|WikiProject Visual arts||(Rated C-class)|
|WikiProject Italy||(Rated C-class, Mid-importance)|
I prefer the term Late Gothic painting. It is more a culmination of everything that came before than a renaissance. There is some information about this on other pages (start from Renaissance). Does anyone object to a move (I'll wait a few weeks)? Does anyone have sources that use the term "Early Renaissance painting" and/or "Late Gothic painting"? Piet 18:43, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
- No a move wouldn't be right, some of the painters belong under Renaissance. But we can't put Pieter Bruegel the Elder (c.1520-1569) next to Robert Campin (c.1380-1444). I'll just move a few names to a different article. Piet 13:27, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Why are the Limbourg brothers called "Franco-Flemish"? They were not from France or Flanders. Piet 13:19, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
what were the cultural influences behind the renaissance ar
Reading through this page, wouldn't it be better to remove the list of painters? It seems pretty redundant, having already been encompassed by Category:Renaissance painters —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nuwewsco (talk • contribs) 22:26, 23 December 2006 (UTC).
- Lists can contain more information than just the name of the painter (ex. year of birth), so it's not necessarily redundant. Piet | Talk 23:22, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Early or High in Italy?
I see now that both Michelangelo and Leonardo are on this list. Personally, I think if an artist is in Vasari's "Third Age" they shouldn't be on an "Early Renaissance Painting" list. I completely realize that it's all relative and these are just categories, but if we're going to use them, Leonardo, Michelangelo and Raphael are the embodiment of High Renaissance Italian Art. Opinions? --Stomme 09:53, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
- I went ahead and removed Leonardo and Michelangelo, since they are not Early Renaissance if we are going to use the term Early Renaissance at all. The German list could use some editing with some of the 16th c. choices, but I'll leave them. --Stomme 09:34, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
- That's right - I saw your talk page exchange with Amanda; this article (new to me) needs a good going over, as several of the few statements seem highly questionable to me. Johnbod 11:21, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
- Not for Early Renaissance. The debate about Jan Vermeer or Leonardo da Vinci using or being aware of camera obscura-type machines might be mentioned in full articles on areas covering those artists or time periods, but, while trendy at the moment due in part to the Hockney-Falco thesis, it is not really one of the major issues. --Stomme (talk) 18:27, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Purpose of Article? Rename to Renaissance Painting
It seems that this page doesn't really know what it wants to accomplish. The term "Early Renaissance", at best, could be used to describe Italian painting from Giotto to about 1400. Or does it describe artists up until the "Third Age" described by Vasari? Many of the artists on the list are late 15th century (hardly what I would consider Early Italian Renaissance Painting). To make matters worse, the term is then applied to a bunch of other geographic regions. Is "Early Netherlandish Painting" really the same as "Early Renaissance"? And is this really the same environment that brought us Bosch or Bruegel. Should this article even exist? The "themes and symbolization" gives the most fulfilling information, but I could change the title to Baroque painting and it would be just as applicable. "Techniques" rightly describes the importance of "linear perspective", which is fine for "Early Italian Renaissance Painting" (or Art, since neither of the two people mentioned were painters), but it hardly applies to all of the other regional categories, all of which have their own (sometimes) characterizing features. Are we just listing artists that at some time have been associated with the term Renaissance? If so, the where is Archibald Motley?
There is now a more detailed Italian Renaissance painting article, and I guess this article is really intended to fill in the gaps for just a general "Renaissance painting". At the moment, Renaissance painting links here and Renaissance art redirects to the Renaissance article. And when you click on the Renaissance painting link on the latter you are directed to this poor Early Renaissance painting article. My recommendation, therefore, is to make this the umbrella "Renaissance painting" page. The text is iffy at best, but at least then when Michelangelo and Leonardo keep getting added (as they continually are) it's not really a big deal. Also, that name might allow people to write some proper information. Comments or suggestions? --Stomme 16:46, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
- I agree with the above, and since this has been an ongoing niggle of mine, and since nobody seems to object, I'm going to move the page. mais (talk) 13:16, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
I just took a look here and discovered that Renaissance painting is described (as its primary definition) as a "bridge" between two periods, Medieval and Baroque. How could such an important topic have continued to exist with such and inadequate first sentence for about six years? Amandajm (talk) 09:06, 1 February 2010 (UTC)