Talk:Neoclassicism

Rewrite?

This article reads more like an art magazine's journal than an encyclopedia. Can somebody fix that?

I was just coming in here to say that... 77.193.115.10 (talk) 16:24, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

For the love of god, please, somebody rewrite this travesty. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.228.185.192 (talk) 23:41, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Split?

I'm thinking this page should be split up as follows:

• Great introductory material should be merged into the Classicism article
• The section on visual arts and architecture should be put into a Neoclassicism (architecture and visual arts) page
• The Literary section should be put in a Neoclassicism (literary) page (including the bit from the 20th century one)
• This page should be turned into a disambiguation page
• All of the above should be linked in the Classicism template at Template:Classicism

--TimNelson 14:18, 9 July 2005 (UTC)

In the arts, Classicism is a strain that might be contrasted with Romanticism or Realism, with a longer history than Neoclassicism; Neoclassicism is a style phase that might be contrasted with Baroque or Rococo. There is also a Classical aspect to the Baroque: compare Claude Perrault's Louvre colonnade with Borromini. To merge the two is to muddle them. If you can't tell Classicism from Neoclassicism yet, maybe the first step is to add some detailed subsections to this article from your reading in the subject: good authors are Hugh Honour and Svend Eriksen. The literature section does pertain to Classicism, however, and has no direct connection with Neoclassicism in the visual arts, which is what the reader expects to find when entering "Neoclassicism" at Wikipedia: "Neoclassicism" is not a well-defined literary movement in the English language: writers of the Augustan Age are Classical, are they not? Their models are Dryden and Milton.

What do others think? There's no hurry about this is there?--Wetman 23:32, 9 July 2005 (UTC)

From what I can see, you're saying that:

• Neoclassicism primarily refers to the visual arts, and hence that section should remain on this page (sounds reasonable to me too)

• Yes indeed. --Wetman 21:42, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

• Separating out the Neoclassicism (literary) page, as suggested above, would be fine with you

• Personally, I can't really distinguish a "Neoclassical" approach to English-language literature from the movement in literature that is usually called "Augustan", so I can't sensibly vote: or I vote for neoclassicism in literature to find a home at Augustan Age, until it just grows too large there. I do think the separate page should discuss in about three sentences its relation to Neoclassicism in the visual arts: not an easy task: with a "Main article Neoclassicism" heading. Neoclassicism (music) is a corollary situation. This present trunk Neoclassicism article needs a brief section beginning "The term Neoclassicism is also applied in the field of European music..." under a heading "Main article Neoclassicism (music)"... --Wetman 21:42, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Well, the Augustan Age page is a disambiguation page that doesn't actually point to any articles :). Anyway, unless you object, I'd want to move Neoclassicism (literary) elsewhere, and disambiguate it as suggested at the bottom (with reference to Rome). TimNelson 14:57, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

No problem, if there's a condensed version left here: "In literature neoclassicism implies..." yada yada the briefest synopsis, under its Main article header. Augustan Age should be more closely linked than just an easy-to-do "See also", shouldn't it. --Wetman 17:31, 15 July 2005 (UTC) etc

Neoclassicism and Classicism

You're arguing that Neoclassicism and Classicism are essentially different. I'm arguing that Neoclassicism is a reworked Classicism.

• Baroque as well is a reworked Classicism, a stylistic reworking of a vocabulary that is Classical: Bernini's St Peter's colonnade, William Kent, Poussin. Classicism in the visual arts is a broad approach, a point-of-view about the creative process, a secure sense that there exists a canon of "Classics", a feeling that an educated public is usually right in its tastes and that time will tell. Neoclassicism is only a style: Louis XVI chairs, Robert Adam interiors... -Wetman 21:42, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

• Hmm. Would I be right in guessing that your final comment about neoclassicism refers to visual arts, rather than the others? I agree with you about the Baroque, though. TimNelson 13:45, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Possibly this is because my entire knowledge of the two comes from the musical point of view (with possibly a little understanding of the philosophical point of view); about the visual arts, I admit I know less than would be nice :)

• Well, music, literature and the visual arts don't necessarily move in tandem. Critics trying to link them all in an overarching zeitgeist may wind up gesturing and vaporing. So we have to be extra cautious. --Wetman 21:42, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

• Agreed. But I assumed that the "classical" part held in common between them meant that there was a common theme running between them. My assumption here is that there's a much greater connection between eg. 18th century visual arts neoclassicism and 18th century classical music than there is between 18th century visual arts neoclassicism and 20th century music neoclassicism. But I'm still trying to pick up on a common theme, which I think is there. TimNelson 13:45, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

My point is, Classicism and Neoclassicism both, AFAICanTell, both involve primarily a high regard for the things considered "classic". The first group of things looked back to is Classical Antiquity, followed by the Renaissance, maybe including the Baroque, then the 18th-Century Classical (music)/Neoclassical (visual arts), and presumably someday the 20th-century Neoclassical. Now, from what I can see, Classicism in the visual and performing arts harks back only to classical antiquity, whereas neoclassicism also harks back to the previous classical eras, which is a distinction between the two.

