|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
This article contains mistakes in grammar and composition and needs re-writing.
Changed the part about use of camera obscura...the article stated as fact that Bellotto, Canaletto, etc. used it, with no evidence presented or citations. This is a controversial statement, both from an artistic and practical point of view. So I simply changed the phrase to read that is "plausible" that they used. I dont have an artistic political agenda...but no real evidence that I know of proves this. Any good artist, skilled in perspective projection and architectural drawing can develop convincing perspectives. Some reports state that drawing or painting with a camera obscura is problematic.--Matt Aufderheide
Date of Birth - 1722
it seems that Bozena Anna Kowalczyk (an expert on Belotto) wrote in 1995 that his DOB was May 20, 1722. This is written on a web page on "Arte Ricerca", authored by Dario Succi. For some reason the Arte Ricerca site is on WP's black list, so something may be wrong with it. In any event since 1995 the consensus on Belotto's DOB may have changed. In recent publications only the year (1772) seems to be mentioned. What is certain is that for a 2001 exposition entitled BERNARDO BELLOTTO 1722-1780, at Museo Correr in Venice Kowalczyk wrote an essay in the exposition's catalogue. So, if we consider Kowalczyk an expert (Christie's do: they relied on her opinion to establish the authenticity of a painting by Belotto http://www.christies.com/LotFinder/lot_details.aspx?intObjectID=4892969), then her participation in the writing of the catalogue would suggest she does not object to identifying 1722 as the year Belotto was born (a long winded line of reasoning, but the only one with no gaping holes). --Atavi (talk) 00:55, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
This article is very thin. If you want to know about Bellotto and can read German, go to the German Wiki entry. For example, the English article says nothing at all about his time spent at the courts of Vienna (Maria Theresa) and Munich. It does not mention his unhappy time as a reluctant 'instructor in perspective' at the Academy in Dresden when he returned there from Munich to sort out his affairs after his house was destroyed in the Prussian bombardment. It says nothing about the fact that his Rococo-style painting had gone out of fashion in Dresden. It says nothing about his painting techniques or about the relationship between fact and fantasy in his vedute. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 09:08, 23 June 2014 (UTC)