Talk:Art Nouveau

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Miami and Shanghai[edit]

Didn't Miami and Shanghai conserve many samples of Art Nouveau? Or is it Art Deco?

That would be Art Deco you mean, at least in terms of Architecture.

"The movement was the result of intense and flamboyant activity in the visual arts by individuals wishing to change the character of European civilisation. In the first decade of the 20th century it was everywhere. It was simultaneously vulgar and élite, loved and hated. There has been no consensus however, on whether it was a style or a movement. The span of Art Nouveau ranged from 1870 to 1914."

Inserted by an enthusiast who hadn't read through the article. Books on Art Nouveau abound. One could find some early objects from c. 1888 with Art Nouveau touches, if we had a lot of illustrations and a professional audience. No one could find an Art Nouveau object of 1870, however, unless Naturalism and Japonisme were confused with Art Nouveau. Is a "movement" a style that people write about and defend in the press? Is a style something that comes and goes without being discussed? These are empty categories with no information in them. The first sentence is a riff on the word "reform" already in the article. Art Nouveau is not a movement of socialist-anarchists really.
I have added in a couple of informative paragraphs from an orphan article Art Nouveau Jewellery. Are we to have Art Nouveau Textiles Art Nouveau Bookbindings? Too like Pokemon! Wetman 05:27, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Female Artists?[edit]

I understand the time period of the art nouveau movement, but I've searched this page and there are no female artists mentioned anywhere. There must be some... —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:30, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

There are a few...Elisabeth Sonrel, Margaret Macdonald Mackintosh, Milla von Luttich, Mary Golay, Jane Atché, Mary Tytler etc. --Turn685 (talk) 05:24, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Art nouveau and New Art[edit]

When giving the English translation of the name, because this is the English Wikipedia, you can say "Art Nouveau ('new art', in English)" or "Art Nouveau (French for 'new art')". Please do not say "Art Nouveau ('new art' in French)"; that is ambiguous and might possibly imply that "new art" is a French term and that "art nouveau" is a term from a non-French language. The difference is small, and it's true that most readers will "get" things based on context, but the difference in ambiguity is real and complicates automatic translation etc. When Wikifying an article, pay attention to possible changes in meaning when applying changes in style. Thanks. (unsigned comment by 00:46 UTC, 24 July 2005



You should add more imformation about the work that the artist did and who the artist are, because i personlly think that it i very hard to understand. And also i think you should include more about how this movement changed the worlds view on art.


As currently used in this article the meaning of the word is obscure and needs elaboration. pmr 11:08, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Replaced it with "eclectic historic revival styles" --Wetman 21:53, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Art Nouveau, Architecture, Images[edit]

I would like to point out that images used within an article should illustrate the subject in a graphical and obvious manner. The scope of Art Nouveau as an architectural style is quite limited, often confined in interiors and as decoration. The recent addition of pictures of St Petersburg buildings is confusing to the reader, while the Vokzal station or the Hotel Europe seem to be known for their Art Nouveau interiors, their neo classical facades, as interesting they may be, hardly illustrate the subject. The extravagant St Louis World Fair entrance or the Bellas Artes Palace in Mexico are confusing enough in that only elements of their architecture display an "Art Nouveau" character. At best, only the dome of the Vokzal station betrays its "Art Nouveau" influence, but then it's much more obvious on the Bellas Artes Palace. Anyway, I'm removing the pictures of facades of St Petersburg buildings, they just aren't illustrating "Art Nouveau" in a useful way for the casual reader, making the article more confusing. Equendil Talk 16:40, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the above and would go further. Far too many of the illustrations on this page relate to architecture, conveying the false impression that this was the main mode of expression in art nouveau. It was not. Could an editor more intrepid than I please undertake a revision or at the very least second this before the article is revised?Neuroradiologist (talk) 02:16, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Similarly, I'd like to cast doubts on the "Demon seated in a garden" by Mikhail Vrubel as illustrating "Art Nouveau". I just don't see it. Equendil Talk 17:01, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

In general the emphasis of this article on architecture seems misplaced. There is not sufficient discussion and illustration of objects for daily living produced in the art nouveau style. The casual reader might benefit from more on LC Tiffany, Ecole Nancy, Liberty, and the multiple well known German firms as well as the influence of Bing and other promoters of the new style. Discussion and illustration of architecture ought to be pared down. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:47, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

