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


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... (talk) 16:24, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

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


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

--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) hurry, HOWEVER, I think waiting 7 years is long enough don't you?--Amadscientist (talk) 00:54, 23 February 2012 (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)
  • 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[edit]

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?[edit]

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:

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![edit]

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.[edit]

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!


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! 22:01, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Contemporary neoclassisism[edit]

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


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. -- 19:12, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

What's about dates?[edit]

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"[edit]

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)

Neoclassicism in literature[edit]

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)

I cannot find any response to this question. There is an obvious lack here. Rwood128 (talk) 14:54, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Copyright violation[edit]

I think it is the other way around.

  • 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)


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[edit]

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

Classical revival[edit]

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


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. (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. (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. (talk) 13:54, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
I mean, you're actually defending a bit of writing that relied on as a source, and didn't even actually get source right? (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 (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 (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. (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". 2008-02-26. 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.

(end of the article) — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:52, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:51, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

  • Please remain WP:CIVIL and refrain from WP:NPA. The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth see WP:V before removing any more material - either add a better reliable source or change what is written to more correctly reflect the reliable source that you have found, thank you...Modernist (talk) 14:57, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Hang on, let me check. You are claiming that you would rather let an actual falsehood --- a cite that doesn't actually back up the claim --- stand, rather than delete it? What I am saying is that the article cited does not say what the Wikipedia article claims it does. That's enough to make the cite useless. You don't need any other evidence. This is really puzzling me. (talk) 14:59, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

I should also note that I am prefectly happy with verifiability as a standard: you cannot in all conscience claim is (a) reliable source, or (b) ``directly supports the information in an article. (talk) 15:07, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

And the burden of evidence is on you! We've got WP:BURDEN and WP:NOTRS here, and you're on the wrong side of both. Seriously, this is pretty crappy behaviour. Who do I complain to around here?. (talk) 15:12, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Read all of WP:BURDEN as it mainly applies to WP:BLP issues which this is not. You give no time for editors to respond to your comments here before reverting nor do you give any time to find sources. Instead you edit war and insult other editors that you disagree with. Does this content need reliable sourcing? Of course it does, unless it falls under common knowledge. However, just because you believe something to be true (i.e. David being known for using pastel colours), does not make it necessarily so, especially if you do not provide a source to back up that claim. This is why I mentioned WP:BRD: there is an editing dispute and we should discuss it here. You do not violate WP:3RR because you think you are correct. And since this does not involve potentially libelous material and a living person, WP:BURDEN is not really important. Repeatedly blanking whole sections based on your opinion alone is bad form. Any complaints you want to make should go here: WP:AN. freshacconci talktalk 15:24, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
your reading of burden is wrong:

`` Burden of evidence

The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. You may remove any material lacking a reliable source that directly supports it (although an alternate procedure would be to add a citation needed tag). Whether and how quickly this should happen depends on the material and the overall state of the article. Editors might object if you remove material without giving them time to provide references. It has always been good practice to try to find and cite supporting sources yourself. Do not leave unsourced or poorly sourced material in an article if it might damage the reputation of living people; you should also be aware of how the BLP policy applies to groups.[2]

Given that it clearly states there's a stronger version of burden that applies solely to living persons, there must be a weaker version that applies to all articles. Further, there is nothing that restricts the scope, and given where it sits in the policy, it is clear it is intended to apply to all articles. (talk) 15:43, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Further, clearly I did try and discuss the changes. There was no attempt at engaging with the reasons given, and no assumption of good faith, and what if it weren't for the fact I am not a newbie at all, I would call biting. (talk) 15:46, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Read it all: "Whether and how quickly this should happen depends on the material and the overall state of the article. Editors might object if you remove material without giving them time to provide references. It has always been good practice to try to find and cite supporting sources yourself.". Which part of that is unclear? And the only part that calls for all-out removal in all cases is the last sentence: "Do not leave unsourced or poorly sourced material in an article if it might damage the reputation of living people." You are on very thin ice when it comes to civility and assuming good faith with other editors. This is supposed to be collaborative and you give no indication that you are willing to work with other editors. freshacconci talktalk 15:47, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
But many of these issues have been flagged for months, and further, at least one of the claims was misleading about a source, and should be removed on the grounds of academic dishonesty! I clearly indicated a willingness to give evidence & explanations, and by the way, in terms of working collaboratively, see (talk) 15:54, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

