Talk:Caspar David Friedrich/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Selected Works

The titles of the linked works may not correspond to the images provided.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.251.196.91 (talk) 04:24, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I, too, am reporting a problem with titles being incorrectly assigned to images. In particular, a painting labeled as "Cloister Graveyard in the Snow" (1810) is actually a similar but altogether different painting called "Abbey in the Oakwood" (1810). "Cloister Graveyard in the Snow" was painted 1817–1819, and that image is not displayed here. Sorry I couldn't fix it myself.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.57.127.202 (talk) 16:32, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

The Sea of Ice (Das Eismeer)

I wanted to compliment whoever comtributed the information on Friedrich's "Sea of Ice" (Dad EismeeR -- it is accurate, and so many sources make the mistake of confusing it with "The Wreck of the Hope."

But as to the caption:

"The sea of ice, 1824 (mistakenly known as "The wreck of the Hope" which was destroyed in 20th century)"

I am most curious about this -- so far as I had known, "The Wreck of the Hope" had been lost ages ago, some saying it was buried in the bowels of the Hermitage, others that it was looted by the Nazis -- if the person contributing this information could contact me, I would be grateful. I hope to add a paragraph about "The Sea of Ice," which I've been studying for years, to the wiki article on Friedrich, but want to make sure I have every detail correct. Profrap 14:06, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Werner Hofmann's monograph of Friedrich asserts that "The Sea of Ice" is in the Hamburger Kunsthalle, Hamburg (p 230). Hofmann agrees with the user above that "The Wrecked 'Hope'" (as Hofmann calls it) was 'lost' (p 228). Whether this means destroyed is left ambiguous. The book is: Hofmann, Werner, Caspar David Friedrich, London: Thames and Hudson, 2000. Jack Haddow, 18 August 2007.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.109.162.85 (talk) 01:15, 18 August 2007

Uncredited Source

With the exception of the very first sentence, the entire Life section was copied vervatim off of Webmuseum. Radioactive afikomen 23:54, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Major rebuild

OK, i've spent a couple of hours with this article. I used one specific book to include new data and check the old material (just corrected a few dates, but most of the old text is still here, don't worry). I expanded the article with a Motives & Philosophy section, added a references section where i included both my book and the website whence the old material was claimed to come from in this talk page.

I hope everything is OK. It's been my biggest contribution to the wikipedia so far. ;)

El edgar 21:36, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Please document the destruction of "The Wreck of Hope" and provide a link, if possible to an image of that painting

The cryptic note about the "Sea of Ice" being mistakenly referred to as "The Wreck of the Hope" needs to be documented not only with a footnote or two, but also with copy telling the story of that destruction. Mark David Anthony 06:40, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Some claims need substantiation

Why is "The Cross in the Mountains" controversial? The article describes the painting, but doesn't indicate why it was cause for alarm.

Why did Schinkel give up painting after seeing "The Wanderer Above the Sea of Fog"? Did he see Friedrich as possessing such talent that he felt he could never attain it? Etc.

How is the "Tetschen Altar" his first stylistically mature painting? It seems sort of snobbish, unless someone can indicate what characterizes Friedrich's maturity.

Why was "Sea of Ice" not well received?

These questions don't require lots of verbiage in order to address them, but as they stand, the claims seem somewhat random. And anyway, are the interpretations in the article widely accepted? I'm no Friedrich expert, but something about the way this is all written makes me dubious.

In general, the article seems like it was written initially by a non-native English speaker and needs further cleanup. (Sorry if that sounds mean.) RKlassen 07:47, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Ceoil's and Outriggr's and Ceoil's working pad

• "F. W. Murnau, C. D. Friedrich, and the Conceit of the Absent Spectator" Kenneth S Calhoon, MLN; Apr 2005; 120, 3;
  • seemingly compulsive symmetry
  • painted with no trace of brushstrokes
  • in 1830 executed "transparent" painting with two pictures, lit front or back
  • Monk by the Sea 1809 discussion; two prominent ships were painted out – IR analysis —Preceding unsigned comment added by Outriggr (talk • contribs) 04:30, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Copy edits and reorganization

I've done some fixing up and moving around: there seemed to be a lot about his work in the 'life' section, and some repetition of material between these sections, so I attempted to meld these. Similarly, a passage under 'work' fits better under 'legacy', so it has landed there. The' cross in the mountains' had previously been mentioned under both life and work, but by two different titles. Other minor miscellaneous changes as well. If any damage was done, please revert or amend as need be. JNW (talk) 01:04, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks JNW. Ceoil and I are planning an overhaul here, so we ask for everyone's patience regarding large-scale issues like organization and flow while we pour in the raw ingredients. Of course, your participation is welcome. Outrigger (talk) 02:14, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay. I dug up some more biographical information, but I am happy to hold off while you and Ceoil have at it. Apologies if I jumped the gun on the restructuring. JNW (talk) 02:18, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Should a sandbox be considered? Outrigger (talk) 02:49, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Any help from JNW would be greatly appreciated. Please add bio detail as you find it.....Ceoil (talk) 21:20, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Legacy

Reference to Friedrich's influence on 19th century American landscape painting needs to be cited. If true, it contradicts the concurrent neglect of his reputation in Germany, and begs the question as to how his work would have been known in the U.S. JNW (talk) 16:03, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Suspect claim; can you cut. Ceoil (talk) 16:14, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I might, but would like to try a little research first. Maybe Albert Bierstadt saw a painting. But barring a source, one wonders whether certain similarities in style and spiritual content were not arrived at independently in America, rather than as a result of Friedrich's influence. JNW (talk) 16:34, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

An essay by Colin Eisler [1] states that Friedrich's landscapes anticipate those of certain 19th century American artists, but does not assign direct influence. Still looking. JNW (talk) 20:58, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Whose Self-portrait?

In my text – Guillaud, Maurice and Jacqueline:Casper David Friedrich, line and transparancy, exhibition catalogue, The Centre Culturel du Marais in Paris, Guillaud Editions, Paris, Rizzoli, 1984, ISBN 0-8478-5408-6 it reproduces the self-portrait drawing (in the article lead) on page 171 with the additional information of it being in the collection of the Royal Museum of Fine Arts, Copenhagen. However the image as it appears in Commons says the drawing is in the collection of the Museum of Prints and Drawings, Berlin. My text is from 1984 and I've left the Berlin Museum Collection for now. However if anyone knows for certain it should be changed. I'll look into it. Modernist (talk) 18:26, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Not certain, but I'd trust the catalogue over the Commons listing any day. The more famous self-portrait done when he was older is in Berlin, so my guess is that the Commons listing is a mistaken ref. to that. JNW (talk) 19:49, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Confirmed here [2]. JNW (talk) 19:52, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Fantastic. Thanks – Modernist (talk) 21:11, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

German Romantic

For what its worth I agree with Outriggr that Friedrich is the most important German Romantic painter. The consensus of art historians that I've read over the last thirty years are also in agreement with that opinion. Modernist (talk) 15:42, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Modernist. I think this began because the person who claimed "POV" read the sentence in a way that I didn't intend – fair enough. In that sentence, "the period" meant to me the time and locale of the German Romantic period/movement/?, which had just been mentioned. –Outriggr § 23:11, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Maybe, maybe not. If goes to FA someone will no doubt want a ref, which should not be hard to find. I was always pretty sure that was what was intended, but that was because, despite a certain ambiguity (over "period"), I knew the academic concensus also, and was sure you did, & didn't think he was being compared to Turner or Goya for example. Johnbod (talk) 02:04, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

A supporting ref has been added, from commentary at the Metropolitan Museum web site. Eventually there can be a less nebulous one, but for the moment...JNW (talk) 02:27, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

First Paragraph

Does anyone want to clarify the first paragraph, because I am not clearly able to tell what movement he was the finest member of? It might be the American Romantic, but I actully have no idea. And the paragraph for his life is missing too.Sursikeohsechsee 20:28, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

