Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:37, 13 July 2013

This article is a current featured article candidate. A featured article should exemplify Misplaced Pages's best work, and is therefore expected to meet the criteria. Please feel free to leave comments. After one of the FAC coordinators promotes the article or archives the nomination, a bot will update the nomination page and article talk page. Do not manually update the {{Article history}} template when the FAC closes.

Visual arts Unassessed

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Visual arts, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of visual arts on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Visual artsWikipedia:WikiProject Visual artsTemplate:WikiProject Visual artsvisual arts ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.

Influence

I dont think this sect is going anywhere; prob best to just merge within description. Ceoil (talk) 18:20, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

I hate to lose that image there, but agree. I've hit a wall temporarily, and have a few more bits to read before coming back to it later. I think maybe one more section to add but have to re-read Ward first - can't remember whether he says anything different or only repetition of what's already there. Victoria (talk) 18:44, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Have regiged so we can keep the image ;). Very impressed with what your doing with the article; its a joy to watch. Ceoil (talk) 19:07, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Re the Annunciation, there are similar doves in Ghent, and remember that Dresden was mentioned quite a few times in the sources for that work. 19:13, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, just found that in Ward. Adding. I suppose I should read Pacht too <sigh>. Victoria (talk) 19:27, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

The crop of Catherine is too long, and of Michael too short. Might reload there. Also not finding a good high res repro sittable for close crops; searching. Ceoil (talk) 19:33, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

I kind of like it, is a little different. But up to you. Wouldn't mind a closer view of the Madonna on the throne w/ the canopy & we could move the st.michael w/ donor to the donor section. But I'm not bothered - getting the images right always take a bit of time and this is such a beautiful piece, well .... it'll take us forever. Victoria (talk) 19:38, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

• RE pics, made a bunch of crops last night but not uploaded them. I'll wait to see how much text we'll have & then decide. Re the short description section, not sure what to put there. Ideas? Victoria (talk) 11:16, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the high res; thinking...Ceoil (talk) 11:29, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, me too. I'll get back to it later. Maybe did too much in the past few days and now have hit a wall. Victoria (talk) 12:27, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Church

As with other van Eyck depictions of churches, the space has not been been identified with any known building, and instead seems to be an idealised architectural space.

There is some generic info on this in Madonna in the Church, I mean that describes van Eyck's general approach. Worth reproducing here? Its left hanging as is. Ceoil (talk) 12:40, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I already thought of doing that. I've just read the source and it supports paintings (plural) and in fact mentions this piece, so I'll copy what we already have from the other, and add the new bit. Victoria (talk) 18:35, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

And done. Victoria (talk) 19:03, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Tks. Ceoil (talk) 08:46, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Format

I don't like that section - I think I've shoved in too much, but might be losing perspective. I wasn't going to do much about the frames, but on a second reading they seemed important because they had a protective function, so I stuffed it in there and added the inscriptions there too. I think the long inscription in the note is overkill, but I suppose educational in that shows how densely the frame was inscribed. Anyway, all of these words to say I need some feedback. Victoria (talk) 19:03, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

I've messed about with it somewhat. Tempted to move the long inscription back into the main text. Thinking....Ceoil (talk) 08:44, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

There are two more from the wings, equally long. Haven't copied them out yet. Thinking too. I might mess around with a text box later today and see how that looks. I think its a lot of untranslated lettering to plop into the text. Victoria (talk) 12:36, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm ok with either in the notes or in the article body; but if we have script, we should include. I was messing around this morning with various crops of the sig; none of the repros available are high res enough that we could use them. I gave up in disgust, and I'm afraid swearing. Ceoil (talk) 13:16, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

I've tried capturing the sig and gave up too. Question though - can we use an image of the frame? I can probably capture some of the frame w/ the inscriptions, which I'd prefer to a textbox, and then I'll copy out the rest of the inscriptions and put in the notes. I think. Victoria (talk) 15:04, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Stricktly speaking, the pd-old licence doesnt cover frames, but I think we have a good case here; its hard to convey the work without showing the actual frame, espically given that there are basically three frames here, one in timber, two (x3!) in paint. In fairness. Ceoil (talk) 16:27, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

I've experiment x 3, img & two text boxes. you'll find in history. Choose which you think works well. The frame img is a little crooked - I tried tweaking but without much success. Could probably try again. I prefer the frame (if we can get a good crop) with the inscription text in the notes. Victoria (talk) 16:33, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Smith, 146