External links[edit]

I think we should restore the external link to architecture in Riga in the external links section. It seems they have a noteworthy concentration. I found the pictures interesting, appropriate, and not particularly commercial. Hu 18:51, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

  • It's a commercial site with several layers of ads, that kills the site right away for me, though the domain name in big letters across every picture was pretty effective too.
  • The site is a travel guide for Riga, with just one gallery of pictures related to Art Nouveau and no text. That's rather light as far as content goes. Lack of comments makes it especially bad. An architectural style such as "deconstructivism" is strinkingly obvious in pictures, Art Nouveau is a bit more subtle in that it's more about decoration than the global shape of buildings or global elements of architecture. If you don't direct readers, they'll stare at pictures wondering what they all have in common. Riga's Art Nouveau is rather atypical in places also, which would merit even further explanations. Equendil Talk 20:34, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
That being said, Riga is certainly noteworthy here, I just don't think this site is the right one. Equendil Talk 20:36, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Contemporary Art Nouveau[edit]

How about someone, who knows a bit more about it than I do, add a section about contemporary art nouveau. I can't think of any contemporary buildings in the style, off the top of my head, but a lot of modern bars have very art nouveau interiors, so the style is still alive.--Richy 17:23, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

No such thing, I'm afraid. Those pub bars, cinemas, etc that seek to emulate the Art Nouveau style cannot claim to be truly Art Nouveau and are nothing but pastiche. Some converted bars, on the other hand, (such as the Regal in Cambridge) are true examples of an Art Deco building undergoing a change of use. Cheers – Agendum 14:33, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

French Art Nouveau glass[edit]

An excellent non-commercial site on the major glassworks, deleted no doubt because it is in Italian. Someone may want to use it. --Wetman 13:31, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Scope problems[edit]

This page seems rather broad in scope. A general and exhaustive overview of "Art Nouveau" around the world is given without advancing some distinction between the main Art Nouveau "schools" (Paris, Brussels, Glasgow, Nancy...) or centres and local schools of only secondary importance. The paragraphs about creations called "Art Nouveau" in f.a. eastern and northern Europe, south America..., would be more appropriate in sub-categories. Some examples that are given belong to historical and exotic styles (f.a. Bellas Artes in Mexico City, Station of Sint-Petersburg...) and have nothing to do with Art Nouveau except that they were built around 1900.

Extent of practitioners[edit]

The statement "Art Nouveau was a movement that greatly influenced many artists and designers and later progressed onto the De Stijl movement (from 1880―1905) and the German Bauhaus school (early 1920s―1930s)." seems to be an exaggeration and doesn't apply to all AN designers and artists. Does anyone have back up on this? The only confirmation I have is for van de Velde. It is really time to fix this un-cited article. LPFixIt (talk) 02:19, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I propose we remove Mikhail Vrubel from this article. If we read the Wiki entry about him: "is usually regarded as the greatest Russian painter of the Symbolist movement. In reality, he deliberately stood aloof from contemporary art trends, so that the origin of his unusual manner should be sought in the Late Byzantine and Early Renaissance painting." it states attachment to other categories not AN.--LPFixIt (talk) 01:58, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

The Melbourne City Baths look more like Russian Revival architecture rather than AN. Shall we remove? Is the interior art nouveau? —Preceding unsigned comment added by LPFixIt (talkcontribs) 02:18, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Again, I think the article should stay focused...Ze'ev Raban was only 15 years old when AN ended. The artist's main article declares he worked in the Bezalel school style and later than the original AN movement.--LPFixIt (talk) 03:26, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Merger proposal (Jugendstil)[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
The result was merge Jugendstil into Art Nouveau. --Stomme (talk) 23:35, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

It's easy to walk away from this article (and the Jugendstil one) being rather confused about the use of these terms. Jugendstil is, in fact, the German term for Art Nouveau. Any differences between what one finds in Darmstadt or other places are regional differences, just as in Belgian cities like Brussels, Antwerp and so on... Therefore, I propose merging Jugendstil into Art Nouveau. Please Support, Oppose or Discuss below. --Stomme (talk) 17:41, 11 April 2008 (UTC)