About Friedrich portrait's caption: IMO stating the lifespan of Gerhard von Kügelgen in a corner where you usually would find a box with a summary of the biographed individual is rather confusing. Ersalo (talk) 15:09, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

You're looking at a different portrait and caption than the original poster (a year and a half later), but you're right, it is confusing. The local editing crowd here is not much for "infoboxes", though, if that's what you're suggesting. I'll tweak the caption. –Outriggr § 20:25, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Copy edits

I've done some cut and paste, most obviously to 'legacy', and mostly to make chronological order out of the text. Under 'Art' I've also juggled paragraphs, leading with content on nationalism and concluding with spiritualism. If there are ideas of one day bringing this to FA status, there will undoubtedly be a call for more sources, esp. regarding some claims of influence made under legacy. In more subtle matters, I have attempted to begin to reconcile what I see as a minor conflict in the text, which under 'life' refers to his popular success, but under 'legacy' makes it sound as if he was quite neglected. Of course, there is truth to both interpretations, and an artist may, as Degas once claimed to desire, be both 'famous and unknown'. But perhaps the modulations can be better addressed. Anyway, the re-orderings I have attempted are submitted for the critical pleasure of those who have done such fine work on this until now--hack away! JNW (talk) 05:28, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

There might seem to be some contradiction to the simultaneous claims that he was an innovator in bringing religious meaning to landscape, and that 'his artwork complied fully with the Romantic aesthetic of the time, and the close study of landscape and an emphasis on the spiritual elements of nature were commonplace in contemporary art'. I suppose that the distinction was in the depth of his spirituality. JNW (talk) 05:46, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Brother's death?

I only have two sources on hand at present, but one of them (Vaughn) writes that "this brother had previously saved him from a similar fate," while the other (Dahlenberg & Spitzer in Neurological Disorders in Famous Artists,) says that Johann Christoffer perished while trying to say his brother. Can anyone shed some light on this apparent discrepancy? Kafka Liz (talk) 01:11, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

The Kunsthalle website [3] offers:

His brother Johann Christoffer dies trying to save Caspar David from drowning while the two are ice-skating, for which Caspar David suffered a lifelong sense of guilt. JNW (talk) 01:21, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Albert Boime gave a similar account: [4]. JNW (talk) 01:26, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Thanks, JNW! I'll try to check some more sources tomorrow, but my impression is that they will agree with Kunsthalle, Boime and Dahlenberg/Spitzer. I though the Vaughn version somehow didn't sound quite right. Kafka Liz (talk) 01:33, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Move

Some of Friedrich's contemporaries attributed the melancholy in his art to these childhood events, yet it is as likely that Friedrich's personality was naturally so inclined.[8] As an adult, the pale and withdrawn Friedrich reinforced ...was in the company of people he liked."

I'd like to move this paragraph from "Early Years" to "Legacy," since we currently lack a "Critical response" section. This is more commentary on and analysis of his early years, and I don't think it quite works in this section, which I believe is mainly descriptive of his early years. Thoughts? Kafka Liz (talk) 02:18, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Go for it. Although, I'm not sure that it fits in the legacy section, either, it being devoted to the influence and impact of his art, rather than analysis of his interior life...JNW (talk) 02:23, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I've put it there for the time being, although I too am not sure it fits well there. I know it works better there than where it was, but I'm not completely satisfied... play around with it as you see fit: I'm not married to its being in that section... Kafka Liz (talk) 02:34, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with it there. I'm not sure where else it would work, either. JNW (talk) 02:39, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I'll see what I can do with it tomorrow. I'm done for the evening, and "wicked tired." Kafka Liz (talk) 02:46, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Good job so far Liz...Modernist (talk) 02:50, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Graf Vitzthum von Echstadt

I removed the red ink surrounding this character....I can't find much about him, anyone know who he was? Is it Graf Vitzthum von Echstadt, or Eichstadt?Modernist (talk) 13:18, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I haven't come across him yet in my reading, but I'll see if I can find anything. Kafka Liz (talk) 14:29, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, I can't find much about him either. He was head of the Saxon Academy and helped Friedrich gain membership there. The spelling in the source mentioning him (Vaughn) has his name as Eckstädt, and I assume he is related to Georg Graf Vitzthum von Eckstädt (art historian) and Carl Friedrich Vitzthum von Eckstädt (19th century diplomat). Kafka Liz (talk) 16:03, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Landscape

Friedrich often used the landscape genre to express religious themes. During his time most of the best-known paintings were viewed as expressions of a religious mysticism. Friedrich sought not just to explore the blissful enjoyment of a beautiful view, as in the classic conception, but rather to examine an instant of sublimity, a reunion with the spiritual self through the contemplation of nature.

Strikes me as a passage looking for a source. JNW (talk) 02:15, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Agree. I added 1 cite but it might need more. Outriggr wrote most of this section, so he might have something. Ceoil ^sláinte 03:36, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, Ceoil, and thank you especially for fixing my cite. Much appreciated. The article looks great. JNW (talk) 03:40, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Nice find re the article. Ceoil ^sláinte 03:59, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

No I didn't write it--it's been there since before the "upgrade"Special:PermanentLink/162269672--but I disagree that it needs a citation. The article's description of his aesthetic goes to considerable lengths to make a similar point, I think, so I don't think it's a controversial one. But I have different citation standards. –Outriggr § 03:43, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

The sentence which triggered my observation is During his time most of the best-known paintings were viewed as expressions of a religious mysticism. I guess I'm not absolutely sure if this refers to his work, or that of all romantic landscape painters of the era. If the latter, then it seems like a broad statement w/o a source. And by the way, good to hear from you again, Outrigger. JNW (talk) 03:48, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

It's nice to see you're still around too. I actually missed that meaning, the "the" as opposed to "his"; I think the material you highlighted can be scrapped if the surrounding material can be re-cast by someone... –Outriggr § 05:44, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

You have different a lot of things Outriggr. Ceoil ^sláinte 03:52, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Sending you and this statement to the Request for Etiquette Intervention board. –Outriggr § 05:44, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Why? It was a complment. You are 'special', is all I was saying. Ceoil ^sláinte 06:02, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Mary Shelley

I came accross a source today or yesterday that said that paintings like The Abbey in the Oakwood ere an influence on the astethic of Mary Shelley. But I can't remember where. I think this would be nice addition to the legacy section if anybody can track it down. Ceoil ^sláinte 04:10, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

This is the closest I could find right now [5], but I don't think it is conclusive. JNW (talk) 04:14, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Not conclusive at all – one has to wonder how she could have seen any. Johnbod (talk) 04:18, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Good point. The source only made a passing mention. Ceoil ^sláinte 04:50, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I have always been uncomfortable with this type of material used in Legacies unless there is a consensus view of that influence supported by more than one source, or at least studied in detail by one source (not just a sentence in passing; you can connect anything to everything else if you go through enough academic literature :). –Outriggr § 05:48, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I think thats basically what Johnbod was saying. Its tempting to make the connection, but... Ceoil ^sláinte 05:52, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Eavesdropping here; earlier I added a number of 20th century artists, along with Beckett, as all were mentioned in the same article as having been so influenced. But I can appreciate Outrigger's reservations, since it can lead to this Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon. When referring to the impact of an important artist, a listcruft of names can result. If there is a consensus that this is happening now, I support the removal of any names. JNW (talk) 06:05, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I'd go along with this. We should discuss his influence generally, rather that specifically. Ceoil ^sláinte 06:16, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

The Russian influence is specific, though there is so little written in English on Russian C19 landscape painting I can't track much down on the web. The National Gallery 2004 exhibition catalogue Russian landscape in the age of Tolstoy had stuff. Johnbod (talk) 15:28, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

