From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Visual arts (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Visual arts, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of visual arts on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.

I'm not an expert on how wikipedia works, but perhaps neo-impressionism and post-impressionism should be merged? Or at least linked to each other? They're all too similar... I just think they may be better displayed as a single article.

I agree, besides that page is just a little too short, if you know what i mean. I was looking at it, and it was absolutely tiny for such a broad subject. Maybe it should be merged with pointilism too, as that's basically the same thing as neo-impressionism. But give all the artists separate page. Its too annoying to have to read pages and pages of stuff you dont need. ps. HELLO!

  • No, definitely not! Post-Impressionism is the by far wider term, covering Synthetism, Symbolism as well as the Nabis group and the late work of Paul Cézanne. The problem is more or less the definition given on this page. --RPD 22:41, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
As RPD says they are two different terms, post-impressionism is a general term for a wide variety of European art after the mid/late 19th century, neo-impressionism is a particular style of art that was influenced by impressionism. For instance think about music for an example, we could have "post-classical" music to describe pretty much any style of contemporary music (it came after the classical period) but "neo-classical" is a particular style of contemporary music - namely that which incorporates elements of classical music in modern compositions. The two terms are very different. --blankfrackis 21:15, 19 December 2006 (UTC)


I added Le Luxe, Calme et Volupte by Henri Matisse, clearly influenced by Paul Signac and as an example of a kind of pre-Fauvism, Post-Impressionist, Neo-impressionist painting that Matisse experimented with. I am somewhat ambivalent about its inclusion here, though. Modernist (talk) 23:43, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Well, but don't forget that the beginnings of every artist do not necessarily mark his place in art history. For my part, I would be happy to see this Matisse at the end of the text, and therefore pointing to things to come. Not to things already established like Neo-Impressionism. Experimenting with techniques, styles or whatever you want to call it, was always a privilege of newcomers. --rpd (talk) 00:29, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Do not double links[edit]

Please avoid doubling links that are already provided in the Post-Impressionism template. Furthermore, lists of artists involved are better supplied with the main text, and not in a "See also" section. --rpd (talk) 09:39, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Groupe des Peintres Néo-Impressionistes[edit]

Why is this section heading in French? Modernist (talk) 22:48, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

  • It's a strictly identifing term for this neo-impressionist group (there are others,too), comparable to terms like Salon d'Automne, Les XX, La Libre Esthétique etc.--rpd (talk) 08:08, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
    • It's not as widely used as Salon d'Automne, and Les XX, I've translated it into English. My suggestion is that La Libre Esthétique should also be translated into English, because it isn't a widely known term. You've created an article - mostly in French there, I don't think that makes sense because most readers speak English, and although a percentage of people speak French - it is a minority, and your article isn't for everyone...I'll help you if you can't do it. Thank you....Modernist (talk) 18:06, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
    • I do not think that this is Wikipedia's way to go:
Wikipedia is international, to my opinion
english is our linqua franca, and that's all; if there is no consense on this, I would opt for a split between English and American WP, and continue editing in the European space. But at first, I think you should ask whether there is consense for your point of view.--rpd (talk) 21:53, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
      • I have no need to shop around for consensus, I agree with you that English is our linqua franca, but what I am saying is French isn't, but suit yourself, To each his own....WP:UCS sort of implies this isn't a French encyclopedia, but if thats what you need to do....hey you're the expert...who gave us this gem: In the years 1918-1933, people united in Europe to dance on a vulcan, after that one, you can do whatever you want. Modernist (talk) 23:59, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Requested move[edit]

Neo-impressionismNeo-Impressionism – Both encyclopedic and specialist publications write it the same: Encyclopedia Britanica, as well as The Metropolitan Museum of Art and the Museum of Modern Art in New York write Neo-Impressionism with capital letters (rather than Neo-impressionism). A search of the relevant literature produces the same result, see Google Books by Floyd Ratliff (1992) Paul Signac and Color in Neo-Impressionism, Russell T. Clement, ‎Annick Houzé (1999) Neo-Impressionist Painters: A Sourcebook on Georges Seurat, Camille Pissarro, Martha Ward (1996) Pissarro, Neo-Impressionism, and the Spaces of the Avant-Garde, John Gary Hutton (1994) Neo-Impressionism and the Search for Solid Ground: Art, Science, and Anarchism in Fin-de-siècle France, Catherine Bock-Weiss (1977) Henri Matisse and Neo-Impressionism, 1898-1908. And the list goes on... Coldcreation (talk) 22:20, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

There exists a redirect from Neo-Impressionism. It leads to the title said to be in accordance with the Wikipedia naming conventions for capitalisation. However, it leads to a title (Neo-impressionism) the capitalization of which is broadly nonconventional. See for comparison: Post-Impressionism. Clearly Wikipedia:NCCAPS is not applicable for art movements such as the two mentioned above, since Neo and Post are followed by a dash, leading to the word Impressionism, which is quasi-always capitalized. Coldcreation (talk) 22:40, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Support, on the technicality that A) WP (for whatever reason) treats art movements as proper names, so B) they remain capitalized even after a hyphenated prefix. As long as A remains true, B is also true. For what it's worth, I'd like the either see all of them decapitalized, or all music, film and other genres capitalized (preferably the former), instead of art movements getting a special capitalization pass, but this isn't the place for either proposal.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  09:54, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Unsupported on the basis that WP:VAMOS#Capitalization and art movements alludes to MOS:DOCTCAPS#Doctrine as self-referential and champions dictionaries. Would you go to a music label before a dictionary as a source on how to spell Rock and roll? American Heritage, Collins, Merriam Webster, and Oxford all use lowercase, as they do with impressionism and other movements. Wikipedia's own dictionary, Wikitionary, uses lowercase. Improper names in titles are often capitalized in the publishing world: Rock and Roll: Its History and Stylistic Development (7th Edition), Classic Rock: Gold, The History of Rock 'n' Roll in Ten Songs, Rock 'n' Roll Myths: The True Stories Behind the Most Infamous Legends, etc. Nonc01 (talk) 08:20, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
    • Neo-Impressionism: Most, if not all, Art History books, and many, if not all, scholarly publications in the field of Art History write Impressionism, Post-Impressionism and Neo-Impressionism. This is not the field of music. This is literature that deals with art and art movements. There is no reason why there should be a standard practice across the board, across all fields. The fact is, the vast majority of the relevant literature writes Impressionism beginning with a capital "I" whether the word is preceded by Neo- or Post-, or not. Coldcreation (talk) 15:54, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

There are many others; all I've checked on Google Books starting from the top of the list for "History of art". Coldcreation (talk) 16:28, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Here is yet another: Solomon R. Guggenheim Museum, Divisionism/Neo-Impressionism: Arcadia and Anarchy, 2007. Coldcreation (talk) 10:18, 28 August 2014 (UTC)