By the way, for future reference: working through the article, on the the first issue: obviously it is untrue that ``The subject-matter of Neoclassical art and literature was inspired by the emphasis on martial courage seen in the Greek and Latin epics.[2]. Leaving aside the incredible dodginess of the cite given, we can say that many definitional neo-classical works are not about martial courage. These include: David's Brutus, Belisarius, Intervention of the Sabines, & pretty much everything he painted in Brussels, including the Venus disarming Mars; Canova's Cupid and Psyche, etc. Now, obviously, I can go through and find cites to prove the content of each of those paintings. I just do not see that as at all a useful use of my time, given any one with eyes can see that.

Second issue: In this respect, Neoclassicism is opposed to Modernism, in which self-expression and improvisation are considered virtues.

This is not a useful comparison. It doesn't explicate neo-classicism. It is also not true. Neo-classicism cannot have been opposed to modernism, as modernism did not exist. While I like a good bit of backwards influence as much as the next fan of Elkins, it's a flaw. Further, modernism does not consider self-expression and improvisation to be virtues. Some modernisms do. Others don't. For instance, the Russian Constructivists strove to eliminate the bourgeois self. (I can find cites here, but really, what's the point of arguing whether the apostles of machine art were in favour of self-expression? Again, De Stijl isn't the happy hunting ground for improvisation! Burden's on anybody that wants to keep this to prove it.

Third issue: ``Other cultures have other canons of classics, however, and a recurring strain of neoclassicism appears to be the natural expression of cultures that are confident of their mainstream traditions, but also feel the need to regain something that has slipped away. Apollonius of Rhodes was a neoclassic writer; Ming ceramics paid homage to Song-era celadon Chinese porcelains; Italian 15th century humanists learned to write a "Roman" hand we call italic (based on the Carolingian); Neo-Babylonian culture was a neoclassical revival[clarification needed], and in Persia Zoroastrianism was revived[when?] to re-Persianize a culture that had fallen away from its own classic Achaemenian past..

None of these claims have any evidence given at all. They are sweeping and cross cultural, and hugely suspicious. This kind of discussion is gerenally understood to be ethnocentric & presentist. Elkins' Stories Of Art is a good source here, but there's heaps and heaps more sources out there. However, burden.

Leave aside the pastels issues, because really, who gives a damn, I'm not doing style arguments for free, & besides that para is almost unreadable.

``As a matter of fact, Romanticism grew as a response against Neoclassicism.[3] Well, to start with the citations are essentially useless. Further, just not true. Romanticism develops at the same time as neo-classicism, and an artist like Fuseli, or users of the Ossian theme, are both romantic and neo-classic. Citations here are literally things like: look at the paintings of Fuseli. Look at the paintings and engravings of the Ossian theme.

``Covert neoclassicism in Modern styles There is no indication that neo-classicism here was hidden; indeed I would call it entirely overt. No evidence is given either way on this issue. Further, the text underneath is so bad as to be misleading. A discussion of classicism & modern architecture that doesn't mention the inherent classicism of much modernism (Mies, van der Rohe, Corbusier) is so deficient as to be worthless.

I think it is hard to disagree with any of those changes. The immediate assumption of vandalism and reversion is particularly galling, especially given the utter unwillingness to actually engage with the arguments given on a level beyond a mantra-like repetition of `provide sources', clearly inappropriate given the substance of many of the changes.

