Talk:Artists of the Tudor court

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Visual arts, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to visual arts on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
??? Class: This article has not been assigned a class according to the assessment scale.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Artists of the Tudor court article.
Article policies
A fact from Artists of the Tudor court appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column on November 16, 2007.
Wikipedia

Contents

[edit] New article - things to do

  • Add artists and sort by active date
  • Add official positions if any and flourish dates to artist list (serjeant-painter, painter-stainer, limner)
    • Or maybe not? Perhaps a section on relationshiops (who trained whom, who married whose daughter/sister, etc.) Done
  • Discuss purpose of portraits (gallery sets, mass production of images, marriage negotiations)
  • Contrast artists working in offical positions vs. "visitors" like Zuccaro
  • Method of work (limning from life, annotated chalk drawings as studies for panel portraits)
  • Iconography and symbolism in dress and accessories
  • Find a reference for Hilliard (?) painting Royal Arms on the Queen's coach
  • Problems of iconography in deducing "real" costume
  • Issues of attribution (ref current fuss over portraits of Jane Grey)
  • Criticism - dismissal - influence of Roy Strong

- PKM 19:36, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Updated things completed. - PKM 20:02, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Related article work

  • John de Critz doesn't mention any work prior to James I. Need to fix that or remove him here. Also add more images to Commons.
There's a Francis Walsingham attributed to him and a William Cecil thought possibly by him. But the active lifespan for de Critz is so absurdly long that (original thought warning!) the supposed late and early de Critzes can surely not be by the same chap. But tracing a John de Critz the younger has defeated me. qp10qp 01:48, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
There are several other de Critz's - see Waterhouse. John the Younger succeeded Dad as Serjeant Painter - just added there, but Waterhouse has more. Johnbod 01:53, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
If this John succeeded his father in 1642, it doesn't add up for me; it means that John the Elder, born in about 1552 was still Serjeant painter in 1642. And we know this wasn't an honorary post for a retired painter as "John de Critz" is recorded as painting barges in 1634. Alan Haynes says that John de Critz painted Walsingham in 1585! The Walsingham and the William Cecil are far better works than the later Jacobean Critzes, in my opinion. I'm thinking we may have three John de Critzes here.qp10qp 03:03, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
No the younger was "born before 1599" and "early associated with him in the office of SP" (ie did all the work, and painted the barges in 1635). The SP appointment was always for life I think; that makes him 90+ when he died. Johnbod 03:09, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
or the pair of them got assistants to do the work, which was clearly the way the role was going. Johnbod 03:31, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Marcus Gheeraerts the Younger needs to be standardized. - done some. Johnbod 03:10, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Double-check all attributions in the Commons; many are 40 or 50 years out of date and some go back to the 1911 Britannica.
  • Expand Serjeant Painter - partly done (it's certainly bigger) Johnbod 22:45, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

- PKM 20:50, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Expand Hans Eworth and remove Edward VI portrait no longer attributed to him. - PKM 21:29, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Holbeins

Marvellous to see this article unfolding. All kudos to Sir Johnbod.

Mild queries: I'm not sure that the portrait of Henry VIII is a Holbein original; I think we have only the cartoon and copies, plus the Madrid portrait, because this was originally a wall painting, destroyed in 1698. I don't think the copies are by Holbein himself.

How sure are we that that is Catherine Howard? I'm not convinced. qp10qp 02:55, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks - I think you're right about the Holbein being a copy after the cartoon - I'll look into it. The Howard identification is mentioned in the article - Strong is persuaded for various reasons, briefly - 2 versions (windsor & Duke of Buccleuch), which is only known for Queens - wears same jewel as Jane Seymour in the Vienna Holbein; pearls tie in with a gift to CH, and she is the only Queen to fit. I'll add this to the notes later. No other likenesses of her to compare to. Johnbod 03:25, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for checking out the Holbein. We can either mark it "after Holbein" or replace it with something documented if it turns out to be a copy. - PKM 03:34, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] More related articles

I have added several Gowers to the Commons (including Sir Thomas Kytson to go with the one of his wife), and I have the self-portrait and will scan it soon. - -- PKM (talk) 20:25, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Added the self-portrait of Gower and expanded that; also uploaded the other versions of the Armada Portrait and will probably start an article on that one of these days. - PKM (talk) 20:29, 17 November 2007 (UTC)