What about Danish painting? Here's a specific reference to influence from Friedrich: [6]. Lithoderm (talk) 16:31, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Probably need a corroborating source for Kobke--the book I'm using, Baltic Light, mentions Eckersberg and possibly Dahl as inspirations, but not Friedrich specifically, citing his influence as perhaps having come through friendship with a third party. But the broader point, that of Danish painting, ought to have merit. JNW (talk) 16:42, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Try here:[7] Lithoderm (talk) 16:49, 17 November 2008 (UTC) Not exactly neutral, being from the Embassy of Denmark, but its certainly clear..Lithoderm (talk) 16:52, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

It helps, though as you suggest, it still might be short of a slam dunk (Danish sports metaphor). Having added several names to the legacy section already, my concern now, given the recent discussions here, is that we be able to draw an unequivocal line of influence. If romantic landscape was prevalent in the North, independent of Friedrich, then we really want to be clear on just where his influence was indisputable, as apart from there being a common romantic element in the water they were drinking in Germany and Denmark. Influence cut in various directions: the article claims Friedrich's influence on Dahl, but my source cites the reverse--probably both are true. This is not to diminish the likelihood of his influence on Kobke and the Danes--I'm just being a rigorous pain about establishing it beyond doubt. JNW (talk) 17:09, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I think we should have more on the influence of the Danes, in terms of their treatment of light, and stillness, especially on the sea pictures. Johnbod (talk) 17:12, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Another inconclusive source: Nordic Landscape Painting in the Nineteenth Century, Gunnarsson, 1998, mentions Friedrich as possible inspiration for the subsequent generation of Danish landscape painters, but is restrained on the matter, questioning whether certain painters would have had knowledge of Friedrich's work, and noting similarities rather than direct inspiration. Altogether lukewarm. Kobke is described as contemporary to, rather than influenced by Friedrich. In fact, the recurring description of the Golden Age of Danish painting suggests a relatively independent existence. ?? JNW (talk) 20:36, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Legacy & Influences

This File:Shishkin na severe dikom1.jpg by Shishkin is is one of the most Friedrichesque of Russian paintings, though there are others. How all those Americans got to see Friedrich'sa work would need referencing, I think. The man above the mist needs to be in somewhere. Johnbod (talk) 21:59, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Good point Johnbod, although it says Friedrich anticipates the landscapes of the later HRS etc. Blakelock and Ryder might need refs though, I'll look to see what I can find. I'm thinking of also adding the Italian landscape painters from the Macchiaioli group if I can find a reference...Modernist (talk) 23:50, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

You'd better ref the statement on the HRS before someone puts a couple of maintenance templates at the top of the article.....Lithoderm (talk) 00:16, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Hmm..that's why the Italians..Modernist (talk) 00:21, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, this continues a discussion, seen above, from March. The cite I referred to from Eisler includes the statement His more optimistic seascapes anticipate those by the later New England Luminist, FitzHugh Lane. I've not found anything more explicit re: influence on American painting, so the door is open for elaboration, or removal of the connection as too speculative. JNW (talk) 01:36, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Without a better source linking Friedrich to the Americans, I'd be in favor of reverting mention of the US painters. I can see the rationale, but thus far it's looking like original research. JNW (talk) 20:40, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Influences

We need a section on artists who influenced Friedrick. Jacob van Ruisdael, Adrian Zingg and Claude Lorrain I've found so far. Other suggestions? Ceoil ^sláinte 01:09, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

This site [8] at the Kunsthalle mentions another Dresden artist, Johann Christian Klengel. JNW (talk) 01:19, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Adam Elsheimer was an important influence...and the Dutch landscape painters including Rembrandt...Modernist (talk) 01:23, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Anthology

Shouldn't there be a full listing of his works, or a link to a page that fully lists all his works? Remember (talk) 14:34, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

No – such incomplete, inaccurate and out of date lists clutter up far too many artist's articles. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Visual arts/Art Manual of Style. Johnbod (talk) 15:24, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

2 points.

1. I never said compile an inaccurate, incomplete and out of date list. Obviously that would not be very useful.

2. The style guide you cited even mentioned using a link to fully list the artists works (and I also proposed that). So it seems the best way to deal with this would be to create a link where a complete and accurate listing of his works can be created. Any objection? Remember (talk) 21:13, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Go ahead, if you have accurate sources. Johnbod (talk) 21:26, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Does Web Gallery of Art count? If not, then we should remove it as an external link. Remember (talk) 22:33, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

It is not really an RS in my view, though most of it is accurate. They are certainly not complete. But if all you are going to do is replicate their pages, why bother? Johnbod (talk) 22:50, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I just want to get the page started. I find it works best to start of with a page and then slowly work towards making it perfect. Starting off with a perfect page and working backwards just seems counterproductive. Remember (talk) 00:32, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Why not use a book? Ceoil ^sláinte 00:37, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Cause I don't have a book that has the information I want (and I can't cut and paste from a book). Remember (talk) 00:46, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

He good point. Here is a good format to follow.User:Yomangan/List of works by William Hogarth Ceoil ^sláinte 01:03, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I started a draft list here – User:Remember/SandboxList. Feel free to help make it better. Remember (talk) 14:21, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

And I have now created the article at List of works by Caspar David Friedrich. Remember (talk) 17:09, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Drop the last 2 paragraphs

I don't think this is necessary or important, in my opinion it should be dropped. We don't need to mention everyone who liked or disliked the work. The article is about Friedrich..Modernist (talk) 01:41, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Re:Nazi adoption of Friedrich's imagery: Its an important fact, and one from which his reputation took almost 30 years to recover. Ceoil ^sláinte 01:42, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Who cares? This is so negative and so irrelevant..and so beside the point, drop it...Modernist (talk) 01:48, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I care. By the logic of your first post we should drop mention of anybody else's openion of Friedrich; ie the whole legacy section. By the logic of your second, we should whitewash and leave a 30 year gap in the coverage of this international status. Ceoil ^sláinte 01:53, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I cannot support the legacy section, truthfully the section is dreadful..Modernist (talk) 01:55, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Fine, but coheirent and thoughtful objections would be more helpful. Ceoil ^sláinte 01:58, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

At least it could be reorganized to flow chronologically. For now I've split the last paragraph so that it ends "on a bright note". Lithoderm (talk) 01:59, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

More positive writing will help, I also made the images the same size per MoS...Modernist (talk) 02:01, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

In that light, I added this. Ceoil ^sláinte 02:04, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I just don't think it should jump from Rothko and Kiefer (who was born the year the war ended) back to Hitler. Also, which hollywood directors, and did they specifically adopt his imagery, or just gothic imagery in general? Lithoderm (talk) 02:09, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I think I was able to fix this. Ceoil ^sláinte 02:20, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I think the Hitler/Nazi quote should go..I doubt its veracity and it appears to be speculation, as it says he was reputed to be – either he is or he isn't – it's a weasel quote..Modernist (talk) 03:35, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

It's definitely looking better and better...Modernist (talk) 21:42, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Later life and death

Last sentence doesn't make sense; it reads:

Soon after the Russian Royal family purchased a number of his earlier works, and the proceeds allowed him to travel to Teplitz to recover. His death in May 1840 caused little stir within in the artistic community.

When did the purchase take place – soon after what? the 1835 stroke? Five years later he died?

