Talk:Early Netherlandish painting

Title

As far as I know, the term "Flemish Primitives" is unusual in English. The usual term is "Early Netherlandish Painting" (e.g. in the famous work by Erwin Panofsky, to name only one art historian), as is also mentioned in the article.

"Flemish primitives" seems to me a litteral translation from the French name for this school of painters, "Les flamands primitifs"; in French "primitif" means also "early" (and cannot always be translated with English "primitive", which means "simple, undeveloped", which is definitely inappropriate to describe these painters).

I think the title is inappropriate and should be changed into Early Netherlandish Painting.

Regards, Friedrich Tellberg 4 Aug 2005

The article itself clearly states that "Because of the ambiguity of the word "primitive", art historians prefer the term "early Netherlandish painting"." I believe there is also a redirect from "early Netherlandish painting" to this page. These painters are known as "de Vlaamse Primitieven" in Dutch and as "les primitifs flamands" in French. Primitive here should be understood not so much as "early", but rather as "original" in the sense of "that which is at the origin of something". It is very well possible that the term is unusual in English, although this article has been around for quite a while and you're the first reader to make this remark. If the title is changed, the article itself should be rewritten as well. - Karl Stas 15:24, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

A check with Google Fight reveals that Early Netherlandish painting is the more common term, so I have made the necessary changes. - Karl Stas 15:46, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Flemish Primitives (like Italian Primitives) was standard 100 years ago, but is now out of use in English. My understanding is the same is happening more slowly in other languages. There was a pejorative element to the terms - ie they couldn't get perspective right etc —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Johnbod (talk • contribs) 12:46, 11 December 2006 (UTC).

-->

Oddly, I get 52,100 for "Early Netherlandish", but only 16,100 for "Flemish Primitives", on the whole much less relevant in the opening pages. I see Princeton UP have rather let the side down by not translating properly the title of a 2003 book by a Flemish art historian, but otherwise the usage of modern anglophone art history is consistent. Let's face it neither score is large, & the whole idea is obscure to most English readers. Johnbod (talk) 11:48, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

So why is this "Netherlandish"? Why not "Netherlander"? Or just Dutch? "Netherlandish" is just very awkward to say in English. Is "Netherlands" referring to the Low Countries? Shouldn't this just be an offshoot of the Northern Renaissance? ForestAngel (talk) 06:12, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

No. Johnbod (talk) 08:52, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

"Netherlandish"?! Is that even English? If it's a matter of including both Dutch and Flemish painting, the way to do that in English would be to say "Dutch and Flemish painting". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.189.58.222 (talk) 08:49, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Wrong. This is the standard and correct term - and see Netherlandish. Johnbod (talk) 08:52, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

The word Netherlandish only exists on Wikipedia land....standard English usage is Flemish or Dutch —Preceding unsigned comment added by 57.67.164.37 (talk) 15:44, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree with 57.67.164.37,

Furthermore the article states that the term "Netherlandish" allows for an broader geographical base for the artists associated with the period than the more inclusive "Flemish". This may be true but the difference in geographical base for the artists associated with the period does not differ much, and geographical bases like Estonia, Germany and Cologne are still not included when using the term "Netherlandish". Another argument agains the use of Netherlandish, is the fact that the term 'Netherlands' nowadays is almost exclusively used to refer to what is now known as "The Kingdom of the Netherlands", whereas the region Flanders remained the same and as is stated in "Designation" that region was the cultural center of that time. The fact that this term has been introduced by german art-critics can hardly be seen as an argument since the german word Niederländisch can be translated to either "Dutch" and "Of the Low Countries". That's why I dare speculate the english authors who discuss "Netherlandish art" just tried to whip up some dirt with their fancy neologism. Last but not least, before this term "Netherlandish" was introduced by art-historians it would have been considered a fatal grammatical error, since the only adjective in the english language with the meaning 'of the Netherlands' or 'of the Low Countries' used to be the adjective "dutch". I would like to point out Netherlands_(terminology) or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netherlands_(terminology)

82.156.102.102 (talk) 20:11, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

references

the inline numbers seem to relate to the arrows in the references list, but without saying which is which. I don't know how to sort this out, but if anyone does, please do...Johnbod 12:42, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Renaissance?

