Talk:History painting

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a group devoted to the the study, and improvement of Wikipedia articles on the subject, of History. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
Additional information: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked Neutrality: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: <!-- 1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points are appropriately cited. --> |B-Class-1=yes/no <!-- 2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain major omissions or inaccuracies. --> |B-Class-2=yes/no <!-- 3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |B-Class-3=yes/no <!-- 4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |B-Class-4=yes/no <!-- 5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |B-Class-5=yes/no <!-- 6. It is written from a neutral point of view. --> |B-Class-6=yes/no

[edit] from the page

Cut from the page as irrelevant.

These "history paintings," as they were called, demonstrate how profoundly painters, actors, directors and critics influenced one another and how interdependent they were in their critical interpretations, depictions and productions of Shakespeare's plays. In the nineteenth century the relationship between literature and the graphic arts was much closer and the definition of "literary" criticism was broader than it is now. A critic like John Eagles blurs most of our modern distinctions when he says of Daniel Maclise's painting The Play Scene in "Hamlet" (1842) that "It is the business of the dramatist to make good pictures, and whether it be done by the players or the painter, what matter, so they be effective, and the story worth telling; and how shall they be better told than as the author intended they should be represented? The boards of the theatre and the canvass are the same thing--the eye is to behold, and the mind to be moved."

This strikes me as entirely off-topic. The assertion in the opening paragraph is rather weak; I have never heard paintings based on Shakespeare's works called history paintings. Goldfritha 19:55, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

They were in fact classed as history paintings. Johnbod (talk) 13:45, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

• If that were the only irrelevancy, we'd jump for joy. The whole article is written in passive and circumlocution. It's as if it were grafted from a foreign language reference of great antiquity. Utgard Loki 18:53, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A second to other comments

If the term "history painting" included religious and all the other categories listed here, what meaning would it have? This article has no meaning as currently written. Wduncan43 (talk) 13:25, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Improved/clarified I hope, but the article is still pretty poor. Johnbod (talk) 13:44, 21 January 2008 (UTC)