This needs clarification...Modernist (talk) 04:57, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

According to Vaughn, it was after the stroke. Kafka Liz (talk) 16:11, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Its all very unclear in the single souce I have on his final years. Digging...Ceoil ^sláinte 05:10, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Which source are you using? Kafka Liz (talk) 16:07, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Vaughan mostly. That and a bunch of JSTOR pdf's Outriggr send. Ceoil ^sláinte 00:49, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I'll look too..Modernist (talk) 05:41, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Liz, that makes sense, I added the sentence about 1838 – (also from Vaughan) which leads to 1840..bridging the gap between 1835 and 1840..Modernist (talk) 00:46, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Looks good. Did you add the Munch as well? I thought that one, together with Nash's Totes Meer were excellent examples of his influence. Kafka Liz (talk) 00:46, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

"Eschewing overreaching portrayals of nature in its "totality", as found in the work of contemporary painters like Ludwig Richter and Joseph Anton Koch, Friedrich observed:..." I don't know what this means. Can somebody turn it into English ;) – Ceoil ^sláinte 02:42, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

It sounds to me as though Friedrich was not interested in painting faithful landscape vistas like some of his contemporaries; instead he chose to compose, imagine and concoct (if you will) his pictures, primarily using his inner eye and his imagination....to fashion his landscapes..Modernist (talk) 03:39, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

By the way – my memory of the beginning of Friedrich's resurgence was in the 1960s on the pages of Artforum and elsewhere and is refreshed by this article by the late Robert Rosenblum [9] read it if you have time...there are refs galore in there...Modernist (talk) 04:18, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Nice resource; thanks! Ceoil ^sláinte 11:01, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm thinking of adding a time-line similar to the El Greco article, esp as his career saw such peaks and troughs. Thoughts? Ceoil ^sláinte 12:51, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

You could always put it in a subpage, like the list of works. Lithoderm (talk) 01:07, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Upon further consideration, I am even more convinced that it would be best as a subpage, so that the viewer can pull it up and look at the timeline and the list of works side by side--- When you hit 1818 in the list, there are five paintings that feature large figures of women prominently, while none had before. If the timeline was viewed simultaneously, one would notice that he was married in 1818. So either put it on a sub-page, or add another column to the list of works labeled "significant events" (I like that idea less). -But it would be helpful.

another sentence q.

Though his artwork complied with the early Romantic aesthetic, his close study of landscape and emphasis on the spiritual elements of nature were commonplace in what was then contemporary art.

I'm not sure the above is correct. It has fragments of what I wrote, but I remember writing this as a contrast. Although his artwork complied... his close study of landscape and emphasis on the spiritual elements of nature were not commonplace at the time. Certainly that is my impression. Can someone check the source and/or do you agree? –Outriggr § 04:41, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

• This was the way it read once upon a time:

His artwork was not widely acknowledged during his lifetime, though it complied fully with the Romantic aesthetic of the time. While the close study of landscape and an emphasis on the spiritual elements of nature were commonplace in contemporary art, his work was too original and personal to be well understood.(ref name="v80-65")

That might help clarify. JNW (talk) 04:55, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I've restored this earlier version. See what you think. JNW (talk) 05:02, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I guess I was wrong (depends on how one reads the sentence; obviously the 'spiritual' component was treated uniqely in CDF's work and I felt that statement missed the point), but I do prefer the restored version (which I wrote), because it provides the "other half" – the contrast. I suspect someone must have felt it was a strong claim, but hey, it's in the books. I will remove the word "fully" as overkill now. :) –Outriggr § 02:07, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Selected works

I think a small gallery in Selected works might work...I placed it where it was at the end of the article, it might look better higher at the end of the art section, I'll take a look..Modernist (talk) 11:06, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Shishkin

Do we really need this? What museum is it in? IMHO I prefer the Magritte 1000 times more, the Russian really isn't nearly as interesting or as good as Friedrich and it seems counter productive..I don't think it adds anything new, although it does demonstrate an influence....Modernist (talk) 22:51, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Coueil removed the Magritte under fair-use pressure. The Shishkin is in Kiev, as the pic info tells you, & is extremely impressive when you are in front of it (it came to London in 2004). I thought CDF's influence on Magritte rather remained to be demonstrated myself. Johnbod (talk) 22:56, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

What about Munch's "two human beings"[10]. The connection is covered in a few paragraphs in Vaughan. Ceoil ^sláinte 22:58, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

That would be better, unless you can elaborate upon Friedrich's influence in the Magritte. I, too, hate to see it go. Lithoderm (talk) 23:01, 17 November 2008 (UTC) The Munch still isn't PD, as he died in the 1940s Lithoderm (talk) 23:02, 17 November 2008 (UTC) OH wait, it is in the US. Never mind...Lithoderm (talk)

If not that then – again from Vaughan – Karl Friedrich Lessing, Cloister Court in the Snow, 1829.[11] Ceoil ^sláinte 23:08, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

My preference would be for the Munch, if we can use it. Ceoil ^sláinte 23:08, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

The Lonely Ones (1899). Munch Museum, Oslo. Woodcut.

Done. Lithoderm (talk) 23:38, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Brilliant! Ceoil ^sláinte 23:45, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I like Munch because he pushes further; Shishkin is impressive but...Modernist (talk) 23:53, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I've switched them out- here's the Shiskin if we re-add it later: [[Image:Shishkin na severe dikom1.jpg|thumb|''In the Wild North'' by [[Ivan Shishkin]], 1891. 161 x 118 cm.]]

Lithoderm (talk) 23:55, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Litho, - I'm in favor of using both, if we can...the Munch is terrific..Modernist (talk) 23:57, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Hope to use both the Shiskin and Munch. The Magritte is out, sadly. Ceoil ^sláinte 00:09, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Too bad, the Magritte was so compellingly interesting; I can live with the two for now....I'd like a Rothko and a Turner also...if we could..Modernist (talk) 00:18, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

There can hardly be any question of Friedrich influencing Turner, surely, and little sign of vice versa? We can't just add everyone in willy-nilly. Johnbod (talk) 03:22, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

There is a remarkable and historical similarity and simultanaeity between Turner and Friedrich (The Monk by the Sea) that was mentioned in the New York Times and in the Robert Rosenblum book, surely we can add another of the greatest painters of the period...which is far more interesting and noteworthy and pertinent than a minor Russian artist of the 1890s....Modernist (talk) 03:31, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

It seems thoroughly superficial to me, and it is pretty unlikely that either had ever heard of the other, still less seen any paintings. It is no good just sticking in things like..., not that I agree they are. Shishkin is a major Russian artist of the period, though obviously as unknown in the US as the Hudson River School et al are unknown in Russia. In Western Europe hardly anyone has heard of either school, but there we go. Johnbod (talk) 03:40, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that Friedrich, Turner, Constable, et al did not know of each other...There were many artists traveling throughout Europe; and art historical speculation as to the synchronistic phenomenon of the Romantic movement in various disparate countries at that time...is not uncommon...As far as the Hudson River School goes I'd say the same thing here about Church or Bierstadt – minor, and out of place here and nothing further in relationship to Friedrich's painting innovations and personal poetry..as wonderful as those artists are..Modernist (talk) 03:51, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree, it seems far-fetched. We could always put in The Isle of the Dead.Lithoderm (talk) 15:23, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Isle of the Dead (1883) Arnold Böcklin. Oil on board, 80 x 150 cm, Staatliche Museen, Berlin

Turner likely saw Friedrick's work during visits to Germany, but likely that that was it. The Isle of the Dead is very impressive, but for now I prefer the Shishkin. Ceoil ^sláinte 21:33, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, I wonder – his European touring days were largely over before CDF's career got started, & he mostly (?only) went further south in Germany than CDF's very Baltic sphere. Johnbod (talk) 21:40, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

It's not just that; artists talk about other artists and ideas floating around and circulate amongst active creative people, (like today) clearly the connection between the Romantic painters is more than just coincidence.. Modernist (talk) 22:10, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I wonder if were are trying to do three different things in the current legacy section – trace his critical reception (opening and closing paras), broadly trace his general infulence on sucessive gereations of artists (most of the rest), and discuss specific works that were painted almost in homage to him (Magritte, Munch etc...and this macro aspect is by far the most interesting element for me). This whole thing could be a long article unto its self, and we should definatly consider it. For now, sould we create a sepreate critical "openion section" in the existing article, as apposed to artistic influence? Ceoil ^sláinte 22:15, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it's too long yet. If it gets longer we might subdivide into a Later influences section...Modernist (talk) 22:41, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

For now maybe a seperate "critical reception" and "influence" sections, and then spin out influence when it grows . Ceoil ^sláinte 22:54, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

