Talk:Impressionism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wikipedia CD Selection Impressionism is either included in the 2006 Wikipedia CD Selection or is a candidate for inclusion in the next version (the project page is at WPCD Selection). Please maintain high quality standards, and if possible stick to GFDL and GFDL-compatible images.
This page has been selected for the release version of Wikipedia and rated B-Class on the assessment scale. It is in the category Arts.


Should this be under 'impressionism' instead? The original link was singular rather than Impressionists (which is a common thing). But should it be the '-ism'? I am agnostic - feel free to move it if you change all the occurrences, or to discuss this with me. As far as I can tell 'Realism' is not occupied by some philosophy entry, and I'm going to need either Realist or Realism for the mid-19th century style that precedes Impressionism and of which Impressionism is perhaps a late variant. So, folks: -isms or -ists for painting movements?

Surely -ism for the movement, -ist for someone involved -e.g. Communism, communist; Cubism, cubist; Theism, theist etc etc

Impressionismistism. Let's cover all the bases.  :-)

Seriously, -ism. If we need to we can break out "Neo-realism in art", "Neo-realism in philosophy" (or whatever) as separate entries.

Other art movements are under "ism" with "ist" a redirect. Done -- Tarquin, Wednesday, July 3, 2002

Wik, is there any reason you reverted Lir's additions (which appear to me to be factual) without any edit comments? I will restore if you do not reply. --Delirium 05:12, Nov 13, 2003 (UTC)

He removed information from the first paragraph without explanation. I restored it as I said in my original edit summary. --Wik 05:13, Nov 13, 2003 (UTC)
Sorry, I was getting the diff function mixed up, so misread who was reverting to which version. --Delirium 05:16, Nov 13, 2003 (UTC)

The information belongs on an article about the painting in question. Lirath Q. Pynnor

Then write that article first before you remove the information here. --Wik 05:14, Nov 13, 2003 (UTC)

I did write it; also the text was plagarized. Lirath Q. Pynnor

I don't see the name Leroy there either. Also you neglected to link to that article. Plagiarized doesn't matter, if it's not a copyvio, which a half sentence is unlikely to be. --Wik 05:20, Nov 13, 2003 (UTC)

I did link to the article, you reverted it (remember?). The name Leroy isn't there because u wasted my time with your revert. Lirath Q. Pynnor

You added that only in a later edit. Just do things in order; if you move information, add it first in the other place, then remove it in the original. --Wik 05:27, Nov 13, 2003 (UTC)

This is one gorgeous article --Ignignot 13:55, Aug 26, 2004 (UTC)

Will the person who keeps adding her/his son's name to the list of painters who exhibited in the 19th-century Impressionist exhibits please stop your vandalism. We all work too hard on these articles to have them defaced this way. Skeppy

  • I have found the people who has been editing the page, adding abusive comments and the extra name (John Corbett). He is actually in my art class in school so he has been dealt with accordingly. Apologies for this, hopefully it will not happen again :-) nimro 10:26, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Does J. M. W. Turner deserve a mention? He was too early to be an Impressionist as such but he anticipated their techniques and concerns. Gdr 00:17, 2004 Oct 18 (UTC)

Pissarro's name Camille Pissarro is spelled wrong in the image with his paintings. I'd tweak it but I don't know what font that is. Anyone know and even better, have the ability to do that quickly? I fixed the tag, but can't fix the image.

Update from Attempt to Track Down the Font, so I can change the image and keep it in the same style. Got a quote from an expert, whom I asked if it was Arial:

"Decidedly not Arial, but in the same (venerated, except for Arial) family. I would guess maybe Nimbus Sans or Akzidenz Grotesk (sp), if not Helvetica. The anti-aliasing algorithm is making it look weird and foreign."

