Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 09:46, 6 October 2020

Visual arts C‑class

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 C This article has been rated as C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.

Articles for creation C‑class

This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC C This article has been rated as C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. This article was accepted from this draft on 23 August 2020 by reviewer Hoary (talk · contribs).

Ownership of copyright of the article

Much of the draft of this article was taken from this version of the article Pieter Pourbus.

An additional complication is that the talk page of that earlier article tells us:

The content of this article has been derived in whole or part from Pourbus, meester-schilder uit Gouda (Pourbus, Master painter of Gouda) / Museum Gouda. Permission has been received from the copyright holder to release this material under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported license. Evidence of this has been confirmed and stored by OTRS volunteers, under ticket number 2020042110009381.

It's possible that the content of this new article about the portrait has also been derived in whole or part from Pourbus, meester-schilder uit Gouda. I cannot comment, because I do not have access to the book. (I am also not an OTRS volunteer and therefore have no access to the correspondence.) -- Hoary (talk) 00:17, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Yet another additional complication is that the English-language Misplaced Pages article on Pourbus seems to come from the French-language Misplaced Pages article on him. -- Hoary (talk) 07:08, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

All the entries I wrote, on both the French and English versions of the article, are entirely based on the catalogues articles. Hence the multiple citations of various authors in these catalogues. ----Emigré55 (talk) 07:41, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Fashions' end

Her dress and its distinctive lace collar allowed Huvenne to date the portrait as having been painted before 1560.

If this had instead read for example "to date the portrait as having been painted after 1550", I'd have understood. A fashion comes in at a certain time. But why "before 1560"? Was this dress, with its collar, fatally unfashionable from 1560 onwards? (Pinging Emigré55.) -- Hoary (talk) 23:56, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Huvenne wrote himself in his entry in the Gouda exhibition about this painting that the dress "allowed him to date the painting as having been painted before 1560" (page 18). It is then also my understanding that this dress was probably not fashionable after this date. --Emigré55 (talk) 05:58, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for looking into it. Well, if that's what he says, that's how it must be. (I'm surprised by the speed of turnover of fashion, however.) -- Hoary (talk) 07:06, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Anna van Bueren

In the cited article, Marc Couwenbergh calls her "Anna van Bueren": Note (i) the small "v", and the second "e" in "Bueren". I've therefore standardized on MC's spelling: "Anna van Bueren". -- Hoary (talk) 07:06, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Fine with me. Although one could argue that the name on other entries is written "Anna van Buren", as here...--Emigré55 (talk) 07:15, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

I'd be surprised if there was only one spelling. In the article on Van Bu(e)ren (and not here), the different spellings should be provided. However, in this article, one spelling should be used unless there is a good reason to do otherwise. -- Hoary (talk) 12:29, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Grade

You have done a very useful clean up and wikification work, and I would like to thank you for that.

Now, increase level of the article to "B" of quality scale? this grade seems in accordance with: "A few aspects of content and style need to be addressed. Expert knowledge may be needed. The inclusion of supporting materials should be considered if practical, and the article checked for general compliance with the Manual of Style and related style guidelines."). As in my opinion, the article is particularly at the level of: "Expert knowledge may be needed. The inclusion of supporting materials should be considered if practical". What do you think?--Emigré55 (talk) 07:21, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

The article isn't bad: thank you for creating it. And if I have improved it a little, so much the better.

But a "B" grade? Here are articles that, fairly recently, I have either created or considerably amplified: Nudrat Afza, John Harding (photographer), Atsushi Fujiwara, Morris Bishop, each rated "start"; Teikō Shiotani, rated "C". One day I might push one of these to "GA". Until/unless I do, I don't much care about the rating. (It's not as if I got a 50 € for every "B" article.) Why the rush?

Far more important than some (largely ignored) rating of an article is the actual quality of the article, and a lot more can be done to make this article more informative. (How was it "discovered"? Were there reasonable doubts about its authenticity? When acknowledged to be by Pourbus, did this change expert evaluations of Pourbus, and if so, how? Which names have been attached to the painting, by whom? Et cetera.) -- Hoary (talk) 09:02, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

I got your points, TY.