OK give it a shot...Modernist (talk) 23:00, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I've started an attempt here, but have yet not properly disentangled the overlap. I'm going to let it rest for tonight, but I think with an hour or two a useful distinction can be made. Help appreciated. Ceoil ^sláinte 23:49, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Nice start. The Bocklin can be worked in there too...I can do without the Kenneth Clark pic; hopefully others will pitch in there, I'll give it a shot either later or in the AM....Modernist (talk) 23:59, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Paul Nash

thumb|Nash's Totes Meer

Friedrich's The Sea of Ice

I'd like if possible to include some discussion of Nash's 1940–41 painting Totes Meer in the legacy section. Vaughan points out a strong resemblance between this work and Friedrich's Sea of Ice and theorises that Nash became familiar with Sea through the work of friend Max Ernst. The influence seems evident, but since Totes Meer is un-free, I think we need to make a stronger case for its use. Does anyone have other sources documenting Friedrich's influence? Kafka Liz (talk) 02:15, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

The gallery

Keep the gallery – the daughter article is a mess, and dump the Clark picture...He missed the point of the work, why is his picture here? and uh...what happened to the poetry in the article?.....and Robert Rosenblum? Modernist (talk) 02:34, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

So fix the daughter article, or, just, leave, it. We are not apologists, we're going for an FA. "He missed the point of the work"; Well, expain that in the article so, instead of complaining on the talk. Effort is being made here to establish a balanced sequence of openion, but you seem resistance to that. Ceoil (talk) 02:54, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not gonna refute or remove Clark's comments, I just don't see the point of his picture. His comments are perfectly fine as written opinion. The visuals at this point should in my opinion be at least as good as Friedrich's paintings or at least in the ballpark..the article is coming together as I rethink my take on it...Modernist (talk) 03:09, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Where has the gallery gone now? I still think a major work should go below the lead pic, as there's a huge TOC gap, & you need to see a mature work at the start. Johnbod (talk) 11:57, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm in favor of a small group of great paintings – like the three or four best ones we can find and having them in the gallery, I agree...Modernist (talk) 12:03, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Where should the gallery be placed if it is reinstated? Thoughts? Modernist (talk) 12:07, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Agree re: "a major work should go below the lead pic". If the gallery is reinstated (my concern is the text to images ratio), it should go in "Work"; but we now have so much to choose from with List of works by Caspar David Friedrich. Ceoil (talk) 21:10, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, I wouldn't call The Tree of Crows a major work... the transition from the German list of works is still incomplete-- it's tedious but not difficult, so you're welcome to help. Some hints- Öl auf Leinwand means "Oil on canvas" and um means "circa" ;) Lithoderm 21:20, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I chose it because it is certainly typical, it goes well with the green of the von Kügelgen, and I like it a lot (he he). Feel free to change though, as I say we now have a lot of options to choose from. Ceoil (talk) 21:28, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Can we change it? It's not typical – there's little space, it's monolithic, and relatively boring! If the goal is to keep the painting neutral for reader's first impression (e.g. no winter gothic scenes, no crosses) and representative, how about File:Caspar David Friedrich Village landscape in morning light.jpg? It's "plain" landscape but shows the unique centrality of Friedrich's elements. –Outriggr § 10:10, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I used an important variety of pictures in the gallery with various quotes. I think most of Friedrich's main themes are covered...Modernist (talk) 00:59, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Great job on the gallery. A good intro to this section would be to state about how many paintings and other works we know of. Does anyone have this in their references? Thanks, –Outriggr § 10:12, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

The closest I got was 'around 500'. o and I'm conceeding the tree of crows, so feel free to switch. But whatever is chosen should ideally look well against von Kügelgen's portrait. Ceoil (talk) 19:45, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I've replaced it with "Grosse Gehege bei Dresden", which literally translates as "Large Enclosure near Dresden", but I have a feeling that it really means "clearing", or something more specific. Lithoderm 20:08, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Would favour keeping this as 2nd img. Ceoil (talk) 20:27, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for referencing the gallery captions...I think the article has come together well, good job all around! Modernist (talk) 23:00, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

The Lead image

Well, I thought that The Large Enclosure was a better match for the portrait, but if we must have the other first so be it. I would suggest Ships in the Harbor at Evening as a replacement in the gallery, as there is an article on it in the German wikipedia; that would add another link to one of his paintings from the main article. Lithoderm 05:00, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I placed Old Heroes' Graves, in the gallery primarily because it's mentioned in the text of the article, and because it's relatively early – 1812..and it's referenced..The Ships in the Harbor at Evening is a good possibility too. I like the Wanderer where it is now..Modernist (talk) 05:28, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I think it all looks good now, with exemplary captions for the recent arrivals. Johnbod (talk) 12:06, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Influence

I'm (more than) happy to leave the 3 paintings we have, but the section is a sea of blue, and might need to be trimmed as JNW pointed out before, and as Awadewit mentioned in her review. Thoughts? Ceoil (talk) 11:42, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I'll eliminate White Mountain and Rocky Mountain as essentially they are related to the Hudson River School and are covered there...Modernist (talk) 11:56, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Are we talking about images or links? I added Hockney (as a name only) and Nash because I found the influence particularly striking, more so than Beuys and Rothko, but I'm flexible on that. I'm on my way out the door, but a summary of my feelings are that I like the Nash and would really like to keep it; Ernst is critical; Magritte important but difficult to explain; haven't looked at enough Rothko to have an opinion; thought the Hockney influence was strong, but don't really like Hockney; am unconvinced about Beuys. Kafka Liz (talk) 12:51, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Talking about links, the number of images is fine, I think. Ceoil (talk) 01:02, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

That's what I thought. I trimmed out Hockney and Beuys, as discussed here. Kafka Liz (talk) 01:13, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

His contemporaries and the other 19th century figures, Munch, Bochlin, Rothko, Magritte, Nash, Ernst, Beckett, and Kiefer should stay; Hockney and Beuys can go...Modernist (talk) 13:13, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Influence and the Sublime

Hello all – great article, as I mentioned in the FAC. I came to read this article with a question and discovered it was up for FAC by chance. My question relates to the sublime – part idle curiosity and part filling in the gaps in my knowledge, but I don't feel it's really answered by the article at the moment. My question is 'to what extent is his work considered to be examples of sublime painting and to what extent was he influenced by the philosophical ideas of the sublime'.

My amateur WP:OR thoughts are his work showed influence of those ideas that were in the air, before Schopenhauer's The World as Will and Representation – and afterwards he really started hitting it with File:Ravine by Friedrich.jpg and Das Eismeer. Clearly he spanned both sublime and romantic painting in his work, with each painting finding it's own place in the spectrum.

Timeline of the Sublime

A Philosophical Inquiry into the Origin of Our Ideas of the Sublime and Beautiful (1756) Edmund Burke

Observations on the Feeling of the Beautiful and Sublime (1764) Immanuel Kant.

Critique of Judgement (1790) Kant again

1806 File:Caspar David Friedrich 065.jpg some sublime influence

1809 The Abbey in the Oakwood – sublime

The World as Will and Representation (1819) Arthur Schopenhauer

1822 Rocky Ravine

I have scant art history sources – but plentiful architectural history sources, and came to this article because my reading sources relating to expressionist architecture both cited CDF as an influence on German expressionism and particularly the sublime ideas his work embodied. Any thoughts? --Joopercoopers (talk) 14:24, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for this outline. Its not an area I have knowledge of, so will beed to do some reading up before tackeling. Anybody else know of useful sources? Ceoil (talk) 00:31, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I recommend this book: Modern Painting and the Northern Romantic Tradition: Friedrich to Rothko. New York, Harper & Row, Publishers; 1975, ISBN 0064300579 by Robert Rosenblum. My understanding is that there are similarities between the German Romantic painters and the English Romantic painters and the American Thomas Cole and the earliest Hudson River School artists in their sense of religous and awestruck response to nature; giving rise to a feeling of spirituality in confronting God's nature and painting it, - resulting in the powerful and awe inspiring sense of the Sublime...in that early phase of 19th century art...that was the all important driving force of the aesthetic at the time...My understanding is that Romantic landscape painting as conceived by Friedrich, Cole, Turner, Constable and others were essentially conscious of what was referred to as the Sublime..Modernist (talk) 00:38, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