• Yes indeed. Classicism depends upon a canon that is generally agreed upon, and works within its outlines. But Paradise Lost doesn't "revive" the Aeneid. Neoclassicism is simply the first of the Revival styles, soon joined by Gothic Revival. --Wetman 21:42, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

• And here was me thinking that Renaissance Classicism was a revival style :). But looking at Revival shows that there's a different between big-r Revival and small-r revival :). TimNelson 13:45, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

So I guess what I'm saying about moving the intro meant moving only the relevant parts of the intro. For example, it seems to me that at least the part about non-Western traditions and cultures having neoclassic periods applies as well to the Renaissance Classicism, and all (neo)Classicisms except actual Classic Antiquity. I see most of the rest of the intro as also applying in the same way.

Anyway, are you happy with at least (as well as the points of agreement listed above) adding a disambiguation section at the top of the page to point to other neoclassicisms? --TimNelson 10:59, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

• There's no harm in repeating text, almost word-for-word in different Wikipedia articles, IMO. Other revivals of a classic canon come up more naturally in History of... or Culture of... articles. This article Neoclassicism is Eurocentric and refers mostly to 1765 - 1850.--Wetman 21:42, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

• I was thinking of a section like they have at the top of the Rome page (saying "see Rome (disambiguation)"). Would that be fine with you? TimNelson 13:45, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Will the contributor answer a question for me?

Sorry all, I'm new to the wikipedia. I just read something on the neoclassicism page that I MUST track down, please. I'm not sure how to go about it, but I want further reading,s something quick and easy, on the notion that cultures typically go through a stage of self-awareness, awareness of their own highbrow stream, and that a sort of neoclassicism is often a part of that concomitant desire to regain something lost. Is there a reference for that notion? Thank you so much in advance.

That was my edit, but not a very fresh idea. On-line—I suppose you aren't near a library— try googling "classicisms" (plural). That way I found an interesting article applying the concept to South Asian dance, not a subject I know:Alessandra Lopez y Royo, "Dance in the British South Asian Diaspora: Redefining Classicism" I notice Bard College is presenting a lecture “The Persistence of Classicisms in Architecture from the 18th Century to the Present.” and the University of Michigan offers HISTART 394.001 Special Topics: Classicisms in Western Art. "I would have welcomed more open advocacy for the neoclassicisms here so ably distinguished and compared..." writes a reviewer of Patrick Deane, At Home in Time: Forms of Neo-Augustanism in Modern English Poetry [1]—the idea is part of ordinary discourse: "What oft was thought, though ne'er so well expressed" as in this article, eh! Good books on Hellenistic sculpture or Sassanian art will deal with the specific "neo"-classicist strains in their respective traditions. --Wetman 00:29, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Pray tell, how was Haydn's music NEO-classical? - Curious User (User:220.245.178.132)

I hunted all through but can't find Haydn mentioned anywhere in this article. "Curious User" will have looked in vain at Neoclassicism (music), also, needless to add. Perhaps the problem is in distinguishing "Neoclassical" from "Classical". --Wetman

And I quote, "Speaking and thinking in English, "neoclassicism" in each art implies a particular canon of "classic" models. We recognize them, even if we struggle against their power: Virgil, Raphael, Nicolas Poussin, Haydn." - Curious User

The distinction is being drawn between "classic" models, like the Renaissance painter Raphael, Roman Virgil, French Poussin, and the classical musician Haydn, and the neoclassical movement that is is the subject of the article. The point being made is that the models are selected out of a vast cultural range of possible models, which might have included Augustine, Socrates, Chartres, Stravinsky, each of whom is a "classic" and a model—but not a model for neoclassicism. Chartres is a "classic' of Gothic architecture: it is neither "classical" nor "neoclassical". Is that clearer?--Wetman 21:05, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

This is not a textbook but an encyclopedia!

I think parts of the article need to be rewritten, because they sound too much like a textbook and not like a text from an encyclopedia. The style has to be changed. I removed a rhetorical question already in the lead. Ben ^T/_C 17:15, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

However text "sounds" to one personally, the genuine criteria satisfy questions like: is the text accurate? does it bring the subject clearly into focus? does it show the reader what to look for? is the material accessible to a normally educated reader? is the level of the text appropriate to its subject? Questions in text are one rhetorical means of expressing matters that are to be considered unproved or unprovable. Rather than delete material, a more fastidious editor might have changed "What could these neoclassicisms have in common?" to "This article addresses what these "neoclassicisms" have in common." --Wetman 05:24, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Trying for the simplest definition.