Concerning the questions you raised, it will be difficult, if not impossible, because secondary sources are not available for the infos I have on some of your questions. We touch here the limitations of the encyclopedy, I am afraid, due to its strict rules. --Emigré55 (talk) 10:02, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Do you have access to copies of the books Pieter Pourbus: Master painter of Gouda and The forgotten masters? (I don't.) Because if you do, then one obvious improvement would be to specify which book gives this painting which name. And however unjustly, Pourbus is not well known. (He's a "forgotten master".) I'd imagine that the recent discovery of a painting such as this would generate a fair amount of intelligent discussion in these two books. -- Hoary (talk) 12:25, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I have these books. I will look into them and come back to you later on the points you raised. --Emigré55 (talk) 13:55, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Categorizing

Self-Portrait (Sofonisba Anguissola) was also made in 1554. Note the categories it's in: (i) Category:Sofonisba Anguissola portraits, (ii) Category:Self-portraits, (iii) Category:Portraits of women, (iv) Category:Paintings of the Kunsthistorisches Museum, (v) Category:1554 paintings. Not also Category:Paintings by Sofonisba Anguissola (because (i) is more specific), Category:People from Cremona (because it's a painting, not a person), Category:16th-century Italian painters (because again, it's a painting, not a person), Category:16th-century paintings (because (v) is more specific). This is how categories work here in en:Misplaced Pages. -- Hoary (talk) 12:42, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Johnbod was more alert than I was. (My excuse: it's my bedtime.) -- Hoary (talk) 13:01, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

OK, noted. thanks for your efforts, useful information, and time! Have a good night.--Emigré55 (talk) 13:57, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Ropa

The article now tells us:

Her high-necked gown is a ropa, which Spanish fashion spread all over Europe in the 1550s, trimmed with ruched white silk braid held in place with gold buttons.

The ropa, probably Portuguese in origin, was a sort of loose-waisted mantle open in front, in which some authors have seen the continuation of the fifteenth-century surcoat. It often had double funnel sleeves, one part of which could be worn hanging, in accordance with a purely Spanish tradition.

From Portugal it spread to Spain and was soon adopted in many countries, due to the influence of Spain at the time. In the 1550s, this new garment became extremely popular across Europe. The ropa could be worn all in a loose version, and was then known under various names: the "sumarra" in Italy, the "marlotte" in France and the "vlieger" in Holland.

1. François Boucher, Yvonne Deslandres, and John Ross. A History of Costume in the West, with 1188 illustrations, 365 in colour. London: Thames and Hudson, 1997, ISBN 9780500279106.

How is this more helpful for an appreciation of the painting than simply saying she's wearing a vlieger and in that article explaining what a vlieger is and where it came from? -- Hoary (talk) 01:06, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

@Hoary:Thanks again for your review.

On your questions:

- "How is this more helpful for an appreciation of the painting...": The way she is dressed gives us very precious indications on the position and status of the lady within the society at the time and in the Seventeen Provinces. Her dress outlines the Spanish influence in Europe at the time (this part of the Low countries was under Spanish possession in the 1550s) and she shows also, wearing this attire, some kind of allegiance to the Spanish crown. This is also a useful indication pointing in the direction of Anna Van Bueren, who was married to a man close to the Spanish emperor, whom he later fought.

- "than simply saying she's wearing a vlieger...": My understanding is that :

• • a ropa is not a generic term for a gown, but categorizes already the kind of gown which is mentioned, at least in the fashion in Europe at the time.
  • A vlieger is probably a more generic term in the Low countries. It can be also a bit different as the ropa (as shown in "A woman aged 24 with vlieger, 1587"), as it spreads in Europe. Moreover, if not above all, it does not tell much about the reason why she was wearing this fashion. Whereas, if we look at Anna van Bueren, this makes a lot of sense for showing her allegiance to the Spanish crown. Very often, the details in painting at the time had a real meaning, sometimes hidden.