However, aside from the first issue, which is really shocking and I will try and get fixed, I can't be fucked caring about any of the other stuff. Fix your ineptitude (to think I used to defend wikipedia's art history in an academic context!) yourselves, I'm going to do something where I amn't automatically considered a vandal for trying to fix things. (talk) 17:02, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Ooer! Per, that sentence (and indeed the whole introduction) is plagiarised. At some point someone really should fix that; it would be pretty embarrassing to have plagiarised content floating around wikipedia. However, I'm probably not going to do it, as I don't really think I want to deal with the people around here who appear to really, really love low-quality, unsourced, apparently plagiarised, unhistorical content. (talk) 07:19, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Unsourced claim[edit]

Contrasting with the Baroque and the Rococo, Neo-classical paintings are devoid of pastel colors and haziness; instead, they have sharp colors with Chiaroscuro. In the case of Neo-classicism in France, a prime example is Jacques Louis David whose paintings often use Roman and Greek elements to extol the French Revolution's virtues (state before family).

This is not referenced and may be a copyright violation, but is unclear as the exact text is found in a number of locations. This should be cited with a relaible source. However, the claim is also not technicaly correct and at the very least is not accurate in that the use of pastel colors is indeed used in some instances. I agree with the IP editors assessment that this article lacks proper sourcing and inline citations and agree with his removal of the information. It might be a good ideal for someone to make sure this article is not being referenced from sources that are mirrors to this page. More book references would help, but overall the article lacks references.--Amadscientist (talk) 09:54, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

And by the way.....IP's are editors as well and should not be treated as vandals simply because they make a change. In many cases this editor has met his burden of proof. Collaboration and consensus requires that all editor's legitimate concerns be addressed.--Amadscientist (talk) 10:02, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
Edit warring and incivility is never acceptable. It is impossible to collaborate with someone who is not willing to collaborate themselves. And implying that there has been anything close to biting because this person is an IP or that they weren't considered editors because they were an IP is hardly an assumption of good faith on your part. We were attempting to work with this editor who automatically started an edit war and insulted other editors who disagreed with him. Editing like that is hardly useful to Wikipedia. And given the IP's knowledge of Wikipedia policy, I doubt he's a newbie. As you well know, Wikipedians are all volunteers. Why should I waste my time here if I'm going to be met with this kind of behaviour? It's not worth it and Wikipedia will soon be overrun with editors blanking whole sections they don't agree with. Sorry, I'm not buying the "innocent IP" shtick. We gave him plenty of opportunities to act civil. This all works both ways and he should have been blocked for some glaring edit warring and incivility. This is the sort of thing that drives editors away from Wikipedia. freshacconci talktalk 12:45, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
And now there's a brand new editor with a grand total of five prior edits popping up on the IP's talk page with words of support and (of course) in total agreement with the IP's edits. This just gets better. duck sauce anyone? A newbie indeed. freshacconci talktalk 12:50, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Discuss the edit and not the editor. You haven't explained why this article has so few references and citations. An edit war takes two people and you don't have to return the behavior. If you suspect sock puppetry please make a report. If he edit wars, please make a report. If there is a content dispute betwen two people request a third opinion. If his behavior oversteps boundries set by the encyclopedia, make an ANI report.