I'm trying to study for Art History, and since we've already turned in our textbooks it's proving difficult, especially as this page needs to be simplified. I'm not an idiot, but the writing loses me. How hard would a simple description be? (Anonymous I)

Give us your own simple description of Neoclassicism, and let's work to improve it. --Wetman 01:44, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I second the motion....Could we like at some point have a list of what make neoclassicism what it is?? (Anonymous II)

In how many words, before your interest wanders? Seven? Twenty? Have you read through the questions on this page, for a start? --Wetman 01:44, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

-- This page is unclear and gets to points in a round about way that is confusing. Im an English teacher and you need to know that it doesn't matter how much you write if it is unclear!

Vandalism?

I'm sorry, I'm new to wikipedia and I really don't know much about editing, but what can be done about the vandalism on this page? The last edit says that it removed the words "claire is gay" but they're back up again, and someone has written "this is when nukes were made!!!!!!" in all caps all over the article, and the edit option doesn't show either of these as being still on there. On another note, the boxes of text that don't comform to the formatting of the rest of the page are a little obnoxious, because you have to scroll all the way out to read them. Thanks!

74.135.237.113 22:01, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Contemporary neoclassisism

Should there be also mentioned 21th century neoclassic architecture? Also painters who paint in neoclassical style.

Vandalism

I'm sorry, new to wikipedia, and in fact, one of the few article's I've edited. I was currently using wikipedia as a summary source on this article. I've noticed that when I refreshed the page, someone took the trouble to put "Henry the eight I am" in many areas. Well, seeing that I was using the article, I decided to undo this edit. Is it possible that this be at least semi-protected?

Jusuchin Panjirinanu 00:23, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Please excuse the recent vandalism, my students are doing a project on this subject and I am doing my utmost to prevent any vandalism. --67.113.50.158 19:12, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

What's about dates?

Unless this article supplies some reliable dates on the use of the term, it is absolutely not usable for references. And I fear, this is only one of its weak points. --rpd (talk) 23:58, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Certainly dates would help, but isn't "absolutely not usable" an overstatement? JamesBWatson (talk) 10:39, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

"between World War I"

The section on Soviet Neoclassicism refers to "architects born in 1870s, who reached creative peak between World War I", which is nonsense. I should like to correct this sentence, but am unsure what it was intended to mean. Does it mean "round about the 1st world war"? Or "between the 1st world war and [some later time which has accidentally been omitted]"? Or between [some earlier time, omitted] and the first world war"? Or was it written by someone who is not a native speaker of English, who meant "during the first world war"? Or what? If anyone can clarify the meaning then the article can be corrected. If not then it will be tempting to make a guess. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:46, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

• fixed: before. Russian neoclassical revival explains further. NVO (talk) 18:25, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Neoclassicism in literature

This isn't my field, or else I might add something, but why is there nothing on Neoclassicism in literature? Alexander Pope, Dryden, and Milton are all categorized as Neoclassical writers, but there is no mention of the literary movement in this article. Petropoxy (Lithoderm Proxy) (talk) 14:56, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Copyright violation

I think it is the other way around.

• information starting in the Overview section was taken from the website http://www.topofart.com/movements/Neoclassicism/—Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.213.246.130 (talk • contribs)

• It looks like verbatim copyright violation...Modernist (talk) 02:48, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

It looks like the above website copies wikipedia and not the other way around...Modernist (talk) 03:32, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Images

Please, group the images in a bigger gallery section (<gallery></gaellery>), too many images among text makes page heavy for loading and hard to read. --Aleksd (talk) 00:25, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Covert neoclassicism in Modern styles

Charles Perret ???--Salvatore gioitta (talk) 11:30, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Classical revival

Classical revival leads to this article while it should to classicism. can anybody change it? --109.243.59.119 (talk) 22:57, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

"cruft"

OK. starting from beginning: ``subject matter was inspired by martial courage is clearly false without major qualification, and thus inappropriate in this place in the article. David's Oath is civic virtue, his Brutus is again civic virtue, his Sabines is again civic virtue (in fact is marital courage) and that's leaving aside the latter works. About the only one that is actually martial courage is the Andromache mourning Hector & the Thermopylae. Even the Belisarius is actually fidelity. This is just one neo-classicist, but a very major one, and it is clearly false to see inspired by martial courage. The pattern is repeated.

Opposition to modernism is tendentious and unsourced, and not a good comparison. (Modernism is about self-expression? What about the machine? Mechanical art? The Constructivists/Futurists/De Stijl etc.)

c 1765 is an absurd construction. Around 1765? What? why not just say latter half? equally clear, and without the inherent contradiction of around (precise date). Also the date is daft.