And brief mentions here and here. Ceoil (talk) 00:49, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Intriguing question... totally beyond what I've read to date, so I have no ready answers, but it seems well worth trying to include. I may not be able to get to it before the Thanksgiving holiday, though... and honestly I'm not very good with philosophy. I'll see what I can dig up, though. Kafka Liz (talk) 01:24, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I decided to absorb this into the landscape section, as they are so closely linked. So some of that section has been spun out to a third thematic section. Ceoil (talk) 01:29, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

FA selection

Congratulations to all who worked so hard to bring this to featured article status, including the usual suspects and newer contributors. Excellent article. Cheers, JNW (talk) 17:28, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Die Lebensstufen

Die Lebensstufen

I think that The Stages of Life deserves mention in the article. I know I've heard it refered to in print as the most systematically allegorical painting that Friedrich produced... it has its own page at the DE wiki:de:Die Lebensstufen. How the masts of the ships echo Calvary, and the man seen from the rear is most likely a self portrait... I won't insert OR into the article, I'm trying to remember where I read all that..Lithoderm (talk) 04:36, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I'd favour this image over Woman in Front of the Setting Sun. Ceoil ^sláinte 00:06, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, an important image... Lithoderm's recollections are correct and not OR. Support replacement... –Outriggr § 02:07, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I think we also should have Wanderer above the Sea of Fog – the only one with an article – and the Cliffs at Rugen – probably his best known works. One of these should go by the TOC, otherwise it's a while before you reach his mature work. We should open up a small gallery for ones displaced. Johnbod (talk) 03:26, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Aye (he typed, nodding) to both Wanderer and Cliffs. JNW (talk) 03:59, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Aye, I didn't realize so many of these were not already present. I blame Ceoil. So the must-haves should be: Teschen Altar, Wanderer, Cliffs, Man and Woman Contemplating the Moon, Monk by the Sea, and... the Ice Wreck maybe. Ideally one of the "traditional" landscapes with no staffage would also be present, as they really do comprise a good part of his work and require a "closer reading" to understand the artist. Too many options! –Outriggr § 05:35, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

The Stages of Life---- I've created a basic article by translating the German one. I might translate more of these articles if I have time- DE wiki is the place for articles on Friedrich paintings. Lithoderm (talk) 22:17, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

The Monk by the Sea----Another translation done. Lithoderm (talk) 02:48, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

You read German? I don't know whether to be jealous or just cry. I've been fighting with German texts all week. Kafka Liz (talk) 02:55, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Sort of. My German is maybe level 3 out of five on our Babel tags. I run the text through reverso and then entirely re-word and re-phrase it, referring to the German when I'm uncertain as to the shades of meaning... Lithoderm (talk) 02:59, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Still, you're one up on me. I've been dealing with early 20th century archaeology texts all week. Not only are they in a language I can barely read, but they are full of obscure technical terms and outdated jargon that isn't in my dictionary. Kafka Liz (talk) 03:03, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Good luck, German technical jargon is notorious for loooong compound words. My father studied law in Germany for a while- you come across terms like "Rindfleischetikettierungsüberwachungsaufgabenübertragungsgesetz", which is a law regulating the labeling of meat packages. But anyway..Lithoderm (talk) 03:10, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Pretty catchy. Good name for a band. Kafka Liz (talk) 01:30, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Chalk Cliffs on Rügen----And another. The last for tonight, I'm quite tired... Lithoderm (talk) 04:19, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

The Abbey in the Oakwood----Another. Lithoderm (talk) 01:25, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

The Sea of Ice----Another. Lithoderm 00:37, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Mountain Landscape with Rainbow----Another, this time from the Spanish Wikipedia. Lithoderm 16:42, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Caspar David Friedrich in his Studio----Another. The only substantial article on his paintings left on the DE wiki is the one on the Tetschener Altar. Lithoderm 19:15, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

A scene from a horror movie?

I find the description of CDF's painting Abtei im Eichwald (The Abbey in the Oakwood):

This painting has been described as like "a scene from a horror movie, it [forebears] all the Gothic clichés of the late 18th and early 19th centuries"

not very felicitous. When looking at the painting I do not have the impression of a gothic horror scenario but rather an impression of peace and silence ("the (peaceful) dawn of life"). --Furfur 09:20, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, it's cited. I think that the article conveys both points of view as it stands; it also says this, earlier on: "For example, in The Abbey in the Oakwood, the movement of the monks away from the open grave and toward the cross and the horizon imparts Friedrich's message that the final destination of man's life lies beyond the grave."(which is also cited). Do you have any citations for your opinion? Really, the article The Abbey in the Oakwood needs a section on interpretations... Another option would be to edit the image caption so that it is more balanced. Lithoderm 17:37, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Infobox revert

This edit by User:Kafka Liz reverted the addition of an Infobox Artist to this article. In my experience, standardized infoboxes like this one are part of the standard format of most Wikipedia articles. I'm aware that infoboxes are not always appropriate or mandatory, but providing a summary of basic information does make the article more appealing and enhances its readability.

OK for reinstatement? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dwiakigle (talk • contribs) 00:22, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

No.

Yes, standardized infoboxes are part of the format of many Wikipedia articles. They are indeed not always appropriate or mandatory; and, while it may make the article more "appealing" to people who don't like to read, repeating in a box information that's easily available elsewhere or simplified or trivial or some combination of these does nothing to help the article.

I note that you (Dwiakigle) are busily adding infoboxes, even to articles that have already reached FA status. That they got to be FA without infoboxes may say something about the need for infoboxes. -- Hoary (talk) 00:43, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps WikiProject Biography should be petitioned to remove the "needs infobox" parameter from their talk page template. Perhaps infoboxes are useful for athletes, but you can't sum up an artist's achievements with statistics or a few tidbits of data.. Lithoderm 02:54, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Infoboxes are not meant to provide the entire substance of an artist's work; they standardize a few basic facts so that they can be found at a glance without wading through the article. Your poor characterization of them reflects a personal preference on your part: the majority of Wikipedia users like infoboxes and find them quite helpful.

(Note also that all infobox fields are optional and unreliable fields can be removed, so there's no loss in accuracy). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dwiakigle (talk • contribs) 04:56, 8 February 2009

Thank you Hoary and Kafka Liz for taking care of this. I support the revert, and I do not support the summation of an artist's place in art history as being "influenced by" X and "influencing" Y and Z. This is a drastic oversimplification in most cases and it is an irresponsible way to present art knowledge to novice readers. –Outriggr § 07:41, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

• Dear Dwiakigle – Memo: "All art and lit people despise infoboxes, and express their animosity with more or less random measures of politesse." Write that down somewhere for future reference. It's an Iron Law of Wikipedia. ;-) Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 09:10, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

While some infoboxes serve a useful purpose they remain optional; all infoboxes do not necessarily serve the same purpose...The consensus here is no infobox...Modernist (talk) 14:31, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Apart from anything else it would mean loosing the Wanderer above the Sea of Fog as 2nd lead image, and that just ain't gonna happen. Ceoil (talk) 14:59, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you to everyone who weighed in on this. My revert speaks for itself, but for the readers amongst us, this comment sums up my feelings on the subject. Kafka Liz (talk) 15:42, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I rest my case. Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 17:54, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, I like to read and I like infoboxes. I didn't see this discussion when I just re-added it. I thought it was an oversight. I find infoboxes extremely helpful and appreciate them when they're present. I won't attempt to re-add it to this particular article, but I'll still add them when I see them missing elsewhere. — Frecklefσσt | Talk 22:06, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi Guys!

Well done! Need a little help... Please take a look at the message that I have left on the "Wanderer above a Sea of Fog" talk page. Amandajm (talk) 12:10, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Never mind! I remembered what I was looking for.Amandajm (talk) 12:13, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Amanda! Ceoil (talk) 12:20, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Excellent article

Very very nice. This fellow was a contemporary of Beethoven -- any crossover influence?130.94.161.218 (talk) 00:56, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. No. Ceoil (talk) 18:09, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Singrid Hunz?