No idea where this came from, although, ahem, it was probably me that introduced it. Smith, not an easy name to be narrowing down to an individual. But the statement it supports is banal, will have to replace. Ceoil (talk) 21:42, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

I'll search history and other articles. Sounds familiar to me. Will report back. Victoria (talk) 21:58, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Mazone

With a great deal of difficulty and twisting of arms to get behind a paywall into an academic database I found this annunciation. It's quite pretty and the floor tiling, the edging on Mary's dress, look somewhat van Eyckian. Only problem: it has faint watermarks. So I haven't bothered to upload in case they're too unsightly. Input? Victoria (talk) 21:45, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Am reading into this, but not gotten to it yet; basically Im looking for a 2nd source to help identify. Its certainly very pretty, with van Eyckian touches, but very Italian too; a nice contrast. Bear with me. Ceoil (talk) 22:55, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree - definitely very Italian (and pretty). I wanted to use an image for the Giovanni Mazone page because I was thinking I'd DYK - that's why I asked. But probably better not to use this because of the watermarks. I found this for that page, but is it considered 3D? Victoria (talk) 15:28, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Inscriptions

The full inscriptions of the St. Michael and Catherine frames are in Dhanens, but I haven't bothered to copy out - they're quite long and for some reason she hasn't identified the source. Do we need them or is it okay as is w/ only the full inscription from the center panel frame? Victoria (talk) 15:28, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Haven't bothered eh? Thats not like you! I'd suggest including; if we dont have a translation I'd put it in the notes. Ceoil (talk) 08:55, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Ince hall

Workshop, but strikingly similar, seems to be after (ie a variant of) the Lucca Madonna. Searching. Ceoil (talk) 09:25, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

I'd forgotten this one. Dhanens or Pacht write about it. Can find if you need. A bit later. Victoria (talk) 11:59, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

You have an hour, and a half. After that I'm calling Fram. Ceoil (talk) 12:18, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Threats! Might take a little longer. I think this one of the one that Pacht said looked like Mary had been stuffed into a carrying case. It's definitely one that he mentions the copious amount of red. She's much larger than the Mary in this triptych. Victoria (talk) 12:48, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Im guessing he was thinking of the Lucca Madonna which seems much less sucessful, and exactly, condenced. Ceoil (talk) 13:23, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

You're probably right. But I will look it up right now. Where are you thinking of putting this? We could pull the one I added last night - was only an experiment - but I wanted to try to get one with the frames. Victoria (talk) 14:13, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Dhanens writes about this (says not van Eyck, has an "apocrophal inscription"). Interestingly in the pages just before she writes about the Annunciation diptych that's almost the same of as the annunciation here. She says attribution is questionable. Now I'm just getting confused. Victoria (talk) 14:36, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Follower or workshop, probably after a design or lost origional. I would like to work in but have only scraps so far. Ceoil (talk) 18:55, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

I forgot, I looked in Pacht. He mentions it briefly in the pages I have - says it fits in the evolution of JvE's changing style. In this case she's placed in a domestic setting, and Pacht pairs w/ Chancelor Rolin which isn't really obviously set in a church. It's pretty & would be nice to work in. Victoria (talk) 19:10, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

I won't know where to work in until I establish (any) relationship. I'm seeing it duscussed a lot, but not in relation to Dresden yet. Was just an idea. Ceoil (talk) 19:22, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Checked (both) Wards & found ... nothing. I'll check Jstor, but might not have any luck. Victoria (talk) 19:27, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Nothing is slightly more than what I've found. Ceoil (talk) 19:43, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

I think we eke out a caption: Pacht says it fall squarely in the evolution of changing perspective; Dhanens that it's an imitation, but was long attributed to van Eyck. Surely we can a sentence out of that. Victoria (talk) 19:59, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

I was thinking more in terms of the similar colour scheme, vanishing points and receeding patters. Looking still. Ceoil (talk) 21:19, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

I'll take it down until you find. Victoria (talk) 21:45, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

unravishing modesty

Some phrase. I break down each time I read it. Too good. Ceoil (talk) 21:17, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

I know. It is good. I couldn't resist using it. Victoria (talk) 21:45, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages featured article candidates
• Unassessed visual arts articles
• WikiProject Visual arts articles