There is indeed a show of assuming bad faith as an editor used Huggle to revert his edit. It was not vandalsim. It is a content dispute. One that I see no attempt to include in the article when references can be found. If art historians and artist agree that not all Neoclassical paintings (and this speaks strictly to one form of medium) exclude pastel colors, it should be included and fighting back instead of taking time to work out the difference creats a bad situation overall for Wikipedia. I never said he was new and that simply shows that you are making assumptions of bad faith yourself. No one is required to register to use the site. Please workout the dispute and consider my input as supporting the exclusion of the material untill sourced properly and the issue of copyright and mirror sources cleared up. Thanks and Happy editing.--Amadscientist (talk) 19:47, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
Actually, I have made some very minor edits over the years (copy editing and such like), but I would guess less than thirty over the past five years. I do have a rather amateur interest in dispute resolution procedure, and a tendency to respond to people citing rules by going off and reading the rules. Claiming that LHirsig is a sock of mine is a show of bad faith, and I will ask you to withdraw that accusation, both as insulting to me and to him. In fact, this whole exercise has been replete with shows of bad faith towards me, starting with the reversion of good faith, non-vandalism edits on improper grounds, following through Modernists' bizarre claim I am some character called Skirtopodes (which, by the way, at the time I attached no importance to. Now, I am more suspicious, and actually very close to being angry about that). That is uncivil, and in a deeply corrosive way to the atmosphere of respect and openness required on wikipedia. On the content issue, I have been vindicated by pretty much every editor who has approached the matter with an open mind --- i.e who have shown good faith and a readiness to actually look at the article and Wikipedia's policies on unsourced claims.
I explained that the mix up was an inadvertant mistake on my part...Modernist (talk) 22:04, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
In general, this parade of horribles --- that I might go around blanking sections I disagree with all over --- is entirely nonsensical. I have not blanked sections I merely disagree with. I have blanked sections that have no sources, that are unverifiable and therefore unencyclopedic. While you may feel that this is too high a standard to expect content to meet, per WP:LOCALCONSENSUS this local consensus has to bow to the global consensus on Wikipedia that material be verifiable. If you wish those sections to remain, as per the burden section of the policy on Verifiability. you must go out and find sources, or at lest indicate a willingness to find sources. I am under no obligation at all to find sources, I am under no obligation to do anything other than, if editors indicate a desire to find source, give a grace period. Given no editor indicated any desire to do so, then that obligation falls away. Modernist was hugely wrong in claiming I had to source those edits. I did not. He had to source the content, or indicate a desire to. He did neither, and the obvious consequence, that bad sourcing, incorrect claims, and unverifiable material remained, ensued. When valuable, positive, good faith edits are deleted swiftly and without consideration, it is harmful. Inevitably, given the lack of due process, mistakes will be made, as they very obviously have been here.
So, basically, you were both wrong on the merits, arguably Modernist was wrong on the procedure, and yet somehow it is my fault that decent editors leave? (talk) 21:53, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
* By the way, Paolo Neapolitano was entirely wrong is alleging I was vandalising at various points; apparently even egregious edit warring is not vandalism if there is an underlying good faith content dispute. Therefore, it was an implicit assumption of bad faith, which is very uncivil. Why does someone with those powers have so little understanding of Wikipedia policy? (talk) 21:53, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Everyone needs to stop fighting and start working. The article has flaws. There is no doubt about that. In dispute resolution it is suggested that editors use the third person narrative without mention of names. Say "They", "them", "him" or "her" and only when necessary. Please do not discuss the editor just the edits. If there is merit on either side it becomes obscurred by the back and forth of editor behavior in the discussion and misses the point entirely. Slow down, cool off and reset the discussion. Attempt to see both sides and find a compromise that angers the fewest editors. It isn't perfect...but it works.

As I have mentioned the main concern I have with this information is that I cannot find a source that does not mirror the information exactly from the article. I find sites the simply mirror this page. As it stands I ask only one thing and that is to consider this: If the information cannot be referenced with a reliable source - it is very possible the article itself is the basis for the informations spread through the internet sites I am finding. From the little research I did last night, I have found that the above claim was inserted in 2006...the one book reference I found that uses the exact wording is from 2007 and is a compilation of this article and other Wikipedia articles. However when I research under a simple search for Neoclassicism and pastels I find exactly what the IP editor is saying. Until editors cool down, any attempt to edit this page is liable to cause conflict.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:27, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Some reliable sources[edit]

Just a few...there are tons that can be viewed through Google books and much more in your public library. A walk through any major metropolitan city will inevitably lead you to Neoclassical structures of some kind. I am very biased when it comes to art. Aren't we all. We like what we like, but that should not stop us from divorcing ourselves from the subject and finding a way to edit in a dispassionate and disinterested manner. See all sides. This is, after all, just a subject about an artistic style. While there are many interpretations of what the style may represent, there is mainstream academic sources and a direction that has been established. Perhaps we need to see this article as it really is...a start class article in need of work. So let's all work on it please.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:19, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Disputing non-English source not available[edit]

