Template talk:Post-Impressionism

Les Fauves

Hi Tyrenius, thank you for your help. I see you deleted Les Fauves. Please consider that John Rewald included them, as stated in Post-Impressionism. --rpd (talk) 14:52, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Best discussed on Talk:Post-Impressionism. Tyrenius (talk) 16:34, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I've added a heading. I wonder if you agree with this, as Fauvism was developed mainly from Post-Impressionists, such as Van Gogh, not directly from Impressionism. However, please change the template if you think best. Tyrenius (talk) 17:50, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I can live with the present template. My aim was to have the necessary links easily accessible. I may have overlooked some, but the most important are supplied now. The optimal presentation is probably better discussed when the content of the main article is more developed. --rpd (talk) 22:32, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Later movements

I added Cubism because it arose as a consequence of Cezanne, through (Braque and Picasso), Expressionism, & Der Blaue Reiter also seem to be direct consequences of Gauguin and Van Gogh's innovations. Modernist (talk) 15:03, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Ditto Die Brücke. Tyrenius (talk) 15:56, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Fine, I think that's the way to go. Probably we'll also need Art nouveau. --rpd (talk) 20:38, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Modernist (talk) 22:02, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Done. --rpd (talk) 00:55, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Jugendstil

I didn't want to just do it, but Jugendstil is being merged with Art Nouveau so it isn't necessary to have both. Jugendstil should be removed. I am also questioning the inclusion of Secessionism. The page offers a brief review of a single author's opinion and all of the information is also in Sezession. Is it really a major -ism? Thanks. --Stomme (talk) 15:46, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

FYI, Secessionism is no longer an article, and it redirects to Secession (art). --Stomme (talk) 22:53, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Back to Stone Age

Great, all this tiny shifts back to ancient positions in art history! That's the definite way to kill Wikipedia. --rpd (talk) 23:00, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Please be specific about which changes you find problematic. Ty 01:49, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I was short of time recently, and did not realise that my remark would better have been added to other discussions: Jugendstil, Art Nouveau, Secessionism, Secession (art), terms relating to similar, but definitely not identic issues. - For the template, please have a look on the links now provided: they need at least cleanup, and I had hoped editors were aware of this. --rpd (talk) 14:08, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

If I am correct, your first response meant that you find the new organisation of these themes to be too conservative. I will go ahead and try and foresee your concerns, but I doubt they will be satisfactory. First, in case there is any doubt, Secession is not the same as Art Nouveau/Jugendstil, and within the greater discussion of secessions only the Vienna Secession really corresponds to Art Nouveau (and its own individual way at that). However, looking at the old English Jugendstil article it is clear that one very narrow definition of the term was being advanced, and not in an encyclopaedic manner. An article on Jugendstil design, or the style of Jugend (magazine) or something that allows one to stress its graphic nature would be fine, but in English Jugendstil is a term that is used synonymously with Art Nouveau—often used when discussing the style in Germany, Nordic countries and some other areas. Keeping them as separate articles only perpetuates the kind of misunderstandings that lead to the kinds of dictionary entries that were cited in the old Jugendstil article. At its base encyclopaedic level, the one in which we are working, de:Jugendstil and Art Nouveau are one in the same (i.e. Eggplants and Aubergines).

As for "Secessionism", I admit that it is a useful term for describing this period of breaking away from the old regime. The article on the topic, however, said nothing that shouldn't have been stated in the Secession article (and note that we're using English here and not referring to "Sezession" as a synonym for Jugenstil/Art Nouveau as it is in several languages that draw on the Viennese experience). It becomes POV to try and raise the term to the canon of "-isms" when it simply has not been widely accepted. That's not say it hasn't been adopted by some, but still in a very limited usage. I am, with few exceptions, an inclusionist here. However, I try to keep an eye on topic forking when it leads either to misunderstandings of topics by stressing only one narrow definition of a more general idea (Jugendstil) or largely duplicates another article just to push one POV.

This template is at the bottom of a lot of articles, and it should be useful in pointing people to the major trends. But if every term that's been coined in relation to the Post-Impressionism art world gets included it will be a useless list of scholarly jargon. Now, if you don't mind, I've got a meeting with the Teen Angels. --Stomme (talk) 17:06, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Apropos POV: "Bias" is possibly another term that you could look up to improve your argument. Be assured I never considered "older versions" of the lemmata mentioned above settled and approved - nor the recent. My point of view is to refer to the arguments published, anywhere and whenever - and so I state for example that little of the vast German literature on Jugendstil/Art Nouveau is reflected; that the definition shifts from one European country to the next, and so on. Therefore WP has to have a general entry as well as more specific ones on associated movements in more specific regions: That's why I think WP would be well advised not to state "Art Nouveau = Jugendstil", as there are differing runtimes by country, by significant forms involved... Do you remember Baudrillard: "Vive la difference"? --rpd (talk) 18:42, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

The solution is to contribute referenced material on these points and find/create the right articles. Also, bear in mind most people will not have access to German sources. It would be best to continue the conversation on the relevant article talk pages for anything not specifically concerning this template. Ty 01:19, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

That's what I already tried to propose.--rpd (talk) 12:38, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I adjusted one link in the template to keep it from going to a disambiguation page, but other than that everything points to a correct place as far as I'm concerned for now. The other talk pages are open for discussion on any other matters. --Stomme (talk) 12:54, 22 April 2008 (UTC)