  • Support as nom, since we're just talking about usage for some style and Art Nouveau is primary usage in English --Stomme (talk) 17:41, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Support per nom. Good call, Stomme. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 17:59, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
  • The book Art Nouveau by Sterner supports this by citing active journals in Germany including one called "Jugend". She also cites Jugendstil art associations in Germany.--LPFixIt (talk) 19:53, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Support. as long as there are good subsections on the national varients, Renne Macintosh ain't Mucha. Roger Warren (talk) 23:07, 16 April 2008 (UTC)Roger Warren


I am concerned that the article will open up to an overly broad scope - which it already suffers from. As long as we do diligence to properly define the artistic style.--LPFixIt (talk) 19:53, 11 April 2008 (UTC)


  • Can the proponents give us an idea of how the new article would look? If one types "Jugenstil" into the search engine, would the user be directed to Art Nouveau? --LPFixIt (talk) 19:53, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Including the German name puts some context with the phrase Art Nouveau - see the user's comments above.--LPFixIt (talk) 19:53, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
  • As for the article becoming too broad, it simply a matter of recognising that Art Nouveau is the same thing as Jugendstil, just in two different languages (German and French). If the article talks about Art Nouveau in Germany, Austria, and many countries that have adopted the German term—which it does—then it is an article discussing Jugendstil as well. There is certainly a place for specialised articles, as various ideas get developed, but for now it's like having an two different articles on Aubergines and Eggplants. For example, there could be an article on Jugendstil in Germany or in Vienna, and so forth. But the premise of the current article is that Art Nouveau is an international movement, and with internationalisation comes adopted terminology as the style spreads. Which leads to the question: yes, Jugendstil would redirect to Art Nouveau when discussing it in it's general terms. And the header would discuss this (probably a bit better than what I have already added). An honest Jugendstil article would say something like: "Jugendstil is the German term for Art Nouveau, and has been adopted when discussing the use of the style in Germany and in many northern, central and eastern European countries." Hey, I like that! --Stomme (talk) 21:38, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Also: The book referred to by Sterner is a translation (I think) of the German book Jugendstil: Kunstformen zwischen Individualismus u. Massengesellschaft, published in English as Art nouveau, an art of transition: from individualism to mass society. The bibliography information in the article seems to be for the German publication (1975, Cologne). You might double check that the publication date (and translation) isn't 1982. --Stomme (talk) 22:11, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
  • (not that this means it is proper but) In US colleges, Art Nouveau is presented as AN and secondarily presented as Jugenstil. The hierarchy may be unfair to German culture/language, but it looks as though the French name is primary. I really appreciate the effort Stomme put into this article.
The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.


The Sterner book I was using is the third edition: copyright 1977, it is also the first English language version of 1982. Shall I fix in the footnotes? —Preceding unsigned comment added by LPFixIt (talkcontribs) 01:04, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Jugendstil pronunciation[edit]

Okay, I've never messed with an IPA key before, but I wanted to give it a shot for Jugendstil since the article has the pronunciation for Art Nouveau. Could somebody who understands IPA better than I give an opinion? Here is what I get for Jugendstil: [juː gɛnt ʃtil]

Or maybe somebody at least knows where we can find it already converted to IPA... --Stomme (talk) 14:14, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Merge - Link to old Jugendstil talk page[edit]

Article merged: For reference, here is the old talk-page Jugendstil --Stomme (talk) 23:35, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Bold type[edit]

The use of bold type in the lists of cities and artists is getting out of control. Is there a standard for deciding which ones are truly important and those which are not? I think the tendency has been for various editors to add bold type to whichever cities and artists they think are important, without benefit of evidence. We might be better off removing the bold type altogether. Any thoughts? ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 20:39, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I think the whole list of cities is serving no purpose, none of the entries are substantiated, their links won't provide additional information about Art Nouveau, having so many cities listed is contrary to the idea that they are "centers" of anything, and the bold type is more evidence there's something wrong with that list. Notable "centers" of Art Nouveau should be mentioned in the body of the article, in context (and we do have several sections covering just that already). The rest need not clutter this article.
The list of "practitioners" is a vaguely more useful, at least their entries might be somewhat related to the subject, but it's a similar case. Undiscriminating lists such as this are best covered by categories, and as above, notable people should appear in the body of the article.
I'll be bold and dispose of the city listing. Equendil Talk 04:00, 8 September 2008 (UTC)


