|WikiProject Visual arts||(Rated C-class)|
|WikiProject China||(Rated C-class, Mid-importance)|
Any article titled "Woodcut" should cover the worldwide history of its topic and not just developments in Europe - see: Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive#Because it is in English, is Wikipedia supposed to be Euro-centric?. I suggest we merge this with woodblock printing or rename it woodblock printing in Europe mukerjee (talk) 15:12, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
I agree the article is Eurocentric. When I expanded it it from the purely technical stub I looked for stuff on Wikipedia to add but there was only the ukiyo-e article, which deals with a particular rather late genre of Japanese print. There needs to be an article on Asian prints in general (a parallel to old master print) - were there old Chinese ones? I don't even know. I would rather someone with more knowledge did this.
I don't agree about any renaming. This is a technique article, one of a number feeding from printmaking; the history section here should be brief, but should cover Asia. I would have put this in if I had had the knowledge. Anyone? Johnbod 18:36, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
- I cited woodcut as a sample example in a policy request on systemic bias that you may wish to contribute to: wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countering systemic bias
- My only objection is on the opening line which excludes Asia. Perhaps it isn't even your sentence. But I feel this sentence, on a topic where there is a clear relevance for Asia, shows systemic bias. The graphic arts is just a shoddy article, it does not make any claim of excluding any region or any trend.
- If the article is on woodcut, it should show a whole world view, and not exclude regions.
- For Old master print, there isn't a problem, for it is a technical term used for a region's art. So is ukiyo-e. If you can show that "woodcut" also has this connotation, then too there would be no problem. Either the title should make it clear it's about region YYY, or it should not have that "leave out Asia" blurb. Do you find this unreasonable? mukerjee (talk) 19:44, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
- Well I certainly have more objections to the article than just the first sentence. Bear in mind:
- 1) that "woodcut" itself tends to be used only in relation to European work; for Asian work "woodblock" is generally used (but not always I accept). I have made this distinction in various articles on here. Nonetheless as a technical article it should cover both.
- 2) this is a technical article on an artistic medium; not a historical one. As I said above, there is a crying need for an art historical article on Asian prints (which are I think all woodblock, unlike the variety of techniques covered in "old master print"). A brief summary of that should go here. The technical side here needs expanding also - I have added to woodblock printing which now has more on the technique than here, which is the wrong way round. I can do that just about adequately I think & will before too long.
- 3) the first line therefore points to the historical article for Asian prints (which in fact also now covers Eygpt, so probably should be changed to reflect this). At the History section, there are 2 main article links, for Asia & Europe - but in fact the Asian one is to the only article I can find, which is on a more specific topic. Old Master prints is fuller, but so far only ?25% complete.
- I think the structure is correct, but the content needs expanding in many places.
Johnbod 20:11, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
- As I have now changed the first line, which Mukerjee said was the only thing he objected to, and found and added some more material on Asia, i think the tag can be removed & have done so, as I think the article is now balanced - although i would like to know more about China, and Iran that somebody put in - can't find anything on Iranian prints. Also Indian ones. The really trouble is not here but in the articles on the art of the Asian cultures - apart from Japan they are rather thin. I have some books, but could not find much on prints. Johnbod 02:12, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
What about the illos in the Wall Street Journal? 19th century books and such? Did they really cut into blocks of wood still or is there some technique of just making it look like that?
- Mostly these used metal, but some in fact did use wood - see Wood engraving, and other articles. This article says it is about printmaking. Johnbod (talk) 16:10, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
Hmm....I just read up on the WSJ woodcuts and they are not woodcuts but dot patterns. And they just look 19th century. The paper did not even HAVE illos until 1980s!
And yes, we have a Wiki article on the technique: "Hedcut".
De re metallica
There were a series of beautiful images made for Agricola's last and most famous work, De re Metallica. They delayed publication for a year (and the book came out after his death). They have a very draftmanlike quality (almost like some doing isometric drawings). Renaissance use of perspective, I guess. And lots of content (even at the time) in terms of the lettered labeling of apparatus. Plus, they just look sort of Escher or Durer like. Don't they?
Which do you like best? (See Commons category for more.)
Article claims that (regarding chiaroscuro woodcuts) "According to one definition of the term, they were first invented by Lucas Cranach in Germany in 1507" without providing a citation to back up this claim. There is no such claim in the Lucas Cranach the Elder article.
If justification for it can't be found, surely this claim should be deleted? — so I added a citation needed thingy.
The Metropolitan Museum of Art citation shows an example of a chiaroscuro print by Ugo da Carpi, dated only "mid-1520s" and does not justify the claim "first made in Italy by Ugo da Carpi before 1516". It does however state "Ugo da Carpi was the first Italian artist to experiment with the multiblock colored woodcut."
I have therefore deleted the claim of "before 1516" since no citation justifying that claim has been provided.
Date given for Hans Burgkmair's invention of the technique is unreferenced, but in line with other information (although Cranach date is also unreferenced). I added a citation needed thingy.
In old books, one frequently finds mention of "spirited woodcuts" - I have looked at some and it does not seem to mean that the drawing shows great spirit (is lively) - in fact there are mentions of spirited woodcuts for initial capitals in texts so I get the impression that it is an old specialist printing term. Any ideas? Shyamal (talk) 05:33, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
- I'd never heard of this, but via google I see what you mean. It's almost all auction or sale catalogues, & I think just a bookseller's cliche for "nice" or "lively" - ie crude but charming. Johnbod (talk) 06:02, 12 May 2015 (UTC)