Talk:J. M. W. Turner

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Visual arts, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to visual arts on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
???	Class: This article has not been assigned a class according to the assessment scale.

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.

Biography Portal

This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]

J.M.W.Turner bequeathed his finished paintings to the National Gallery, London, which never carried out the terms of his bequest. As a result his heirs are seeking restitution of his works. See www.jmwturner.org

[edit] English/British

At the time of Turner's death in 1851 there was no "English government" as such, and hadn't been for some time. England was and is ruled by a UK government, for which the term British is often used as a short-hand (although by all means use "UK" if you feel that reads OK). JackyR | Talk 00:19, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reference style

This article has a mix of reference styles. If no one minds, I shall make them all <ref></ref> style (superscript nos lked to"References" section). Cheers, JackyR | Talk 00:14, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 'Painter of light'

A minor point, perhaps, but for better or worse (is there any doubt which?), the term 'painter of light' has been appropriated by Thomas Kinkade. Despite the reference to the museum web site, it is, in fact, such a generic term that today it has little meaning. JNW 03:25, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Erm, well which? Is it a generic term, or a soubriquet used mainly of Turner and now Kinkade? If the former, then it's probably not worth keeping (unless with an explanation about why/if it really matters for Turner). If the latter, then I don't have any problem including it re Turner just because he shares it with another person. Otherwise we'd be in the position where we couldn't mention such details under either painter, because of the other. Btw, the Nat Gall ref was simply the most authoratitive I found quickly, as a quick google of "turner painter of light" will show. JackyR | Talk 11:48, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

The answer to your question is: both. One can google Monet and Vermeer, their names connected to the same description, and find a number of references. The term is somewhat diluted, for light is the primary vehicle for all painters. I am sure that you are right, that Turner was once, justly, especially identified by this sobriquet. But it is not terribly meaningful--were Caravaggio described as the painter of light and shadow, it would be true, but far more telling to call him the creator of a chiaroscuro that gave dramatic form to his figures and influenced western painting for the next few centuries. I think that maybe Turner's mastery of light can be most successfully connected to his Venetian paintings. Finally, I realize that I am not pressing this to win a point, or seeking a revert. Just having some fun talking about painting. JNW 13:03, 15 October 2006 (UTC)