The opening sentence is rather annoying to read because it contains two parentheses followed by an 'also known...' with another parenthesis. Surely this can be broken up so as to make the sentence more readable? (talk) 13:10, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Done. Please note that everyone can edit Wikipedia. Equendil Talk 21:33, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Jugendstil in Germany - Center in Hamburg? Nope![edit]

In the Germany section the city of Hamburg is called out as the center of the German Jugendstil movement. I believe this to be incorrect. The German Jugendstil article calls out Munich and Darmstadt as the main centers, as do the articles about Darmstadt and Munich themselves (check both English and German versions, search for Jugendstil). Nowhere is Hamburg mentioned or called out as a center of Art Noveau or Jugendstil.

I am removing the mentioning of Hamburg and will replace it with Munich and Darmstadt in the Germany section. If you disagree please provide a reason why Hamburg should stay - thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:31, 14 December 2009 (UTC) Changes done. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cyberroach (talkcontribs) 06:34, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Belgium, Switzerland and France[edit]

Alphonse Mucha is Czech artist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:18, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Too many architecture pictures[edit]

I've noticed an overabundance of art nouveau architecture photos here. I do think architecture should be represented but there's almost no paintings/other works by artists. The whole movement should not be confined so I will be changing out some photos. --Turn685 (talk) 12:28, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. Awien (talk) 12:48, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

File:HortaELWI.jpg Nominated for Deletion[edit]

Image-x-generic.svg An image used in this article, File:HortaELWI.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests March 2012
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:HortaELWI.jpg)

This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 20:18, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Head hurts[edit]

The lede goes on for several pages, and is impossible to follow. Doesn't anybody who knows more about this want to make it less... overwhelming? The intro is pretty much a full page, and with more links than can be handled. What happened to the lede being a *summary* of the article? Dendlai (talk) 13:07, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Agree -- the lede is supposed to merely summarize what is discussed at length in the body text. Instead, the body text of this article completely ignores most of the lede and is therefore missing much important information. The body text is skimpy, jumpy, and out of order. All that stuff in the lead needs to be moved to the body. The lead only needs to be a couple of sentences. Softlavender (talk) 08:35, 31 December 2012 (UTC)


The Art Nouveau Article is exceedingly long in my opinion."Selene Scott (talk) 18:57, 31 July 2012 (UTC)"

Agree. The whole article is too long, some content should be moved to separate articles. The introduction in particular is too long, too many details, content should be moved into separate sections. Regards --Erik den yngre (talk) 13:25, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
At 56k, the article is not so long as to require splitting. Please try to re-organise the article before splitting. Op47 (talk) 12:36, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps it's OK with some better structure. --Erik den yngre (talk) 13:47, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Separate new articles[edit]

This is just an idea but maybe there could be separate articles about Art Nouveau in other countries. Like Art Nouveau in Spain or Art Nouveau in Italy where more of this in depth information could be transferred to. There's a lot of photos and country-specific info on the article which could be moved to separate pages. It also looks like there's people adding more and more photos to represent their country's inclusion in the article. There's so much history in each country it might be better to start new pages and expand there. --Turn685 (talk) 21:03, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

It's also hard to cover every country's history of art nouveau on one page. An idea could be to have the page represent a broad idea of Art Nouveau with specific information channeled into other pages. --Turn685 (talk) 21:06, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
That's a possible solution to the issues suggested above. The article is perhaps not too long only counting words, but lots of aspects of Art Nouveau treated in a single article makes it a bit complex to read and too edit. This will particularly be the case if more material is added for each country, and I imagine that there is indeed a lot more than can be said about this topic with regard for instance to Latvia, Norway or Austria. A possible to start may be to be to create separate articles when the country-specific section is so long that it deserves it's own page. --Erik den yngre (talk) 18:09, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
The idea may be a good one, but it is not really appropriate to use split tags since the article currently does not have sufficient material to justify splitting. If on the other hand if you were to write an article called e.g. "Art Nouveau in X" then you could just go ahead and create it. Op47 (talk) 22:08, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
OK, perhaps remove the split tag, but the intro is still too long and complex in my opinion Regards, --Erik den yngre (talk) 12:13, 13 June 2013 (UTC)


