Talk:John Constable

Copyvio

This page was overwritten by an anon with the text from theartgallery.com.au. That looks like a very good source of information should someone want to integrate it into the article. I've reverted the changes and hope someone can expand this stub. violet/riga (t) 10:03, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Dedham?

It looks like Dedham has been the single most popular subject of Constable's paintings. However, I can't find any solid information about it, and nothing at all in WP. Has that place fallen off the map? Rl 15:33, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Broken Link

Bridge cottage link doesn't work, needs to be http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flatford:_Bridge_Cottage

Stoke-by-Nayland?

Just passing by, but can anyone add information about Stoke-by-Nayland? It's a sketch and an oil-on-canvas painting. Blue Wizard 21:09, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

techinics

there should be moer about what techinces he used

Impressionism

In the intro to J M W Turner it rightly states that Turner was a major precursor of Impressionism. Should not the same be stated here for John Constable, who also shares this enviable privilege? While it does state that John Constable was such a precursor, in a low-key sort of way, lower down in the article, maybe it can be given the same frontline type of prominence we find in the Turner article? Just a suggestion I leave to others to ponder over. thanks Peter morrell 07:45, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

But the Turner article may have the emphasis wrong (don't forget, this article is referenced, whereas J M W Turner is not). Anthony Bailey's biography of Turner makes but one reference to Impressionism, and that very cautious: "Many of these watercolours could be called 'hazy'. Many—with their quick dashes of paint and hatched strokes of colour—could (with our hindsight) be described as vital precursors of Impressionism and Pointillism" (p 377). And we also know that when Monet and Pisarro visited London, they didn't like Turner and preferred the Pre-Raphaelites. As for Constable, the only influence we can document is on Delacroix and on the Barbizon School, who both certainly influenced the Impressionists; so the influence is indirect. I would argue, therefore, that this article has the matter about right (if anything, the word "inspired" is a bit strong). qp10qp 08:47, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Maybe...but I think you should provide a sound reference for your contention, as there are numerous references that claim J M W Turner and John Constable, as well as Boudin, as the major precursors of Impressionism. You have to counter those with an even better reference, I would suggest. As things stand it seems incontestible that all three were indeed just about equally precursors in technique of Impressionism. So I fail to see your objection to the mooted amendment.Peter morrell 09:00, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, it is up to you to provide a reference, not me. All I have done is looked this morning at my books on Impressionism, Constable, and Turner, and I am unable to do from those or I would have carried such an edit out. That Constable was a precursor of the Impressionists is undoubted and is a matter of art criticism. One can see that Monet's careful mapping of changes in atmospheric conditions, for example, was similar to that of Constable. If you want to add something like that to the article, with references, go ahead: no one could argue. But Bailey's word "hindsight" is crucial.qp10qp 09:22, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

PS. I never used the word inspired, I said precursor....so how can you say 'inspired is a bit strong?' you clearly misread it.Peter morrell

I was referrring to the use of the word "inspired" in the present article.qp10qp 09:13, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I hope no one minds my jumping in, but my reading of the references on both Turner and Constable would suggest that QP10QP is on the safer ground. Leslie talks about Constable's relationship to the French painters. A handful of Constable's paintings were sent to Paris where they were viewed by Delacroix and others and much admired, particularly the Hay Wain. But Constable never followed up (he had strong feelings about the French). The word 'precursor' has much more meaning behind it than just 'occured prior to'. When used in this context it does indeed have elements of 'inspiration' implicit in it and should be used with great care. In Turner's case, if he is a precursor at all, it is largely in his focus on light, not in his technique which is quite distant from the impressionistic approach. Turner did sketches in plein air, but always returned to his studio to paint the final canvas, as did Constable. I have seen little that indicates that the impressionists turned to Turner or Constable as precursors. The argument has always been, and I think it is still sound, that the impressionists founded their interest in light on the new art of photography. I think the desire to see them as precursors is one made more in retrospect ("hindsight") that something similar seems to be going on in their canvases and those of the impressionists, and perhaps as a way of searching out the rather extraordinary fact that these two painters have no really accomplished successors or schools following in their wakes. No, the relationship between Constable and Turner and the impressionists is a difficult topic. If it goes in, I would recommend it be stated with great care, and that it include the sense of uncertainty the topic has raised in scholarly circles. Mddietz 16:06, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I very much agree with this.qp10qp 12:00, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Planned expansion

I am planning to expand the article, with a view to perhaps putting it forward for FAC, all being well. The last time I developed the page, I was thinking of submitting for Good Article but didn't have enough sources at my fingertips then. Now I have most of the best sources available to me and will try to do the job properly. For a while, the article may be unbalanced while I build up one part or another—I'm going to start with the analysis sections and turn to the biography later. (I will probably overdo things at first and trim later.) I've started by putting in a good bibliography: as time goes by, all these sources will be cited. qp10qp (talk) 10:11, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

If you need any help proofreading, copyediting, etc., I'm very willing to provide it; Constable is a painter that interests me very much. (Unfortunately, I only have the Sunderland book, so I can't really add much information to the article.) Speaking of a good bibliography, perhaps it wouldn't hurt to break it into sections? Biography (including the correspondence) / Works (general collections) / Specific topics (like "John Constable's Skies"), something like that. I've done that for John Cage and Sonatas and Interludes and it really helped, in my opinion. Just a suggestion. --Jashiin (talk) 11:14, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the list will expand, I'm sure: this is just a start. I'm not intending to use the huge catalogues of Reynolds or Beckett's many volumes of the correspondence (my reason is that I will be using subsequent material that refers to them, which I think is the safest approach for Wikipedia), but these should go on any bibliography without doubt. There is a school of thought which says that every book listed in a Wikipedia article should be cited or go in "Further reading". I'm not so sure about that, since it will be plain enough from the footnotes which sources on the list have been cited and which not; but if this does go to FAC (and to Peer Review before that), no doubt the style of the listing will be thrashed out then. For the moment, I'm just going to work to one list, which, as you say, might bear splitting up later. qp10qp (talk) 14:50, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I am going to postpone this for a bit. I've been preparing some material offline, but an FAR has come up which I think I should prioritise. Will be back. qp10qp (talk) 14:55, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

"Parkinson 1998"

There are numerous footnotes to "Parkinson 1998", yet the book isn't listed in the Bibliography section, so what book is "Parkinson 1998"?--Johnbull (talk) 20:44, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. Many thanks. qp10qp (talk) 22:49, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Windmill painting

Constable painted a few windmills, amongst them one at Folkestone. A copy of the image has been uploaded to Commons and can be found here. Feel free to add it to the article. I'm not sure where to add it so will leave it to others more familiar with the subject. Mjroots (talk) 16:33, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Cholate Box Art

The link to the article "Chocolate Box Art" has no context whatsoever, nor any explanation of its raison d'être within this article. I can furthermore sense implicit critical undertones. I am an average reader, and not a "Wikipedian", so I apologize if this comment does not follow your guidelines. Julia 24.255.25.146 (talk) 15:59, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree & have removed it. It would be ok as an internal link in a proper context, but not as a "see also". Constable's critics may have gone so far as to call his art "barbaric" but that wouldn't justify an unexplained link to Barbarianism. Ewulp (talk) 01:53, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

What is this?

In the opening para "He is also a 15 year old boy.[2]" It is nonsense as it stands 86.173.98.24 (talk) 02:08, 7 February 2013 (UTC)