Contents

[edit] Modernism template

I've added a template feel free to add new articles to it. Stirling Newberry 00:34, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Post-impressionism

something about post-impressionism should be mentioned in the article, and maybe how post-impressionists are sometimes considered impressionists. (just noticed van gogh had been removed from the list of impressionists, but cezanne is still there) --- Cfitzart 13:58, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Yes, I agree there should be something, because of their association (they ARE always hung close to each other in museums), but noting their classification as POST-impressionists. Van Gogh keeps getting added back... --Etacar11 14:16, 15 October 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Sociological Impressionism

Hey is there anything on this site to do with Sociological Impressionism, in reference to Simmel, I can see how the artistic fits in with his writing, as it uses ordinary subject matter and it is accessible, any help woulld be welcome, thank you Clare Banting

[edit] Encyclopedia

Task of encyclopedia is supplying of as many authentic information as possible. Unacquaintance of author can't be a cause of deletion without any comments but only cause of learn. So, I reverted vandalism by Ewulp and retrieved Podkowinski image. --Tlumaczek 08:24, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Podkowinski

I did not explain the reason for the "vandalism" as you call it because the reason seemed too obvious for explanation. Since you posted these images on this page on April 20 without explaining or justifying your act, I thought I was removing your vandalism. But since you have asked, here are a number of reasons why it is questionable whether these images should be on this page:

1. Of the three paintings by Podkowinski, two show an Impressionist influence (this is unremarkable, most of the paintings made by anybody anywhere in the world in the 1890s show Impressionist influence), while the largest one is Anti-Impresssionist. It clearly isn't painted from nature in daylight, it's imagined. Lots of black and brown. Smooth modeling. This no more represents Impressionism than the work of Franz Stuck or George Frederic Watts. So why put this one up?

2. Podkowinski is a very obscure artist. Almost nobody in the English-speaking world has heard of him. Google his name and you get 27,700 hits, which seems like a lot. Now Google Gertrude Abercrombie, a local mid-20th century surrealist I admire: 155,000 hits. The fact remains she's not very well known, and I don't think it would be appropriate to put 3 images of her work into the Wikipedia article on Surrealism. It would make Abercrombie seem a much bigger name than she is, equal in importance Ernst or Magritte or Dali. She was a marvelous artist but she had little impact on the history of art.

3. This article on Impressionism will be read by many people with only a casual interest in art, and by children working on school projects. The reader may be seeking the answer to the question, "who were the Impressionists?" The text of the article provides this, but the images tell a different story: Monet has 3 images, Renoir 3, Degas 3, Sisley 3, Pissarro 3, Morisot 3, and Podkowinski 3. A kid writing a report on the Impressionists will think Podkowinski and Monet were the leaders of the 1874 Paris exhibiting group, because of the exaggerated prominence that these images give to the artist. I think it would make sense if the followers of Impressionism were represented by one image each from (for instance) Podkowinski, Sorolla, Chase, Liebermann, Boldini, and the like. This would demonstrate the international dimension of the style. As it stands I think the article is better with no Podkowinskis rather than 3, one of which is symbolist and completely wrong.

4. As you scroll down the article includes the "List of Impressionist artists", with the names of many artists whose paintings show Impressionist influence. Somebody reading this article who wants to learn more about the followers of the Impressionists can follow the links to articles on individual artists. But Podkowinski is a redlink, so it's a dead end. Here are images by an artist who very few readers have heard of, and no info on who he is anyplace in English Wikipedia. This absence of context is grounds for removing the images in my opinion.

These are the reasons I deleted the images the other day. For now I will let other editors decide, but I think they do more harm than good hereEwulp 04:16, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

  • I agree, he is too obscure to be featured so prominently. --Etacar11 05:55, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
In the two weeks since I posted, nobody has come to the defense of keeping the Podkowinski images in this article. While the red link issue has been resolved, the other 3 problems remain, and they are significant, so if there are no objections I will remove the images this week.
In a short article on Impressionism intended for general readers, certain pivotal artists MUST be mentioned, other artists are secondary, and many other artists, however good, are footnotes in the story. Podkowinski, while a figure of importance in the visual arts of Poland, is not on any short list of the world's thirty most important Impressionists. Since a picture is worth 1000 words, giving 1/7 of the images in this article to Podkowinski grants him front-page headline status equal to Monet & entirely out of proportion to his importance.
We should all be trying to maintain best encyclopedic standards. A Wikipedia article is not an image gallery; images to illustrate an article should be few and well-chosen. Any reader coming to this article in the past two weeks experienced one of two reactions: 1) they were misled as to who the main Impressionists are; or 2) they were disappointed in Wikipedia not meeting professional standards, as one of these artists is placed in the spotlight for no better reason than that he is a particular favorite of one contributor. Therefore in my opinion the removal of these images is more than justified.
Podkowinski is not being eliminated from Wikipedia -- there are in fact 2 articles on the artist, one spelled with and one without special characters -- these should be merged but that's another matter. Ewulp 03:39, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Two things

Should Vincent Van Gogh be added to this catagory of Impressionists? What's more, Paul Cézanne's, surname doesn't have an accent on the "e".