I have removed the name "Singrid Hunz", as there is no such author. The name has been wrongly included by user Ceoil. See [12]. Wikiwiserick (talk) 16:11, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I have added the correct name. It must be Sigrid Hinz. Wikiwiserick (talk) 16:48, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

"Success"

Have to admit I'm a bit puzzled by the "Marriage and Success" heading. It seems to involve 2(!) years of happiness and success? Furthermore, it's anachronistic, given that the article states that Friedrich befriended the Russian poet Zhukovsky in 1821, which apparently had a lot to do with the artist being able to make a living during his later years.

Maybe we should consider a renaming of that section?

With regards to the rest of the article, kudos. Great stuff. It's not often you find diamonds like this in the jungle which is Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.109.54.117 (talk) 18:12, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Antecedents

Hi, I've found a lot of useful information regarding artists inspired by Friedrich, but I have a feeling the article doesn't go in-depth on his own influences. It talks a bit about his teachers and the Sturm und Drang-movement and so forth but doesn't really give me a lot of names nor images that Friedrich echoed. Or maybe he was original in the strictest sense of the word? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.109.54.117 (talk) 15:10, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

"Forebear" and the Boime source

I was just looking through this [excellent] article, and was a little puzzled by the caption for the image The Abbey in the Oakwood. Quoting Boime, it reads, "This painting has been described as like "a scene from a horror movie, it [forebears] all the Gothic clichés of the late 18th and early 19th centuries".[51]

What is "forebear" here? That seems like it must be an error – not even the OED has "forebear" as a verb; the closest entry is "forbear" (v.), which means to endure or bear with, and is obsolete. I'm guessing whoever wrote the caption meant something like either "foregoes" or "prefigures" (which would be in this context near opposites), but I don't have the source to check. Why can't the exact quote from Boime be used here? Sindinero (talk) 13:01, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, "forebear" isn't a verb at all, and "forbear" as I know it means to abstain from or to tolerate – which doesn't make much sense in this context. Unfortunately I don't have the text either. You might try asking User:Ceoil. Lithoderm 13:11, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

My guess is – what was meant is foreshadows ...Modernist (talk) 13:25, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

That makes sense (and would be equivalent to "prefigures"). Should we change this to a sentence that works in English, or wait on a corroboration of the source? (I've also posted on User:Ceoil's page. Sindinero (talk) 13:32, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Seems like the most likely possibility, so I've been bold and amended it. I'd still like to see the entire quote tho. Once we have that we can tweak the sentence. Lithoderm 13:34, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Good catch...Modernist (talk) 13:37, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks to User:Riggr Mortis for finding the exactly quote. Neither forego nor prefigure, in the end. Sindinero (talk) 07:41, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Short addition concerning HA Schult

This edit has been removed by another user. As it was only a minor addition, I do not understand why it has been removed. Wikiwiserick (talk) 13:49, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

This article is about Friedrich not 20th century – 21st century add ons. Develop consensus here before making any further additions...Modernist (talk) 13:59, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I'd say keep it as part of the note on the whole. Johnbod (talk) 14:04, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough as a note on the whole...Modernist (talk) 14:07, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

That's fine. Thanks. Wikiwiserick (talk) 18:18, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

The section in question states that Friedrich has been "cited as an influence" by "major" 20th C artists, like Rothko. Rothko is rightly considered a "major artist" but I don't think that it is an appropriate label for a fairly obscure artist like Schult. Also, the footnote added does not refer to Friedrich being an influence on the artist but rather an unattributed statement that someone (who?) likened Schult to Friedrich, which is not an example of Schult citing Friedrich as an influence on his work. It also includes a quote in English, but that is misleading since the original source is in German, not English. Where is the translation and who did it? Lastly, can anyone confirm that Schult is in fact mentioned in the Siegfried Salzmann reference that was cited? Rhode Island Red (talk) 18:31, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

In Germany, HA Schult is reckoned among "the most important performance artists of our day". See Nico Schröter, Kai Giesler and Philipp Kohde, LOVE LETTERS BUILDING – Postfuhramt Berlin Mitte – ein Denkmal im Sog von Werbung und Marketing (Technische Universität Cottbus, 2002), p. 6. So much for the importance of this "fairly obscure artist". The German source is accurately translated into English ("Caspar David Friedrich des Konsumzeitalters"). What should be wrong with this? Wikiwiserick (talk) 19:02, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm removing him until this dispute is resolved. He is utterly obscure in the USA – I just realized that User Wikiwiserick placed him into this article without consensus in 2010...Modernist (talk) 19:50, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

You are a one shot pony – promoting this guy all over the place [13]...Modernist (talk) 19:56, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I do not understand your argument, especially in view of the fact that Caspar David Friedrich is a German artist. Furthermore, Schult isn't "utterly obscure in the USA", as his performances are recognized in the whole world. There are articles on his work in the New York Times and the Washington Post and his happenings were shown on American TV. See also the many bibliographical references to publications on Schult's work in John Gray, Action Art: A Bibliography of Artists' Performance: From Futurism to Fluxus and Beyond (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1993), pp. 237-38. Schult creates performances at the cost of millions of dollars. For the immense costs of the "Crash" happening on Staten Island, New York, see Colin Naylor, Contemporary Artists (St. James Press, 1989), p. 850. For the privilege to install 1000 "trash people" on the Great Wall of China, he had to pay 4 million marks. See Flash Art, 231, 2003, 73 and this American PhD thesis, p. 9. Wikiwiserick (talk) 20:02, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

This is an article about a painter. Being German does not guarantee inclusion. Your guy is a performance artist he isn't a painter and his work has absolutely nothing to do with Friedrich; you added the link 2 years ago, long after we created this article and here you are 2 years later adding more – sorry but consensus is against you...Modernist (talk) 20:10, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Take it elsewhere – doesn't matter how much money he spent – he does not belong in this article...Modernist (talk) 20:11, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. An artist would not be considered a "major artist" (along the lines of Rothko who is internationally recognized) merely because they have been mentioned in an American newspaper or a relatively obscure book in German. I concur with Modernist regarding removal of the text in question. Seems like a case of WP:ADVOCACY. Rhode Island Red (talk) 20:15, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, Schult is also an artist who has combined painting techniques and garbage in his objects of the 1970s (mainly "biokinetic landscapes"). His early work is certainly influenced by Friedrich – not his performances, for which he is more known nowadays. See [14] [15]. See also [16]. Wikiwiserick (talk) 20:22, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

We don't add everyone who was influenced by an artist like Friedrich or who likes him – we'd have to add thousands, go away...Modernist (talk) 20:29, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

We can add Akira Kurosawa too, those awful links look like they relate to Kurosawa's late films, see this Dreams (1990 film)...Modernist (talk) 20:32, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

So you are not willing to include a short reference to Schult in the Friedrich article, although the early work of this major German performance artist has clearly been influenced by Friedrich. Very interesting indeed. Wikiwiserick (talk) 20:38, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Correct...Modernist (talk) 20:39, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I would say that this is not O.K.: (1) Schult is not an "obscure" but an important artist of our day, his current work being supported by Dr Annette Schavan, Federal Minister of Education and Research, Germany, the Alfred Wegener Institute for Polar and Marine Research, The State Russian Museum, St. Petersburg, and several other major institutes and organizations; (2) one of his many works that include clear references to Friedrich was commissioned by the politicians of the German Bundestag (that's why the artist emphasized the German Romantic tradition in this work); (3) linking is an important feature of Wikipedia, binding the project together into an interconnected whole, as connections to a related subject of another article is always useful. So if there are references to other artists of the twentieth century who have been influenced by Friedrich, a short reference to Schult must also be included, especially as academic sources say that he is as important as they are. Wikiwiserick (talk) 15:05, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Take it someplace else – this is seriously inappropriate for this article...Modernist (talk) 16:20, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