Although this style/period of art certainly is "Gothic," I've also often heard it referred to as "Northern Renaissance" painting. While obviously not working along the same stylistic lines as Italian Renaissance art, I think the term is a valid one.--66.162.230.194 17:47, 21 June 2007 (UTC)rubinia

Hans Memling

Hans Memling is mentioned as being German in the article. While it is true that he was born in the region where modern Germany is established, I wonder whether this is entirely correct as the article rightfully confirms that there was no concept of Germany in the early 15th century. One could only argue that he was from Germanic ethnicity but I am not sure this alone would be enough to name him a German immigrant. He was from the Flemish tradition and I think this characterizes him better than his ethnicity. Being of some ethnicity is always subject to discussion as it is hard to find an individual coming from a single trait. In that sense a DNA test may also prove that his grand father was from Hungarian ethnicity but does this make him a Hungarian painter? What if you find out one day that, his great grand father was from Central Asian origin as %60 of the European population, could you then call him an Asian Painter. What I am trying to say is that, ethnicity is not a defining property of an individual but the culture and tradition is. I think everybody agrees with this. In the Dutch article Hans Memling is said to be a Flemish Painter and I think it is a correct statement. Hans Memling: A Flemish painter, born in Selingrad a place in the borders of modern Germany of possibly Germanic ethnicity and of unknown citizenship. (there was no concept of citizenship until French revolution.) Thanks BillyGee (talk) 19:23, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

There was a concept of Germany in the early 15th century (the Holy Roman Empire). Some hicks pride themselves in being more homebound in an age of automobiles, cars and planes than most people who had to walk: they call themselves Flemish or from Holland; France, Brabant, Gelre, Utrecht or Friesland are beyond their mental horizon. Unfortunately they rule nl.wikipedia.org. Erik Warmelink (talk) 00:21, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Like Italy, Germany was a country long before it was a state. Johnbod (talk) 16:45, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Flemish Primitives

The main problem with the term Flemish Primitives is the pejorative connotation conferred by primitive. The main problem with the term Early Netherlandish is in the potential confusion between the modern and historic meanings of the word "Netherlandish", since Flanders was considered as the Southern part of the Netherlands in historic times while now largely being part of Belgium. There is wide scientific consensus that the creative climate, artistic-technical infrastructures, and financial support for this "new" art were provided, virtually uniquely, by the wealthy cities of Bruges and Ghent, as correctly stated in the article, and that the large majority of artists were from Flemish origin and did work predominantly within the geographic constraints of Flanders. The correct name to refer to this new art should therefore per definition always include the designation Flemish and not Netherlandish. There is no confusion possible: Ghent and Bruges were located in Flanders, then and now.

The pejorative connotation to "primitive" is much less pronounced in languages of latin descent, and since it is widely established, it is preferable. There is no democratic precedent for introducing this highly confusing Early Netherlandish term: in contrast to what Google Fight may reveal, a simple Google search reveals 96,600 hits for Flemish Primitives and only 45,500 for Early Netherlandish Art. Also, the main collections of Flemish Primitive art housed by the cities of Ghent and Bruges and other musea world-wide are just called that way, and are unlikely ever to be renamed Early Netherlandish art. So, why deliberately creating confusion if there is no reason for it?

The main drive of this article seems to reside in an attempt to justify why the term Early Netherlandish is preferable and the author goes to great lengths in this regard. One would almost be inclined to suspect that there is as political-strategic motive: the artificial increase of the weight of the (current, i.e. the historic Northern) Netherlands in a school of art to which the Dutch, in effect, only peripherally contributed and of which they were never the mainspring.

The authors use arguments which are entirely reversible: Cologne was not part of the Netherlands and neither was it part of Flanders. The list of painters highlights painters from outside Flanders but does not include affiliations following the names of the truly Flemish painters.

[citation] Also, like the concept of the Italian Renaissance itself, it stresses the birth of a new age rather than the culmination of an old one.[citation] This apparently, may be the main drive for renaming Flemish Primitives into Early Netherlandish art: to highlight it as nothing more than a "lead-in" to the forthcoming golden century of the Northern Netherlands (17^th century). But this totally discards the reality of the Flemish-Burgundian economic-cultural golden age per se, which coincides precisely with the time of the Flemish Primitives and engendered their art. Early Netherlandish art constitutes therefore a violation of what the Flemish Primitives de facto embody: the culmination of the Flemish golden age. As such, Early Netherlandish is a post hoc logical fallacy.

To reconcile all opinions, I suggest to include in the title of the article both Flemish Primitives and Early Netherlandish Art.Kvandenb (talk) 12:37, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Firstly that is against WP titling rules, secondly the term is mentioned in the first sentence of para 2, which discusses the matter fully, and thirdly it is just not the correct term in English, as discussed above. Most of the current text you object to, btw, is written by a professor of art history of Flemish origin. Johnbod (talk) 02:13, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Someone get rid of that Haber's art review link it's absolute drivel —Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.92.103.101 (talk) 13:45, 23 June 2010 (UTC)