This article has been needing some type of reorganization for a long time now. So I've made a go at reorganizing the entire thing. All of the information in the article is still there and has been moved into sections that will help flow the material. After moving the information around I also realized that there were large parts of history the article is lacking (for instance, the info for France). If there is any information that is missing, I apologize ahead of time because I've spent a lot of effort to copy every single sentence. If something doesn't flow right or needs editing feel free to improve on it. I hope the article is a lot easier to read now with these changes. --Turn685 (talk) 21:16, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your effort. It seems that the geographical section may still need some reorganization. Particularly the two headings "around the world" and "outside Europe" are not logical. For instance Latvia belongs to section on Eastern Europe, while France and Germany perhaps Western Europe. --Erik den yngre (talk) 11:24, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for pointing that out. As a non-european I wasn't sure if Latvia was considered part of eastern europe or northern europe. The article might need some more work on the geography part....--Turn685 (talk) 20:13, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
  • I'm afraid I'm somewhat appalled by the changes of the last months. The lead is now far too short, & full of stuff that should be in "Naming". Something needs to be done about the Olympic opening ceremony format too. Johnbod (talk) 12:38, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Czech lands[edit]

Czech lands (Czech: České země) is an auxiliary term that is used mainly to describe the three historical regions of Bohemia, Moravia and Czech Silesia, which compose the Czech Republic. Hafspajen (talk) 12:32, 19 October 2013 (UTC)


The galleries are smaller px to allow more pictures. The others are bigger to show the details. The thumb sizes are uneven, there is a reason why there is px sizes. Everything is well balanced, even rows and there is a balance between the text and the pictures. Once somebody starts changing the size, everything is collapsing. Hafspajen (talk) 21:52, 21 October 2013 (UTC) Hohum, you don't like talkig to me or what? Hafspajen (talk) 18:18, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict). upright=0.9 allows your desire for 200px images, and also lets users choose for themselves via their user preferences. See WP:IMGSIZE. What may look great on your particular resolution, monitor size, and browser, probably doesn't suit everyone, so this gives them both choices. (Hohum @) 18:19, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
Additionally, gallery mode ="packed" allows for *larger* images in the same space. (Hohum @) 18:21, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Edward Everard Facade[edit]

This is without a doubt one of the glories of the Arts and Crafts Movement but what makes it Art Nouveau? — Preceding unsigned comment added by SimonW11 (talkcontribs) 10:59, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Lead image[edit]

Hi! The current photo "Loïe Fuller Table Lamp by François-Raoul Larche gilt bronze" isn't all that characteristic for the Art Nouveau style. I don't consider it to be a good lead picture for this topic. I'd prefer a painting or an architecture photo like this one, it's essentially Nouveau. -- Cheers Horst-schlaemma (talk) 15:39, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

I sort of agree, although there is some value in not showing the predictable architecture or decorative arts. There is room for 2 images here. I'd prefer not to have a painting (as opposed to a print - none are exactly "characteristic" of AN, even Klimt. Johnbod (talk) 17:00, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
Alright I wanted to say "print" instead of "painting", my bad. :) -- Horst-schlaemma (talk) 19:20, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Switch out pics under fine art section[edit]

how about this one
Hi, I'd like to mention that I think some of the pictures under the fine art section should be replaced. There's seven Mucha pics and while he was a great influence on Art Nouveau, Mucha does not represent the entire print/poster movement of Art Nouveau. Turn➦ 05:27, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
Maybe. The glass & ceramics sections also have lots of the same people, though nice pics. Meanwhile Klimt is right down at the bottom - how many ever get that far? Is that German banknote really AN, or worth having? Johnbod (talk) 02:27, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
.Good point. You may all try to help finding pics, I spent quite a lot of time trying to find for example glass & ceramics and was not much I found that was satisfactory. More and other print/poster would also be fine. And the pictures about Klimt and other artists should maybe presented differently. Hafspajen (talk) 02:38, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
I went and switched out two of the seven Mucha pictures but feel that they still aren't fully representative (especially when you have artists like Mackintosh and Toorop). I agree that Klimt should be presented differently. Maybe switch out a larger pic with a Klimt painting? The lack of diversity of ceramic/glass objects may be because of the selection on wikicommons but that is just my guess. Turn➦ 12:55, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
I've made some changes - the bank-notes are gone etc. Johnbod (talk) 02:56, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
Some quite good changes. Hafspajen (talk) 02:58, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
Thanks! That's it for now, Johnbod (talk) 03:01, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Proposed montage for lead image[edit]