My 2 cents...hope this helps.--Emigré55 (talk) 07:16, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Need to check ISBN of 2 references

@Hoary: I am not sure about the ISBN of these 2 references I added:

• François Boucher, Yvonne Deslandres, and John Ross. A History of Costume in the West, with 1188 illustrations, 365 in colour. London: Thames and Hudson, 1997, ISBN 9780500279106.
• Jane Ashelford. A Visual History of Costume: The Sixteenth Century. Drama Book Publishers, 144 pages, 1983, ISBN 9780713440997
  

And, strangely, the links send to a generic page...
Do you have a way to check these 2 refs?
TY in advance. have a good day! --Emigré55 (talk) 06:38, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

https://www.worldcat.org/search?qt=wikipedia&q=isbn%3A9780500279106 suggests that the first is good. ¶ https://www.worldcat.org/search?q=isbn%3A9780713440997 is a mess. Take a look: one ISBN apparently for any of a number of volumes in the same set (but not explicitly for the set as a whole). Overworked, underpaid librarians are probably to blame. (Therefore not the librarians but instead "austerity".) I find that Worldcat is far less reliable than CiNii (which unfortunately is a lot less comprehensive), and CiNii shows https://ci.nii.ac.jp/books/search?advanced=true&count=20&sortorder=3&type=0&isbn=9780713440997&update_keep=true that you are right. -- Hoary (talk) 07:09, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Many thanks, indeed! 😉 --Emigré55 (talk) 07:18, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Grade (again)

There's been a suggestion (on User talk:Johnbod, though not by Johnbod) that this is an A-class article.

In order to be put in A-class, an article should already be a "good article" ("GA"). You can nominate an article for promotion to GA status: Here's how. Here's a list of visual arts GAs.

This article needs very much more work before nomination for GA. -- Hoary (talk) 12:44, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

There is no "A" class for art articles. Since GAN has a long backlog, I suggested it might be put there now, while work continues. I find GA expectations vary hugely with the single reviewer, so I'm not sure how much more work is needed. But I pointed out some basics on my talk. I'd look at some of the reviews on existing art GAs. Johnbod (talk) 12:50, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

This page is no where near GA. To reiterate what has been said above...lack citations, too many paragraphs. Ceoil (talk) 20:37, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

@Hoary:I fully understand your point. My suggestion on User talk:Johnbod was not about this article, but about the article on Pieter Pourbus, which seems to me fairly completed at this point, at least in time in terms of content (and up to all recent sources I have all checked). Have a good day. --Emigré55 (talk) 07:21, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

I apologize for my misunderstanding. ¶ This is an example of a GA candidacy in progress. -- Hoary (talk) 22:51, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

No problem! and thanks for the example. --Emigré55 (talk) 06:37, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Marc Couwenbergh

Is there any proof that Marc Couwenbergh is an art historian? And an art historian of note? The sources, given and found through Google, do not prove that. The Banner talk 16:00, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

I am afraid you do not look for the right sources in Google on this author. Or want to deliberately ignore them?? Just read, for instance, here: "Marc Couwenbergh, Journalist specializing in art - Marc Couwenbergh - Biography : Marc Couwenbergh (1958) is a political scientist and writes about art, culture and history as a journalist. Marc has written several books on these topics." (translated into English from the Dutch page)--Emigré55 (talk) 16:16, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

journalist - political scientist - writes about; but no words about being an art historian. Sorry. The Banner talk 19:15, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

So what?

And why do you stop writing after "writes about"? the complete quote is "writes about art, culture and history". is this good faith on your part to just truncate a citation?? or do you try to manipulate sources? Sorry.

Another source on Couwenbergh, commenting on one of his book about Vermeer and the women (not art history? really??). Sorry--Emigré55 (talk) 19:25, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Emigré55, (this is also a repsonse to "Reliable sources" below) I'm sorry, but I can't find it in myself to let this pass: No, Couwenberg is not a qualified art historian, or a usable source. He writes about things he does not understand, makes stuff up, and comes to conclusions that are not supported by any evidence. We should not use him as a source. Vexations (talk) 21:17, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

It is of course up to you what you can find in yourself, Vexations, but you can not – in the same breath – bluntly say that Couwenbergh talks about things he does not understand: you don't have the prerogative to make such decisions, nor are you in any other way qualified to make judgements like that. I'm not quarreling about your opinion on using Couwenbergh as a source, but your total dismissal of the author is unwarranted, unnecessary and unsymphatetic in all respects. Eissink (talk) 21:43, 4 October 2020 (UTC).