I am disputing the following source: "Stalin the Architect by Dmitry Khmelnitsky" It does not appear to have an English translation. Per WP:VERIFY/WP:NOENG:Because this is the English Wikipedia, English-language sources are preferred over non-English ones, assuming English sources of equal quality and relevance are available. This is not an obscure subject and I have provided just a few sources above that make reference to the subject being discussed. With this article being so badly sourced I find the use of a book that is seemingly unavailable in the US and the United Kingdom to be an unreasonable hurtle to find. The book has not been translated[2] and does not even appear to be available in the US/UK for purchase or even loan in the public Library system.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:55, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Correction-I think (not sure as it's in Russian and may be titled slightly different but has the same ISBN) I have been able to locate this book in it's Russian language form in the US and Canada and will take the time to check if an English translation is available (which may not be the case). If available in English this may still be usable.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:44, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
I was able to identify University Libraries that have the book, but they are still in Russian with no translation available. The book is not accessable in the public library system and is currently not available for sale in either new or used form.--Amadscientist (talk) 20:50, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
University of Berkley info:

--Amadscientist (talk) 22:28, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy in regards to accessibility of the source is not a problem here. It can be obtained (even if the source required payment to secure it would still be within guidelines). What remains in dispute is the use of an obscure book in a foreign language not available in English to use as reference when mainstream and equally relevant sources are easily available for this subject on the English Wikipedia.--Amadscientist (talk) 22:37, 21 February 2012 (UTC)


Time for a rewrite. There appears to be a lot of claims and very little references. I have waited to see if contributing editors could sort out their differences and continue to work together towards improving the article. While the edit wars and talk page fights have has editing. I believe that all editors involved were working in good faith to the standards they believed justifyed their actions, regardless of the effect it seemd to have and encourage all participants to return and collaborate on this article.

With that said, I begin a near complete rewrite and make the following suggestions: Only add information when using a relaible source as an inline citation. Moving forward, please respect the removal of unsourced claims as no editor is required to reference such removal. If an editor does object to the removal of information that is not sourced the answer is simple...return it with a relaible source, formatted as an inline citation. Please bare in mind that an article about artistic style (regardless of it being a part of art history) is going to have a number of conflicting claims and opinions. If the claims are relevant and referenced yet conflict, it is best to include both arguments and seek balance between the two academic views if such views have equal weight. If one view has more academic weight than another we must not attempt to elevate the lesser opinion but we do not exclude it unless it is considered a fringe theory and only if such exclusion is accepted by consensus of editors.--Amadscientist (talk) 21:29, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Apologetically, I do not think that it is likely any attempt to edit this page on my part will prove useful; I have also committed, given the clear antipathy of modernist & acconci to any editing of mine here, not to attempt to make any changes. I am sorry for the fact that no one else has tried to help you fix this page; however it was made clear that my attempts were not welcome. Pho-logic (talk) 09:39, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
You're always welcome to edit. Please feel free to contribute, but we just need to be sure and remember to reference all claims and not use any or.--Amadscientist (talk) 10:42, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
User:Pho-logic - In my opinion you should begin to work here and help if you can...Modernist (talk) 12:46, 28 February 2012 (UTC)


To begin, I am reducing the lead to it's most basic form until the body of the article is referenced as the lede will change depending on the rewrite and sourced information included.--Amadscientist (talk) 21:32, 22 February 2012 (UTC)


Images must have direct context to the section they are located in and any claims made within the image description must be referenced as well.--Amadscientist (talk) 22:53, 22 February 2012 (UTC)


Those images are very large, but with an article like this I suppose it may have good reason in some places. I would review the formatting of images and such a little to adhere more to MOS, but thanks for working on the article!--Amadscientist (talk) 20:44, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

I may not agree with everything...but overall the changes seem very positive.--Amadscientist (talk) 21:14, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
Thanks! I'm going to add a "strip" of paintings some time, & fill out the decorative arts one. Maybe split architecture & decorative arts into completely different sections, but as interior design was important, this is fiddly. Then there is a bit more to be said about literature, the theatre, and fashion. Johnbod (talk) 21:24, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