I'd like to suggest that we have a montage for the lead image, as the French article on the subject does, which represents different media and the major countries involved. I've put together the image below, using images from the article, and would welcome your comments and suggestions. SiefkinDR (talk) 16:44, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Jugend magazine cover 1896.jpg
Alfons Mucha - F. Champenois Imprimeur-Éditeur.jpg
Louis comfort tiffany, lampada da tavolo pomb lily, 1900-10 ca..JPG
Louis Majorelle - Wall Cabinet - Walters 6587.jpg
Tassel House stairway.JPG
I don't like these, especially in visual subjects. The images are all too small. That's not to say the current puics don't have problems - the lead two are much too vertical, and enormous with a default setting of 300px, like I have. I don't think the top one is very representative either. Johnbod (talk) 17:01, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
Alfons Mucha - F. Champenois Imprimeur-Éditeur.jpg
Louis comfort tiffany, lampada da tavolo pomb lily, 1900-10 ca..JPG
Louis Majorelle - Wall Cabinet - Walters 6587.jpg
Tassel House stairway.JPG
How about this? The main advantage of a montage is that you can represent several aspects; architecture, graphic art, furniture, glass. all of the images in the montage can be clicked to enlarge them, and they are also found in the article itself, with more complete captions and descriptions. I agree that the present image is not typical of art nouveau, as described in the content of the article. How about this? It represents architecture, graphics, furniture, and glass. and Belgium, France, and the United States. Cordially, SiefkinDR (talk) 09:53, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
300px was too large. Just reduced to 220px. Coldcreation (talk) 10:18, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Art Nouveau. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:48, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Style Moderne[edit]

For a discussion on the term Style Moderne, its origins, its relation to Art Nouveau and subsequently Art Deco, refer to Talk:Art Deco, Style Moderne. Coldcreation (talk) 10:23, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Dear Coldcreation: Thanks for catching my error about Sagrada Familia; I didn't know it was Basilica. It doesn't seem like it's ever going to be finished, does it?

i'm going to be adding more illustrations and text to the sections on the national forms of Art Nouveau. I'm particularly interested in the Russian version, since I lived there for eight years. By the way, I'm moving a little towards your position on the term Style Moderne; I see that Bing mentions it by name in his advertising for the Maison de l'Art Nouveau, as he mentions Tiffany style. I still think Art Nouveau was the most common term used in France, along with the English 'Modern Style.' Jean Lahor mentions that the British and French showed their dislike for each other by using each other's terms for Art Nouveau. As for the use of "Style Moderne" for Art Deco,

I see that Alistair Duncan writes that most early Art Deco furniture and decoration from 1910 was only slightly different from Art Nouveau; Sue and Mare made a few stylized bouquets and garlands, added bright colors smoothed out some of the curves, and used very expensive woods and materials, but otherwise it was very similar; it was luxury furniture. The really modern version didn't arrive until the split within the Union of Decorative Artists after 1925 when they divided into the contemporaines and the modernists. Or at least that's Duncan's version. Somehow we'll sort it all out. Cordially, SiefkinDR (talk) 15:40, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Latvia section[edit]

What happened to the section about Art Nouveau in Latvia? Riga is the city with the highest concentration of Art Nouveau architecture anywhere in the world. Yakikaki (talk) 20:26, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Art Nouveau or Art nouveau?[edit]

I have real doubts about the wisdom of using The spelling Art nouveau instead of Art Nouveau in the text of the article. The common spelling in both US and British English is Art Nouveau; this spelling is used by Britannica, the Metropolitan Museum, The National Gallery and other sources. And in general in other articles. Snce this is the English language Wikipedia, shouldn't we use the generally accepted English terms? Respectfully, SiefkinDR (talk) 20:58, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. It has only been like this for a couple of months, and was changed without discussion. Feel free to change it back. Johnbod (talk) 03:54, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
This is an eternal problem here at wiki, between how terms are capitalized in the U.S. and how the same terms are not in France. Here we capitalize. Coldcreation (talk) 08:23, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
 Done. Coldcreation (talk) 07:17, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
Dear respected colleagues: Although in disagreement with above comments, Britannica included, RE the capitalization of nouveau in the name of an art period that is French-French, and as the guilty one at having corrected Anglo-French into Franco-French :) I hereby solemnly (and reluctantly) swear to leave Art Nouveau as is in article - so help me Seshat!
Cordially, --Blue Indigo (talk) 12:47, 20 March 2017 (UTC)