Eissink, nor are you in any other way qualified How do you know that? Vexations (talk) 11:40, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

​ Couwenbergh in his personal blog shows a fascination for this painting and suggests (not: claims) viewpoints as to identify the young lady. In the two articles he's merely daydreaming, so to say, and there is nothing to understand or not understand in this daydreaming about the painting, unless you would have clear evidence that Couwenbergh's suggestions are completely off, or rather that his assumptions are somehow ridiculous. If so, please share your sources, or at least lighten us up with your knowledge of the opposite and of the undeniable denial of the aspects of what is nothing but a playful speculation – if you do, I will have to apologize for my remarks. Eissink (talk) 12:04, 5 October 2020 (UTC).

"Daydreaming"? Interesting observation. You confirm now that the blog posts are not reliable sources but "daydreaming". Those sources and the text they try to back up, should be removed ASAP. The Banner talk 12:11, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Eissink, I think now would be a great time to withdraw your personal attack without making it conditional upon some work I'd have to do first. Vexations (talk) 12:12, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

I'm willing to take back whatever was venomous in my words, Vexations, and I hereby do, but you have to understand that what I said was in defense of Couwenbergh, who you attacked quite harsh, and I think it is fair to ask you for an explanation on that, so I hope you will answer. Eissink (talk) 12:21, 5 October 2020 (UTC).

Eissink, an example of Couwenbergh's writing is "Daarnaast gaf hij hen een zelfbewuste gezichtsuitdrukking. Immers de toeschouwer moest afstand ervaren. Want er was nu eenmaal afstand tussen hem en de geportretteerde." These were commissioned portraits. There was no distance between the subject and the patron; they were the same person. Vexations (talk) 12:59, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Reliable sources

See: Misplaced Pages:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Marc_Couwenbergh. A short quote: There is no consensus that Couwenbergh is considered sufficiently prominent that we can use self-published sources, so the default is to exclude. The Banner talk 18:02, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Your quote is not "a short quote". Your quote is an incomplete quote. And therefore, your quote is a biased quote.

Please read further: "that would default to the usual presumption of reliability and WP:BRD with the WP:ONUS on editors seeking to include disputed or controversial content, to achieve consensus." --Emigré55 (talk) 19:03, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

And you are quoting selectively. The part that I did not quote, because it was not about the contested blog posts, is There is insufficient input to rule either way on Couwenbergh as a source when published by reputable publishers, so that would default to the usual presumption of reliability and WP:BRD with the WP:ONUS on editors seeking to include disputed or controversial content, to achieve consensus. Editors are reminded to assume good faith and remain civil. The Banner talk 20:33, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

I think this clearly says "There is insufficient input" to rule out Couwenbergh as a source. And that means there is a status quo, as of now, that should be respected. Eissink (talk) 20:47, 4 October 2020 (UTC).

when published by reputable publishers. But this is about two self-published blog-posts. The Banner talk 21:00, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

"so that would default to the usual presumption of reliability and WP:BRD with the WP:ONUS on editors seeking to include disputed or controversial content,": that is exactly what I am doing with this information in this article.--Emigré55 (talk) 08:35, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Yep, but you fail to convince the community that Couwenbergh, and certainly his blogposts, is a reliable source. You want to add it, so it is up to you to prove that Couwenbergh is a reliable source. Up no now, sorry, not proven. The Banner talk 08:51, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

"Yep" ? could you refrain from using such trivial interjections, and / or onomatopoeia? I do indeed feel offended by such vulgar comments from you on my remarks. They don't belong to an honest and civil dialog. And I fear that, unfortunately, this is not the first time that you dare to write to me like this. Purposely?--Emigré55 (talk) 12:50, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Dude, could you respond on the content of the discussion and not try to create a smoke screen by discussing my choice of words? The Banner talk 18:20, 5 October 2020 (UTC) And yes, this was on purpose.

« Dude » : This word is a slang word. This way of talking/writing to me , is clearly offending to me. For the second time on this section only. Moreover, it does not comply with the remark here above :« Editors are reminded to assume good faith and remain civil. ». Another deliberate provocation of yours ? --Emigré55 (talk) 09:46, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

• C-Class visual arts articles
• WikiProject Visual arts articles
• C-Class AfC articles
• AfC submissions by date/23 August 2020
• Accepted AfC submissions