I find the statement[edit]

"In architecture the style never died out and continued throughout the 19th and early 20th centuries." a bit odd, If it" never" died out then would it not still be going in the 21st Century? I was just going to change it, but there seems to be a lot of activity here, so I figured I'd post first. Then have a few drinks, then edit. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 04:57, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

and while we are here, I rather disagree with the statement, "and the Art Deco style that peaked in the 1925 Paris Exposition des Arts Décoratifs ". Did Art Deco really peak in 1925? I do need another drink. Carptrash (talk) 05:06, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Okay. So I just cut " never died out and" out of the (opinion) offending sentence and moved it here for safe keeping. Carptrash (talk) 05:09, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

No problem with changing both of these. Johnbod (talk) 11:25, 19 May 2012 (UTC) architecture is never died out is accurate as the article states: "...some public buildings are built in the neoclassical style as of at least 2006, with the completion of the Schermerhorn Symphony Center" So, never really did die out as we are in the 21st century and buildings are still being built in this style.--Amadscientist (talk) 17:01, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

I was wondering about what, if any, Neoclassic building there might be, recent ones, in which case the "Never" should go back and the dates listed changed. Now to check the article and see what has occurred. Carptrash (talk) 21:05, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Greek love[edit]

I merged some content from Greek love that has been deleted from that article but another editor removed it as simply not having been discussed. First of all that is not an reasonable excuse to remove content. Mergers do not need to be discussed and if one editor wished to remove the content they are welcome to explain further why it is not appropriate information here. I am not returning it, here or to the other article, but would like the editor to explain further about his removal of content with the excuse that there was no discussion. A bold edit does not require discussion and the editor made no claim of any point to discuss. I am all ears.--Amadscientist (talk) 16:51, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

  • See WP:BRD. I suggest discussion is continued at the other article talk (where the content has been restored and I have already commented). Even if it belonged here, which I don't think it does, it belonged still more clearly at the other article, where no case at all was made for its removal. Johnbod (talk) 16:56, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for replying, however what do you mean...see BRD. The Bold, Discuss, Revert cyle is not DBR. Ans for a case for it's removal, that was all done. You have raised some issues and i have no dog in the fight to maintain it's need here, but no, we don't have to discuss first and referenced material should not abitrarily be removed as "no discussion". But I see the reversion as dscussion on their part and don't revert merges. Thanks.--Amadscientist (talk) 18:26, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

It's "BOLD, revert, discuss cycle" - you were bold, I reverted, & am happy to discuss (except I'm away Weds-Friday). Johnbod (talk) 19:40, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but you didn't revert another editor did. With the wrong excuse. Mergers are not required to be discussed first. If there is an revert i take that as discussion that is objecting. I have no reason to discuss it further becuase I don't care that it is not included here.--Amadscientist (talk) 20:28, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Inappropriate tone[edit]

Johnbod has twice removed my application of {{essay}} {{essay-like}} to the "Architecture and the decorative arts" section of this article. I challenge him then to explain the suitability of fruity writing like the following (all uncited, naturally) for a Wikipedia article.

  • "It is a robust architecture of self-restraint, academically selective now of "the best" Roman models"
  • "a second neoclassic wave, more severe, more studied"
  • "Italy clung to Rococo"
  • "Indoors, neoclassicism made a discovery of the genuine classic interior"
  • "looking quite bombastic and absurd"
  • "Only when the plump, young king acceded to the throne" (you have got to be kidding me)

