adressing the subject and expanding the article (or possibly advocate against such a section) ? As I wrote before on this talk page, my knowledge of architecture is quite limited and I'm a little afraid to mess things up. Equendil Talk 20:38, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes 'new B-A architecture' makes little sense. not that the B-A has not been copied! But usually it falls within Postmodernism it cold be discussed under the heading bad architecture - or bad commercial architecture-- just jokingBrosi 17:37, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

removed sentence[edit]

I removed the following sentences.

Beaux-Arts architecture, in spite of its insistence on exterior symmetry, was generally user-friendly. It embodied more sophisticated patterns of circulation and differentiated usage than its modernist critics allowed. Grand entrance and stairway sequences, borrowed from Baroque palace designs, had functional clarity: though visitors were impressed, they were rarely trapped or disoriented by ambiguities. The Beaux-Arts style was also flexible.

Though I would agree, I donl;t think they are appropriate for the entry and its neutrality. There are many examples anyway to disprove this. One of Hunt's buildings at harvard University had to be torn down because it was so unuseable. 'user-friendly' is an anachronism anyway. Brosi 18:03, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

added citations[edit]

I added a bunch of citations where they seemed appropriate.Brosi 18:31, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Beaux Arts[edit]

This article concatenates the "Beaux-Arts style" with the question of training at the Ecole des Beaux-Arts. Some of what is described under "characteristics of the Beaux-Arts style" has to do with the method of instruction at the Ecole des Beaux-Arts. The two should be clearly separated since the Ecole did not teach a particular "style", far from it--the term "Beaux-Arts style" is a North American usage primarily, associated with a lavishly modeled classical revival architecture using suggests a mix of Second Empire, Baroque, etc. (See: What Style Is It?) LittleRhody 7/25/07 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Littlerhody (talk • contribs) 20:31, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Beaux-Arts Style does not need to be hyphenated this way. "Beaux" is an adjective modifying "Arts".--Parkwells 21:32, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Never mind; I see you used the form in "What Style Is It?"--Parkwells 21:39, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Palais Garnier -Outside.JPG[edit]

Image:Palais Garnier -Outside.JPG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 16:20, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

who swiped from whom[edit]

This web page is more or less the same as this wikipedia article but with no attributions <http://www.essential-architecture.com/STYLE/STY-C01.htm> — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.174.110.168 (talk) 22:13, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article's page history shows how it was put together, one edit at a time. There are many many mirrors of Wikipedia on the Internet, as everyone knows. --Wetman (talk) 06:44, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No Neo-Baroque in lead?[edit]

The Revivals template at the bottom of the article identifies Beaux-Arts as a Neo-Baroque style, yet there is no mention of this in the lead, which refers to it strictly as a "neo-classical" style. Any reference to Baroque is relegated to the "Training" section. The article's lead should contextualize the key points, per Wikipedia guidelines, and the apparent dual nature of Beaux-Arts as both neo-classical and neo-baroque must be addressed, IMO. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:17, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Beaux-Arts or Beaux Arts[edit]

Should there be a hyphen in the name or not? The school is called École des Beaux-Arts. Google has 11M hits for no hyphen and 12M for hyphen. I'm going to go with hyphen and change accordingly. Kent Wang (talk) 15:25, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CFR notice[edit]

APK How you durrin? 07:17, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How does Beaux-Arts differ from renaissance and classical?[edit]

This should be addressed in the article. Kent Wang (talk) 02:26, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. I'll either do it . . ...... or not, so anyone, feel free to grapple with this tar baby. Carptrash (talk) 03:53, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

San Francisco Civic Center and Misidentified Picture[edit]

The building pictured in this article and identified as San Francisco's War Memorial Opera House is actually Herbst Theater, which sits next to the War Memorial Opera House. (Additionally, in San Francisco, it is often said that our City Hall was the last Beaux-Arts building in the US. That is also what is stated on the Wikipedia page for 'San Francisco', so that discrepancy needs to be cleared up between the two pages.) CaliforniaAndie (talk) 05:14, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pennsylvania State Capitol ???[edit]

Why isn't the Pennsylvania State Capitol listed under the United States section???johncheverly 13:15, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Anderson House[edit]

Wikipedia already has a thoroughly developed and vetted article on the Anderson House in Washington DC. It links to this entry. But this entry does not link to Anderson House. Was this accidental or deliberate? 108.15.195.166 (talk) 05:13, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Probably deliberate. This article is not making an attempt to include all 47,000 (carp math) examples of Beaux-Arts architecture in the world. Carptrash (talk) 06:07, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment comment[edit]

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Beaux-Arts architecture/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Comment(s)Press [show] to view →
The Beaux Arts page, which is linked to many American architects, suffers in a number of ways from ignorance of recent architectural history. None of the relevant studies of Beaux Arts buildings figure in the article, and it refers to a "Beaux Arts style" that does not exist. If the article is to do justice to the French institution, it should feature a longer development of the history of the Ecole in Paris. References to American architects who studied at the school should be specific and should avoid labeling such architects as adherents to a "style," since architects in the U.S., whether Paris trained or not, used their training in a variety of ways, sometimes with no references to French classical architecture at all. For instance, McKim, Mead & White were far more fond of Italian Renaissance sources in their work. Carrere & Hastings, who were devoted Francophiles, would have been alarmed to have been pidgeonholed as merely "Beaux Arts architects." They were American classical architects who built many modern buildings in a large variety of idioms. I believe that all references in heading paragraphs (such as the one still in place for C&H) should remove the term "Beaux Arts" as a label for any architects, whether French, American or Swahili.--Hewittarch (talk) 01:41, 16 May 2008 (UTC)Hewittarch[reply]

Last edited at 01:41, 16 May 2008 (UTC). Substituted at 09:19, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:57, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Training[edit]

"urbane contexts" - the word "urbane" generally refers to manners and personal style. Should this really be "urban contexts"?

The citation is to a print book to which I do not have ready access. MrDemeanour (talk) 13:17, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Capitalization?[edit]

Should beaux-arts as a concept be capitalized? The school, the École des Beaux-Arts, should of course be capitalized, but I question whether the resultant style should be. I submit it should be treated like brutalism, art deco, modernism, and the like.

MW, for example, does not capitalize the term: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/beaux%20arts 2601:285:8700:40D5:413B:47F9:DA55:A72A (talk) 00:01, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Beaux-Arts_architecture&oldid=1206210758"