Romanticism as ``growing up opposed to neo-classicism is false. See cult of Ossian, works of Fuseli. Both have routes in same mileu and are sometimes opposed sometimes aligned.

Covert neoclassicism implies that something's being hidden, generally not the case here.

203.109.211.160 (talk) 13:37, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Without references this looks like your opinion...Modernist (talk) 13:40, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

o for heaven's sake! Look, the entire first para is a series of references to the actual paintings. That's the references. The second para is a statement of the obvious; if you want me to go find a bunch of statements by modernists decrying individualism in favour of the machine/collective I can do that. Third para is yes opinion, but correct. Fourth para, well, yes, I can go get the Honour book off the shelf if you insist. Fifth is again, well, does anybody think that Corbu wasn't a classicist at heart? All that white's a bit of a giveaway. covert is misleading. 203.109.211.160 (talk) 13:48, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Please add reliable sources, thank you...Modernist (talk) 13:51, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Again, the paintings are reliable sources. Use your eyes. And honestly, I am not going to try and prove that modernsim involved a collectivist, anti-individualist streak, that's just embarrassing yourself. 203.109.211.160 (talk) 13:54, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

I mean, you're actually defending a bit of writing that relied on artsz.org as a source, and didn't even actually get source right?203.109.211.160 (talk) 14:06, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Look, you don't own this page, and I am being bold here, perfectly legitimate activity. At least one of the deleted claims wasn't even backed up by the claimed source. You're also biting a newbie, a pretty childish activity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.109.211.160 (talk) 14:18, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Learn to add references and you will do fine, please remember to address the subject and not other editors...Modernist (talk) 14:21, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

You can't source a deletion of nonsense, by definiton! The claim in first para HAD NO RELIABLE SOURCE! How am I to source that? The discussion of non-western neo-classicism had a `cite' tag! That's a license to kill on your grounds so I dunno why you are throwing a tantrum. I have endeavoured to explain every edit 203.109.211.160 (talk) 14:26, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Tantrum? Who is throwing a tantrum?. Please be mindful of editing policies here, thank you...Modernist (talk) 14:30, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Editing policies? Much as I hate to be a pedant, it is undoubtedly true that I have managed to spot a misleading citation (to a totally unreliable source but we'll leave that for the time being), and after I gave a solid explanation, you have reverted it --- not once, but twice! Forgive me if I think that editing policies are worth little compared to the avoidance of outright falsehood. 203.109.211.160 (talk) 14:36, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Read WP:BRD. You made an edit, an editor reverted and you took it to the talk page--as you should. However, you also reverted that edit and now have violated WP:3RR, not to mention you've been uncivil. You made a bold edit and then two editors disagreed with you. That means, the original revert of your first edit stands until it is resolved here. You don't repeatedly revert because you think you're the only one who is correct. freshacconci talktalk 14:40, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Look, I am really sorry, but watch this!

I quote: The subject-matter of Neoclassical art and literature was inspired by the emphasis on martial courage seen in the Greek and Latin epics.[2]

[2] refers to ``# ^ "Art in Neoclassicism". Artsz.org. 2008-02-26. http://www.artsz.org/neoclassicism-art/. Retrieved 2012-02-12.

We go to the URL. Firstly, nowhere do we see an author, or any kind of solid credible reputation. The page doesn't cite anyone wither. So it's a junk cite, without any value, and should be ignored. But we'll leave that! here is the body text of that article:

``The Neoclassical art movement started around the mid 1700’s and was known for its Greek and Roman influence, but it was more than just a revival of the antiquities, it also represented the political events, and seriousness of the time. It was the period following the Rococo, and neoclassical artists sought to change the frivolous lightness of the previous period. Neoclassicism embodied a desire to return to the perceived “purity” of the arts of Rome. In general, Neoclassicism had austere linear designs and depicted classical themes and subject matters in archaeological settings, with people clothed in Classical costumes. Many of the neoclassical painters integrated Greek and Roman elements into the portraits and paintings of their time, adding fabled beings, and mythological figures became quite common for this artistic period.

Neoclassicism evolved as a reaction of society against the Baroque and Rococo periods, and was perceived as a way of returning to knowledge and a purity of form. It was a time where perfect control, great capability and great artistic knowledge were greatly rewarded. It was not a time for lifeless reproductions, frivolous work or self expression. These characteristics in any of the arts were not sought in this period.

The architecture of the time integrated classical motifs, clean basic lines and much of the Greek and Roman empire architectural elements.

Nowhere in that cite does it use the words martial, or courage. Nowhere does it discuss inspiration deriving from `epics'. In fact, nowhere does it say that ``The subject-matter of Neoclassical art and literature was inspired by the emphasis on martial courage seen in the Greek and Latin epics.

The cite is rotten, and I literally can not understand why you insist on going back to it.