Hex (❝?!❞) 17:17, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

What exactly is wrong with "Indoors, neoclassicism made a discovery of the genuine classic interior" for example? You don't seem to be used to writing about the decorative arts, or indeed extended writing at all. I should add that I did not write this section - it was the only one that did not need total rewriting when I did over the article. If you want to ce with some restraint, removing the royal weight for example, have a go, but there's no point just adding a drive-by tag that no one is ever going to do anything about. Johnbod (talk) 18:31, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
On the contrary, you don't seem to understand the kind of language and tone that is expected for Wikipedia articles, which is astonishing. — Hex (❝?!❞) 23:37, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
Riiight. Excuse me, I have to go & add another Featured Article to my list. Johnbod (talk) 04:00, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
And I'll carry on flagging up and dealing with painfully bad writing, as I have done here for the past ten years. Not being in love with the sound of my own voice makes that a lot easier. — Hex (❝?!❞) 13:42, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
What, like "The neoclassical style was influenced in its indoor expression..."! Johnbod (talk) 14:56, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
It is unusual (at least for me) to me able to say that I agree with both of you. Let's deal with these phrases, and let's do it slowly, one or two at a time. I'll start with, "looking quite bombastic and absurd" which, googling it, shopws that it comes from here. [[3]] I'll guess that most of these other phraes there or somewhere similar. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 20:03, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

It appears to me that tis section is pretty much verbatum from the link above. It is now all out, pending future review.

Indoors, neoclassicism made a discovery of the genuine classic interior, inspired by the rediscoveries at Pompeii and Herculaneum, which had started in the late 1740s, but only achieved a wide audience in the 1760s, with the first luxurious volumes of tightly controlled distribution of Le Antichità di Ercolano. The antiquities of Herculaneum showed that even the most classicizing interiors of the Baroque, or the most "Roman" rooms of William Kent were based on basilica and temple exterior architecture, turned outside in: pedimented window frames turned into gilded mirrors, fireplaces topped with temple fronts, now all looking quite bombastic and absurd. The new interiors sought to recreate an authentically Roman and genuinely interior vocabulary, employing flatter, lighter motifs, sculpted in low frieze-like relief or painted in monotones en camaïeu ("like cameos"), isolated medallions or vases or busts or bucrania or other motifs, suspended on swags of laurel or ribbon, with slender arabesques against backgrounds, perhaps, of "Pompeiian red" or pale tints, or stone colors. The style in France was initially a Parisian style, the Goût grec, not a court style. Only when the plump, young king acceded to the throne in 1774 did his fashion-loving Queen bring the "Louis XVI" style to court.

Carptrash (talk) 20:47, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

This is from a mobile app which I think you will find is taking from Wikipedia, not the other way round, though it is precis-ed rather well. Or perhaps it uses an older version. Johnbod (talk) 22:35, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
Yes, it is a WP-clone, I hope acknowledged. Other articles I wrote are exactly the same on it. The text seems to be almost exactly the same as this 2009 diff - I think it was written by User:Wetman, who is our expert on 18th century decorative arts. I've put it back, removing "plump".Johnbod (talk) 22:40, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
Nice research J, I trust Wetman to the ends of the earth, and he probably can write like that. Carptrash (talk) 23:40, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Why would you add the template {{essay}} to a section of an article? That is a misuse of the template. It isn't for article use. Its for use on Wikipedia advice essays about policy and procedure. Were you perhaps thinking of {{essay-like}}?

--Amadscientist (talk) 20:54, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Good point - that is exactly what I was thinking of. Curiously, my application of {{essay}} with a "section" argument produced the message I had meant to apply. I guess someone coded it to catch that error. — Hex (❝?!❞) 21:24, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Neoclassicism or neoclassicism?[edit]

The article is not consistent. Marginally I prefer neoclassicism, but I strongly prefer consistency! Thoughts? Edwardx (talk) 23:42, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

  • Neoclassicism (sometimes "neoclassical", but not here much). Johnbod (talk) 03:52, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Oops. Sorry Johnbod, I see now that my point was not clear. The question is whether the word should start with a capital "N" or lower case "n"?
No, I got that. N. Johnbod (talk) 12:37, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, I'll go with capitols too. Carptrash (talk) 17:08, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. Looks like we have a consensus. I have edited the article such that it is a capital N throughout. Edwardx (talk) 19:33, 10 June 2016 (UTC)