Talk:Gothic art

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Origin of the name "Gothic" in the context of Gothic art has not been explained[edit]

This article has not defined how this art form/style came to be named "Gothic", any input on this would be appreciated and would belong at the beginning of the article in the introduction. I.e. a history of the term "Gothic" art. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.130.129.163 (talk) 07:34, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

gothic art is basically 4 gothic people unless u really like but thats just one opinion :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.179.51.192 (talk) 18:21, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of architecture[edit]

I recently began expanding this article due to its status as one of WP: Vital articles. One of the defining features of Gothic art is its architecture, and as such, I wrote a brief summary including citations and a hatlink to the main article about French Gothic architecture. I also incorporated other information in the article about French Gothic architecture in the section. However, the full section was removed by User:Johnbod without discussion. I would like to request a discussion regarding this removal and an explanation of it in greater detail here. Thanks, poroubalous (talk) 01:06, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I also would like to address the concern you raised about paraphrasing too closely -- I will grant that I'm relatively new to the arts on WP, but not at all to the project. I write well, and while Marilyn Stokstad is a lovely introductory author, I'm not taking her words or her sentence structures. In some cases, I'm citing previous statements that were in the article. poroubalous (talk) 01:14, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. Like very many other WP articles, this one is meant to cover art; Gothic architecture has its own article, indeed several. Though of course the two subjects are often closely related, especially at this time, this reflects typical treatments of the subject area beyond the introductory level. Some articles specify "art and architecture" in their titles, but if they do not, the subject should be regarded as just the visual arts in the narrower sense. Johnbod (talk) 01:18, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'll grant that there is an article on the subject, and I concur with you wholeheartedly that the two are related closely during the period. I'm not suggesting anything near a word-for-word, play-by-play reincarnation of the architecture article, but a summary mention of the main elements of each regional variation of Gothic architecture seems appropriate as a precursor to a discussion of the regional variants of Gothic sculpture, illumination, textiles, etc. Perhaps I was too detailed in my treatment of these particulars. As a compromise, I would be willing to see the discussion of architecture removed, while incorporating portions of the text as introductory material for each regional section. Thoughts? poroubalous (talk) 01:31, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) I'm all for improving the rather wierd (but popular) selection of Art "Vital articles" though - Baroque should not be a C imo, and the very short actual coverage of the visual arts in Romanticism is certainly at start level. That still seems too much to me, but I'll add some back to the introductory section. The link between architecture and painting is actually rather weak at this time, as that section points out. The same could be said for Italian sculpture maybe. Cathedrals don't take "the" as in "the Place Cathedral" btw. Note that quite a lot of what you are saying is already in the "religious art" section below. Johnbod (talk) 01:41, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree on your note regarding the weak link between painting and architecture; it's only natural that Italian Gothic has weak links to the popular conception of Gothic architecture, as well, given the strong classical traditions there. What do you think of the notion of a regional structure for the article? I began that with the notion that the whole article would eventually be encompassed regionally (rather than by medium and by topic, as it is now). In other words, include a brief summary of the regional variant, then split it into subsections by medium or form, then within the medium subsections discuss religious and secular imagery. Given that the majority of surviving Gothic works are religious, I feel like topical division between secular and religious isn't particularly helpful as a top-level structure (although within regions, it is). I noticed that the religious section duplicates much of what I had written; I planned to incorporate and cite text from that section into the regional sections as I went along (per above). poroubalous (talk) 02:01, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I can't say that scheme appeals very much, as I feel distinctions between periods and media within the style are more important, and easier to summarize usefully than regional ones. Plus such schemes always provoke editors to come in & unbalance the article with major expansions of minor styles where they happen to come from. At the moment I feel the "religious" section should come higher, if there is a lot more stuff to go in, as it is to a large extent an introductory overview. The "French Gothic sculpture" ought to cover monumental sculpture rather than just the much smaller "minor arts" stuff. If you are going to do a full sweep of the regions, the existing "religious" section and "painting" should probably go above. I think I'll do that & then leave you to add what you like below. But not too much architecture please. Johnbod (talk) 02:31, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Point well taken on the issue of unbalance; I have a lot of experience trying to sort that out in other areas. It seems odd to have the top-level section subjects be nonparallel as they are now and as you suggest (by topic and by medium at the same time). Perhaps a top-level structure based on period (e.g. "Early"/"High"/"Late" or something of that nature), followed by a sub-level structure based on medium (e.g. "Early Gothic sculpture", "Early Gothic textiles", etc.)? Within these subsections would come summary information and brief mention of regional variations for a given period. An alternate would be by medium then by period. I agree that the religious section is introductory, and should be moved up or incorporated. As for monumental sculpture, the removal of architecture necessitates a discussion of portal sculpture, tomb carvings and so forth in the sculpture sections. poroubalous (talk) 02:40, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well you can see what I've done & I'll leave you to it for now. Don't forget to open a refs section for Stokstad. Big sculpture certainly needs covering, and perhaps only that needs splitting up by region/period? It depends how much is going to be added. I think textiles at least can be taken as a whole, & other things like ivory carving. Johnbod (talk) 02:58, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reorganization and expert needed[edit]

I did my best in terms of reorganizing information into relevant sections based on the discussion with User:Johnbod. After I began reading the "Overview" section for a while, I realized it was copy/pasted from or to the Art in Roman Catholicism article; I did the best I could at citing and removing duplicate information that was in that section. I also moved a lot of the information that was specific to particular media (printmaking, sculpture, etc.) to the individual sections about those media. Realistically, this article needs an expert to help it achieve balance and someone who can give it appropriate and proper citations from significant sources in the literature. I am expert enough to know I'm no expert of Gothic art, so I'm politely bowing out of this article (and I hope I didn't make it considerably worse than when I found it). Before that, though, I'll add a References section and clean up the Notes section to keep things orderly for the next person. poroubalous (talk) 00:30, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I wrote it there & copied it here (with attribution) in 2008; there is no problem with that. We seem to have lost a fair bit & just gained some scrappy sections. I'll have to look at it when I have time. Johnbod (talk) 02:06, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Neogothic[edit]

Shouldn't Gothic Revival architecture be mentioned here somewhere? At least in the "see also" section? 67.183.130.113 (talk) 14:31, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It could be, but the article isn't about archgitecture, & sadly we don't have a general Gothic Revival article covering the arts in general. Johnbod (talk) 21:28, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Whole lotta *nuthin* in this article because it doesn't give any real description of what specific QUALITIES Gothic Art has.

Why even bother? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.127.82.225 (talk) 13:16, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Gothic art. 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:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 13:09, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Gothic art. 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:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 18:22, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

More media[edit]

Since is a page about a style, it needs more diversity in terms of art media at the beging. It is based too much on architectural sculpture. It should also have pictures with illuminated manuscript pages, ivory sculptures, and tapestries (like The Lady and the Unicorn).--Neoclassicism Enthusiast (talk) 18:18, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The images have been considerably buggered about by drive-by editors, often with nationalist motivations, over the years. I will take a look, but images need to be top quality and representative. Stained glass is the most obvious omission. Johnbod (talk) 18:55, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gothic_art&oldid=1211943511"