I've removed your other inappropriate additions as well...Modernist (talk) 16:26, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

If you are fully aware of what you have done now, then you should remove the references to all other twentieth-century artists, too. For Graubner and Friedrich, see, for instance, this source or this one. Wikiwiserick (talk) 18:14, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

As you seem to have no knowledge of the influence of Friedrich's painting on major German artists of the second half of the twentieth century, as your recent removals clearly show, Modernist, you are not the right person to decide which links should be included in this featured article or not. Therefore, I have reverted your edits and added some additional references. Wikiwiserick (talk) 18:55, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

And you seem to be refusing to listen to what other editors are telling you. These are the same editors you canvassed for input,[17][18] contrary to WP guidelines and, in one case, despite being warned not to.[19] In the last few days, you have filed a third opinion request,[20] and a dispute resolution request,[21] and you have directly solicited various editors -- in all cases, they are telling you the same things, but you continue to ignore them and edit war,[22] thereby wasting a considerable amount of WP resources. If you continue this advocacy while ignoring input from the community and editing tendentiously/disruptively, it may result in an editing block. Rhode Island Red (talk) 19:32, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

As you were deeply involved in an edit war with me, Rhode Island Red, and, as I know, are no expert in Caspar David Friedrich and German painting of the second half of the twentieth century, your comment here is completely superfluous. This is a content dispute about the influence of Caspar David Friedrich on German art of the 20th century, and I have cited reliable sources that cannot be denied. Wikiwiserick (talk) 19:49, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

This is the last time you'll troll this page, consensus is against you...Modernist (talk) 19:51, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Can be and have been denied -- repeatedly! As I said, if you continue on this path of ignoring community input/consensus and editing disruptively/tendentiously, an editing block may result. Rhode Island Red (talk) 19:59, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Caspar David Friedrich/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Good amount of well-illusrated information, but could definitely be better.

Last edited at 15:41, 29 October 2006 (UTC). Substituted at 14:29, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Location of death

The article seems pretty good but nowhere does it say where he died. That's why infoboxes are so useful but there seems to be a movement inside Wikipedia trying to abolish them. Not that I am saying this is the case in this article but nowhere does it say where this great painter died. Regards. 93.82.76.201 (talk) 14:44, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

In Dresden, which I've added. The dates in the first lines used to include the places too, but the MOS changed that, perhaps a pity. Nott enough to justify and infobox though. The article is short on info as to where he lived too, which could be added. Johnbod (talk) 14:57, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Infobox

Hi, while I don't agree with the recent edit, I'd still integrate the infobox. Any justifiable objections? Cheers Horst-schlaemma (talk) 10:43, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

• This is a featured article and the infobox is not needed...Modernist (talk) 10:50, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

It's there at most bio articles. It's nice for an overview. Why not here? -- Horst-schlaemma (talk) 11:54, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

It makes the lead image too small for one thing. This is an issue with a very long history. aren't you aware of it? See Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Infoboxes. Johnbod (talk) 13:18, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Because there were multiple things that were done in the edit with which we have gone back and forth, I feel it is helpful to break that edit down into functional portions in order to identify what is controversial and what is not. The edit consisted of the following:

1. Add an infobox
2. Change the order of {{main|List of works by Caspar David Friedrich}}. This was moved to the top of the section in which it is located. That it should be immediately under the section heading is explicitly specified in WP:MOS#Section organization. The visual impact on the page is noticeable only with the page in a narrow window.
3. Use {{-}} to force the "External video" box to complete prior to the gallery being shown. The visual impact on the page is visible only when viewing the page in a wide window.
4. Change the size of the pictures in the gallery
5. Add Image: Image:Caspar David Friedrich – Klosterruine Eldena (ca.1825).jpg to the gallary
6. References changed from {{Reflist|colwidth=30em}} to {{Reflist|20em}}
7. Bibliography changed from {{refbegin|2}} to {{refbegin|30em}}
8. Add a blank line between the last external link and the {{Caspar David Friedrich}} at the bottom of the page.
9. Change the order of categories at the bottom of the page. No categories were added or removed.
10. Removal of invalid null parameters in citation templates (Re-added to article)
11. Fleshing out a bare URL citation (Re-added to article)

If I have missed something, please feel free to add it to the above list.

I have assumed #9 and #10 are non-controversial and re-added those changes into the article.

Number 3: I would normally use the {{clear}} template in such a location. To me, it appears to be an improvement. However, I can not test in all environments:OS/browser/mobile/etc.

I object to the combination of #6 and #7. The References and Bibliography sections should retain a look similar to each other. Two columns, as they are currently, appears to be the most common. My primary issue wrt. these is that they should end up with both sections having the same number of columns of similar width.

Number 8 appears to be an improvement. It does a better job of visually separating those elements on the page.

Number 1: It appears that the primary contention is with the infobox

In the five years since this page became a featured article, infoboxes have become basically standard on Wikipedia. The fact that this is a featured article does not mean that it should never change. It does mean that extra care should be taken when making changes so that the quality of the article is not reduced.

The infobox appeared to be a reasonable addition to the article (Although, I would not have limited the image width to 187 pixels which I felt was too small; this could easily be adjusted.). Adding an infobox moves the article towards being more consistent in look-and-feel with the rest of enwiki (or at least that is my impression). In a brief look at the current feature article candidates, I noted that only 2 of those 52 FA candidate articles do not have an infobox.

I am neither strongly for nor against having an infobox in this article. I lean towards having one because it gathers interesting data in a easily accessible location and having one appears to be more consistent with the majority of maintained articles on enwiki.

NOTE: The above was written prior to my reading the previous two responses. As of the time I post this, I have not yet read the arbitration case linked above. I will do so. However, I will state again that I am neither strongly for an infobox in this article, nor strongly against one. It does appear that it could benefit the article to have one, but only if there is consensus to do so. — Makyen (talk) 13:59, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

• Johnbod, Ceoil and I as well as several editors worked hard bringing this to FA status. Yesterday – I returned the article to its FA form as of 9 January 2014 [23]; because after which on 13 January an editor utterly changed the gallery and screwed up the article format – see the gallery after this edit [24]. Yesterday I also attempted – unsuccessfully – to add this image Ruine Eldena (incorrectly titled Eldena Abbey Ruins by the editor in February), that had been added in February without explanatory text; but I realized it is redundant with this image The Abbey in the Oakwood – see this – Eldena Abbey – and really doesn't work with the rest of the article, wasn't needed, so I didn't add it. I appreciate Makyen fixing the reference templates; as to the External Video – it was added long after the article achieved FA status. As to the infobox – it is not required and it was left out by consensus...Modernist (talk) 17:02, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

File summary box

This is quite a minor issue, but I happened to notice that the summary box with the file of Graveyard under Snow lists Cmentarz w śniegu as the title in Portuguese.File:Caspar David Friedrich 052.jpg Actually, that's the title in Polish. Sca (talk) 22:01, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Tetschen Altar

Here it is written, "The altar panel depicts the crucified Christ in profile at the top of a mountain, alone and surrounded by nature," under "Move to Dresden." This is wrong- the Tetschen Altar depicts a Gipefelkreuz, or a gilded crucifix, not the actual crucifixion.Madaldal (talk) 05:10, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Caspar David Friedrich. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081209010756/http://www.atlantic-times.com:80/archive_detail.php?recordID=495 to http://www.atlantic-times.com/archive_detail.php?recordID=495
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081210200640/http://www.helnwein-museum.com:80/article3453.html to http://www.helnwein-museum.com/article3453.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:05, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Caspar David Friedrich. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081027220208/http://www.caspar-david-friedrich-gesellschaft.de/index.htm to http://www.caspar-david-friedrich-gesellschaft.de/index.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081211013532/http://www.hermitagemuseum.org/html_En/04/2003/hm4_2_046.html to http://www.hermitagemuseum.org/html_En/04/2003/hm4_2_046.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:40, 20 May 2017 (UTC)