Talk:Themes in Italian Renaissance painting

Name

Is everybody OK with the name of this article, or can someone suggest something better?

--Amandajm 01:44, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Not necessarily better, but another possibility is Italian Renaissance Painting (themes). JNW 02:06, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

What about Italian Renaissance Painting (technique) or Characteristics of Italian Renaissance Painting? mais ^(talk) 10:23, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't go with 'technique', because that refers to materials and methods (oil, tempera, fresco, etc.). But I wonder if we are being too conservative in our characterizations. After all, this was the Renaissance, and these developments transformed Western art. How about Innovations in Italian Renaissance Painting, or some such? JNW 13:37, 6 June 2007 (UTC) Hmm, development of themes is sounding better. JNW 14:42, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

How about "Thematic development of Italian Renaissance painting"? Srnec 17:24, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I like that best, or why not just Development of Italian Renaissance painting. Or "Developments in ..."? Johnbod 17:55, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I thought of that, but then I wondered if there was an importance to the concept of "themes" here. Does the article (or should it/will it) detail developments in style and technique, or just in theme? Srnec 02:35, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I would say at the moment style & technique (in a broad sense) are more what is covered than "themes" which implies iconography to me. But these are all flexible words. Johnbod 03:04, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Re suggestions

• Let me emphasise that this is only about Italian Renaissance painting so that word is essential.
• Develoment of Renaissance painting. No. Its development is dealt with historically and stylistically in Italian Renaissance painting.
• Thematic development of Renaissance painting suggests a single-strand of development.
• Style is dealt with primarily in the other article.
• Technique is dealt with in the other article- media (tempera, fresco, oils) and how they affected the craft and the end product.
• This article is about the development of a number of different themes, and it is specific to Italy. I prefer to have the words "Italian Renaissance painting" first, because then it is clear that this article is supplimentary to the main article.
• It is then described as "development of themes" because that is precisely what the article is about.
• It could have the order changed and say Development of themes in Italian Renaissance painting but I don't think this adds value.
• It could be Italian Renaissance painting - development of themes Which I prefer but I have been previously criticised for using a dash in a heading where a comma would do.

--Amandajm 03:13, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

To Johnbod,

In terms of whether a "theme" is essntially iconography, as a painter, I'd say "No". Because one may be locked into a subject matter by commission, but one chooses whether one makes the painting a study of the theme of landscape, perspective, light, colour, tone, etc.

To the extent that as a teacher I would ask a student to look at a painting and ask "what is the artist on about?". Nowadays you'd expect an answer based on politics, society or some such. But the requirement was to look beyond the Portrait (which is the obvious subject) and see that the artist was perceiving the figure as a tonal arrangement. On another day and with another model as subject, the artist might be on about the wonderful contrast of red hair against a green curtain.

So, while Ghirlandaio is painting a commissioned fresco cycle, he is pleasing himself by working out a wonderful pictorial essay on the theme of perspective. He had to paint the blinking family at the Visitation, but he didn't have to paint a receding wall, a rising ramp and a church seen through and arch. They, in a sense, are what the artist is "on about" .

--Amandajm 03:24, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

That may be what the word means to you, but what does it convey to the average WP reader?

Elements of Italian Renaissance painting

How's that? --Amandajm 03:30, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm thinking about it and I like it... stylistic elements, thematic elements, iconographical elements, landscape elements..... they're all happy!

Do we go with it, or what? --Amandajm 03:33, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

(oh no, something seems to be wrong....)

That does sound rather dull (especially since I corrected the typo) in an "Elements of Geometry" sort of way. Also I think will leave the reader unclear what to expect. Maybe just "Development of themes in Italian Renaissance painting". Johnbod 03:40, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

That or my proposal still sound best to me, but if the development described does not conform to "theme" as distinguishable from other elements of painting, then the word (and its relatives) ought to be abandoned and replaced with something like "evolution of Italian Renaissance painting". That doesn't sound boring, so I hope it would be accurate. Srnec 03:54, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Elements of Italian Renaissance painting is the most accurate, boring or not, now let me get back to blinking Romanesque architecture... if I keep discussing this, the other article which I am in the middle of, as you re aware, smec, will take six weeks unless someone who knows more about it than I do comes along to write it! I you decide to move the bloody thing, then make sure you fix its links. Johnbod... I'm really great at typos, you can count on half a doezn in every section.--Amandajm 04:22, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Poorly divided

It seems to me like this article could be a lot clearly in terms of chronology. I think it would work better if it were somehow divided into the usual Early/Mid/High/Mannerism scheme (it needs Mannerists painters also). Right now it justs a list of how certain artists did things in certain paintings, definitely in need of more clarity. Weygander (talk) 04:30, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Weygander, this article is about "how certain artists did things in certain paintings". It is about themes, not chronology. If you divide it chronologically, then you are not able to compare a Giotto fresco with a Masaccio fresco with a Michelangelo fresco. The chronological development is dealt with in the other article, which you have located, because you left a message there as well. Amandajm (talk) 07:33, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Ah, the problem I was pointing out is the fact that the artists are simply lumped together. There is no serious indication of how artists learned from their predecessors and how the art developed and grew, only a list of techniques used by artists, something that could really be improved upon. Weygander (talk) 17:54, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

The article Italian Renaissance painting is chronologically arranged. It is about "how artists learned from their predecessors and how the art developed and grew". This article complements the other article. If you want a chronological history, go to the other page.

Each artwork depicted at this page has only a brief comment, so that they all may be compared thematically. There is simply no room here for describing who taught who or who influenced who.

Every one of these artists is linked to their own page. At the Leonardo da Vinci page (for example) it tells about his apprenticeship to Verrocchio, his contemporaries, his patrons and his exposure to works by Van der Goes, Antonio da Messina and the Bellini. If you want that type of detail, follow the links, and the info is available.

One painting, the Flagellation, has been dealt with more fully,as an example to show how the different characteristics can appear together in one work. Other important paintings have their own page, where they can be studied in detail.

Amandajm (talk) 08:09, 22 June 2008 (UTC)