Good point about Cézanne, & this has been fixed. Van Gogh is mentioned a couple times in the article with internal links, so he's not ignored, but he's usually counted as a post-Impressionist because of the subjectivity of his vision. Ewulp 01:22, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. Much appreciated.

[edit] Improving this article?

I was reviewing this article as a possible WP:V0.5N, and the article seems pretty nice (I'm not an art expert, but I know what I like!). However, the lack of references (inline are preferable) would kill its nomination. Can the folks who contributed most to this article put in some of their references, than perhaps nominate the article? You could also nominate it at WP:GAN. Another improvement would be to format the long list of impressionist painters at the end to look nicer. I'd like to see our test CD include some decent art articles such as this one, at present we're very weak in that area. Thanks! Walkerma 04:20, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Hello Walkerma, I'm not a major contributor to this article but can add a few references (I lack books on the subject, except a shelfload on Degas & 1 on Caillebotte). What kind of format do you have in mind for the list -- is it easy to do for a lo-skill type, and is there an example somewhere in WP of a formatted list to model on? Ewulp 03:22, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks! Bear in mind that the refs should in theory represent what was used to write the article - always hard to add retrospectively! In a case like this I think you need to be careful only to choose sources that match key pieces of information in the article, if you do that it's fine. There are two formats for inline refs, one (the more popular, I think) is the <ref></ref> system used at Acetic acid or Antarctica, and the other is the Ref/Note system that can be see in Indole (take a look at the history section). The commonest term to use is "References", but some articles separate "References" from "Notes". Material that is relevant but not used for the article can be added as "Further reading" or "External links". Does this help? Cheers, Walkerma 06:01, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of Impressionists

This list has grown by accretion and included several artists not really known for Impressionism -- Bakst for instance. Lucy Bacon is almost a complete unknown who painted very little before giving it up for a religious life. A comprehensive list is not desirable, it would take a week to scroll through it. If the list is to be limited to perhaps 40 names (is that a sensible maximum?), it seems the choices should be representative & rational. Walkerma, did you have an idea how the list should be formatted? Ewulp 05:31, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't ignoring this posting, I've been trying to think how it could be done - lists on Wikipedia can often look ugly when they get this long. Accretion is a common problem in such lists, trimming the excess was a good start. I tend to dislike articles containing long lists of names that fill a couple of screens/pieces of paper. None of the solutions I can suggest is perfect, but you could consider one of the following:
  • Create a separate page called List of impressionists or List of impressionist painters or whatever. A good solution if the list is expected to be long, and it could be done as a table of information (birth/death year, nationality, styles, etc.), rather like List of research stations in Antarctica.
  • Create a similar, but shorter, table within the main article. Takes up no more screenfuls, but gives the reader a lot more information than a simple, boring list of names.
  • Something like {{UKPrimeMinisters}} or {{UK supermarkets}} might be a useful thing to create, and this could be added to all of the individual Impressionist painters' pages too.
  • If only a few names are to be included, create a prose narrative including those names - probably not appropriate here (better for <12 names).

Hope this helps! Thanks for getting some references in there! I'm hoping that by the time you're finished, you or I can nominate this! Thanks, Walkerma 05:29, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ELBOW

It seems the ELBOW mnemonic device is sometimes used by art educators, but it's a faulty way of identifying Impressionist painting — much of Gerhard Richter's work meets the elbow criteria but he's miles from Impressionism — and it seems to complicate things unnecessarily. Is someone who can't remember the description "everyday scenes painted with spontaneity & attention to transient light & color" going to have an easier time recalling which body part (was it ankle? knee? tonsil..?) and what each letter represents? Possibly it's of some value as a teaching tool but I think it's slightly inane for inclusion in the article. Ewulp 07:14, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

  • I would agree, sounds like something from a children's art class...unnecessary here. --Etacar11 20:25, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../i/m/p/Talk%7EImpressionism_c3a8.html"