Talk:Rococo

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.

Rococo is included in the 2007 Wikipedia for Schools, or is a candidate for inclusion in future versions. Please maintain high quality standards, and make an extra effort to include free images, because non-free images cannot be used on the CDs.

Whoa! we can't get there from here! Can we start afresh, using Fiske Kimball, Creation of the Rococo as a starting point instead? User:Wetman

Contents 1 rococo 2 Dang 3 Reorganization 4 Spelling 5 Removal of Cleanup Template? 6 English neo-Rococo 7 Sanssouci 8 Neutral POV? 9 Pronunciation? 10 dumb kind of art 11 Plagiarism

[edit] rococo

sure, we can differentiate the two.

[edit] Dang

Meandering, disorganized, and very vague. Writing needs to be worked over completly, and I suspect we may need new info too. I tagged it for cleanup, almost did "cleanup-rewrite" instead but I'm new here. Lampros 04:10, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

The German and French Wikipedia articles may give a re-editor some better ideas for making this vague article a more precise characterization of the rococo ideal. Fiske Kimball's book is available in paperback: excellent documentation, with the emphasis on Paris, needless to say. Nicolas Pineau needs a brief mention, you're probably already thinking— and an article all to himself as well. --Wetman 08:44, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Reorganization

Took a crack at it and started reworking the organization. Added separate headings for architecture, painting, sculpture, and music; moved many of the existing paragraphs to the (seemingly) appropriate headings. I tried to better reflect the style of the Baroque article as well as the French and German Rococo articles (as Wetman suggested).

There are still serious issues with the flow of the article and its bias towards furniture, but I hope this will give someone a place from which to dive in. Also, perhaps someone can find a more informative and brief description of the movement to start off the article?

Among others, I think the article needs to expand on Antoine_Watteau, François_Boucher, Fragonard, and Nicolas_Lancret.

-Raketenmensch 08:11, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

I think if Raketenmensch writes some good text for those four painters at their articles, then inserts concise versions here, he'll have made a real contribution... just not too much of the "moral depression dating from the time of Louis XIV" kind of talk I hope. --Wetman 09:46, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Haven't written text for the painters, but I did rewrite the first two sections of this article. I also edited the second section section to be a little more readable. It still needs work, though. And, what do y'all make of the Catholic Church section? If it is all one big quote from the Catholic Encyclopedia, does it belong here in that form? Raketenmensch 05:14, September 11, 2005 (UTC)

I do not think the Catholic section is appropriate. That level of verbosity on precisely what the Catholic church thinks of Rococo is only appropriate in one place: the Catholic Encyclopedia. It needs to be cut down to the bare minimum, rephrased, and more information about contemporaries who were also critical of Rococo art needs to be added. It is important to understand what people find lacking in art, because that is precisely what you see in the next generation or movement. Perhaps I'll go through some of my Art History texts and see if I can pull out some primary or good secondary material, and take a crack at the section this weekend. Emoticon 21:15, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Ah yes, I certainly think that while you're throwing out the baby you may as well throw out the bathwater, as they say. You do seem splendidly confident. I suppose that's what really counts. --Wetman 08:10, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Spelling

Rococo is the preferred English spelling (as opposed to Rococco). See [1]. Raketenmensch 02:15, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of Cleanup Template?

Any thoughts on removing the cleanup template? I think the quality is pretty good now. The bulk of this article has been rewritten since August and a lot of links have been added. Do we want it to look very different than it is now? Raketenmensch 08:11, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

No, better keep the cleanup template: it's needed more than ever, as long as the article is packed with inanities: "some debate about the art historical significance of the style"..."rococo was surpassed by the Neoclassical style"..."some critics used the term to derogatively imply that the style was frivolous"..." etc etc etc. We're still told "Le Dejeuner by Francois Boucher, demonstrates elements of Rococo " but the analysis of Rococo elements in the illustration is gone. Discussion of the term "rococo' is carelessly dropped in the current mishmash. A very mediocre performance. Some basic reading on the subject might sharpen the article. Perhaps some other Wikipedians might assist. --Wetman 10:53, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] English neo-Rococo

Is it worth adding a comment about Rockingham, probably the most famous producer of English neo-Rococo porcelain in the 1820s and 30s? BaseTurnComplete 20:56, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sanssouci

I've added Sanssouci as an example of how rococo has been integrated into European architecture, as I feel it is an important architectural development, particularly with the so-called "Frederickian Rococo" style.

[edit] Neutral POV?

I noticed a lot of text uses very flowery adjectives, such as this

"Here, on the Kentian mantel, the crowd of Chinese vases and mandarins are satirically rendered as hideous little monstrosities, and the Rococo wall clock is a jumble of leafy branches."

and this

""Courtly" would be pretentious in this upper bourgeois circle, yet the man's gesture is gallant. The stylish but cozy interior, the informal decorous intimacy of people's manners, the curious and delightful details everywhere one turns one's eye, the luxury of sipping chocolate: all are "galante.""

I do not have the time to go through the article to find every example, but I recall seeing lots of texts like these. This does not seem to be the traditional Wikipedia writing of giving a very objective, straightforward POV.

Why do you think descriptions like those are not neutral? They don't seem to be biased for or against the artworks or the movement. Do you think there are competing interpretations of those pieces that aren't represented here? They may not be bland, but shouldn't descriptions of visual works of art convey the detail, emotion, and social context of those works?

Raketenmensch 01:46, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

• "The development of Rococo in England is considered to had been connected with the revival of interest in Gothic architecture early in the 18th century." Ignorant nonsense! Note the use of "is considered". Connections among immigrant Huguenot engravers in the wake of Nicholas Dorigny, and Gaetano Brunetti and silversmiths (like Paul de Lamerie 's father), the Swiss stuccatori Bagutti and Artari, the engraver Goupy, Hubert Gravelot, Hogarth, the Slaughter's Coffe House set and the "Saint Martin's Lane Academy"—these might be apropos in offering a more knowledgable account of the introduction of Rococo in England. The subject has been examinied in print by writers like Mark Girouard and Geoffrey Beard: Rococo: Art and Design in Hogarth's England was the thick catalogue of the 1984 exhibition at the Victoria and Albert Museum: it contains a useful article, Michael Snodin, "English Rococo and its Continental Origins". Even a little reading would sharpen this ever more hopelessly amateurish article. --Wetman 18:44, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pronunciation?

What is the proper pronunciation of "Rococo"? Can someone versed in IPA add the appropriate notation to this article header? --DDG 15:10, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] dumb kind of art

I would just like to question what "the dumb kind of art" is, as mentioned in this article. The Rococo style of art(the dumb kind or art) emerged in France. ...who wrote this, and what is the significance? --24.57.192.146 06:31, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh Gasp! An article on Rococo without a picture of Fragonard's the Swing!? It is perhaps the essence of what Rococo is all about! Dramatic Excess! Please someone add a picture - it would be most helpful.

[edit] Plagiarism

Many parts of this article seem to be direct copies of the article on this site: http://www.museum-online.ru/en/Epoch/Rococo/ . Places that are direct copies are the sculpture section and the music section, and possibly others. The original website is not cited in the references section here. Watercat04 (talk) 15:49, 28 March 2008 (UTC)