AN is italicised throughout apart from in the article title and first words. Avant-garde isn't and Beaux-Arts architecture is inconsistent. Should AN be in italics where it is not part of a published work? Philafrenzy (talk) 21:35, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

I would regard the term as completely naturalised into English at this point, so not needing to be italicised. My old (78?) paper Britannica agrees. Awien (talk) 23:50, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
Absolutely, should not be italicized. I've gone ahead and removed italics from the term Art Nouveau. (Here's where italics were introduced). Coldcreation (talk) 04:57, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
I agree, no italics. Thanks for changing this. SiefkinDR (talk) 08:57, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Incomprehensible and unsourced text[edit]

"Art Nouveau architecture made use of many technological innovations of the late 19th century, especially the use of exposed iron and large, irregularly shaped pieces of glass for architecture. By the start of World War I, however, the stylised nature of Art Nouveau design began to be disused in favour of more streamlined, rectilinear modernism—thought to be more faithful to the plainer industrial aesthetic that became Art Deco."

I find this paragraph incomprehensible. Is it saying that art deco has a plain industrial aesthetic? Glass and iron were hardly innovations of the late 19th century; they were around since early part of the century. How did this section jump suddenly from art nouveau to modernism? How did it conclude that art deco emerged from industrial design? Streamlining came much later, not by the start of World War I. Since there's no citation, this appears to be someone's personal opinion. It needs to be better supported by facts and citations or it should be removed. SiefkinDR (talk) 16:08, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

I deleted it, its factually wrong and only leads to confusion. (talk) 22:44, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

How exactly can this article be improved to reach B level and what are its biggest shortfalls as of now ?[edit]

Curios to see how can this be improved — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:58, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

That's a very good question. Did the the last rater give any indications? It seems to me to be pretty well cited, neutral and comprehensive.

I would say there are two things that could be done fairly easily and quickly.

1. Remove the rather large number of dead links
2. Add citations to sections without them or remove them. There aren't too many, but they stand out.

-It also might be possible to remove some duplication, where the same buildings or art are discussed in both the historical section and the sections by region, but some of that will probably be inevitable.

I'll see what I can do on the first two points, Cordially, SiefkinDR (talk) 17:57, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Deleted repetitive text[edit]

Deleted 3 instances of unsourced text that says the same in essence. Art Nouveau is succeeded by Art Deco. There is no need for that, it already says so in start of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:52, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Merger proposal (Modernisme)[edit]

I propose that Modernisme be merged into Art Nouveau. It is Catalan term for Art Nouveau and I think it belongs here, would like to here what everyone thinks. MrStefanWolf (talk) 23:59, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Oppose - Like Vienna Secession sufficiently distinct, & with a decent article, to make this not beneficial. The header seems wrong! Johnbod (talk) 00:14, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
Oh wow I would propose Vienna Secession than too, think it would be good and helpful to have them all on one place (plus they are already mentioned cause they are regional Art Nouveau). Please fix if you can/want cause I am not so skilled in Wikipedia use. MrStefanWolf (talk) 00:30, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
Oppose per Johnbod. Coldcreation (talk) 03:00, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
Oppose; it is a distinct style, and merits a separate article.SiefkinDR (talk) 07:30, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
Although it is still early, consensus seems to be emerging. Since majority seems to be in favor of keeping distinct regional styles than according to consensus - Jugendstil Germany, Secession in Central Europe (some call it Hungarian secession), Stile Liberty(Italy), Tiffany Style (USA), World of Art (Russia) and Jugendstil in Nordic countries should have their own articles that should be cross-referenced (way this article can be improved already by linking existing articles). Cause it seems a bit inconsistent that Glasgow School, Vienna Secession and Catalan Modernisme have articles while others do not. Do not want to jump the shark thought, plenty of voices to be heard.MrStefanWolf (talk) 10:16, 11 October 2018 (UTC)