Talk:Jan van Eyck

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
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.


Contents

[edit] Then ... what IS it?

"This is not a painted marriage certificate, or the record of a betrothal. The woman is not pregnant, as the hand-gesture of lifting the dress recurs in contemporary renditions of the (virgin) St. Catherine (including in Jan van Eyck's own work, in the so-called Dresden triptych)."

1) AFAIK (via a source in early art two years ago) the common believe is that the painting IS a record of betrothal. So, if not, and not any of the above, what IS it? I would be curious if the person who put that information there could verify it. Just for fun, y' know?

No - see the Campbell NG catalogue ref, & Arnolfini Portrait Johnbod 13:56, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I cannot believe you keep reverting to this 1912 version. It is stupid. It's wrong from start to end. Starting from the top, Jan van Eyck was not a Flemish painter, because he came from Maseyck, near Li?ge, not Flanders. The term is Netherlandish (as in Friedlander, Early Netherlandish Painting, Panofsky, same title, etc.). Nor is he EVER recorded to have worked under or with his brother. the Ghent inscription, not unquestioned, is the only thing tying the two brothers, and it specifically reads that Jan took over only after Hubert died. So there go the next three paragraphs. I've never even heard of that 1421 portrait, and there isn't a single scholar on the planet who still attributes to Jan with any conviction anything pre-1426. Some of the subsequent things are even too silly to address. Philip of Charolais??? Anyway, I've spent two hours rewriting this to have you nullify it, so won't spend any more. I contend that factually correct, albeit not to-protocol beats an embarrassingly false version -- you're spreading nonsense.

I think Zoe reverted your edits for two reasons: POV and lack of wikification. Some sentences should be rephrased in a more neutral way and where possible, internal links should be added. - Karl Stas 08:20, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
















THIS IS SO CONFUSING!!I DON'T EVEN KNOW WHAT YOU GUYS ARE TALKING ABOUT!! GIVE ME SOME INFORMATION ABOUT JAN VAN EYCK!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.26.193.42 (talk) 15:49, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] neutrality

"perfected the technique" "never treated him otherwise than graciously" "with almost as much vigour as his master" "Jan only differs from his brother in being less masculine and less sternly religious" "two splendid likenesses" "Like many great artists he formed but few pupils" "if the personal influence of the Van Eycks was small, that of their works was immense"

So is opinion only admissible when the facts around it are completely false? The phrase "unparalleled renown" in my version, which seems to irk Zoe so much, is based on the latest scholarship: see Paula Nuttal, From Flanders to Florence: the Impact of Netherlands Painting (2004); Till-Holger Borchert et al., The Century of Jan van Eyck (2002); Marina Belozerskaya, Rethinking the Renaissance: Burgundian Arts Across Europe (2002).

Whatever flaws it may have, my version is a better starting point. Keeping this 1912 version would be like keeping a 1904 version under "Astronomy." User:193.63.184.1

I agree, but it wasn't me who reverted your edits in the first place. Apparently Zoe can't be bothered to defend his/her decision, so I'll revert your version. And oh, BTW, please register and sign your posts! Edits by unregistered users are reverted more lightly. - Karl Stas 17:28, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
I discussed this on the user's Talk page, if you would bother to read that, and I'm going to revert you, as the edits are unsourced concerning his brother, and "unparallelled renown" is hardly NPOV. The resources list is excessive, as well. User:Zoe|(talk) 03:51, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
Whatever its flaws, his version is superior to the 1911 EB article. I see no need to revert it completely. The EB article is not neutral either. Do you really want to start a revert war just because the edits concerning his brother are unsourced??? - Karl Stas 07:52, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
It wouldn't be a revert war if he would source his edits. User:Zoe|(talk) 20:10, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
In cases like these it's better to use one or more of these templates. Moreover, it would be unreasonable to require that editors cite a precise source for everything they write. Wikipedia articles are not scholarly articles after all, we can't put footnotes after every sentence or even paragraph. Also note that "unparalleled renown" has been changed to "of great renown in his day", which is a statement of fact, not an opinion. Karl Stas 22:12, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia aims at becoming a reliable source: it is in any case better than the numerous individual pages which preceded it. Could I ask the hyperquestion, whether it might be possible to extend a user profile to switch sources in or out, both in terms of original sources and commentaries thereon? In connection with the second, please also remember that you are writing for posteriority: there's nothing more irritating than to find a long list of commentaries which are all out of print and unavailable in antiquarian bookshops. It might therefore be more relevant to include the entire context in such sources.Jel 07:50, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RfC

My familiarity with Jan van Eyck is pretty much limited to an acquaintance with his major works and patronage through the court of Burgundy. The new version of the article looks like an improvement over the 1911 Brittanica article. I suggest keeping it, sourcing it, and editing for tone. Regards, Durova 03:05, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Original Research/NPOV?

With regards to the Arnolfini Wedding, the following is said: "This is not a painted marriage certificate, or the record of a betrothal. The woman is not pregnant, as the hand-gesture of lifting the dress recurs in contemporary renditions of the (virgin) St. Catherine (including in Jan van Eyck's own work, in the so-called Dresden triptych)." I think such qualifies as original research at the least, or plugging a personal opinion/belief at worst, and should be taken out. Objections? Preston 23:44, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

If anything, it should be made to coincide with the Arnolfini article.

- See Arnolfini Portrait & the Campbell NG Catalogue. Johnbod 13:57, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Date of birth

Not only is Van Eyck's date of birth not known, but the sequence of his birth and that of his brothers is not known. The National Gallery catalogue suggest that, if their portrait (lead pic in article) of 1433 is indeed a self-portrait, as seems likely, then he may have been born in "about 1380" - but of course this is just subjective. Johnbod 18:01, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

The Library of Congress has a 1390 birthdate and a 1440 death date, which would have been heavily researched and justified (but that research was done over 50 years ago; not sure how accurate it still is).--FeanorStar7 18:34, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of works

Would it be possible to start developing a list of works, including attributions? I was astonished to discover the Fountain of Grace in the Prado, which I think I can add considerably to its background from other historical studies, for instance.Jel 07:50, 22 April 2007 (UTC) is there any way to cite these sources correctly using MLA format?

[edit] Van Eyck was a Flemish painter

I have altered the confusing statement that van Eyck was a Dutch painter. This is my motivation: 1.Their is good reason to assume that van Eyck was born in Maaseyck which happens to be a municipality of the modern Flemish region in the kingdom of Belgium. 2.All the works attributable to van Eyck known today have been produced in the last decade of his life which he spend in Bruges and Ghent, both Flemish cities. (he is documented in Holland the decade before, but not a single original work from this period survives) 3.In art historical research van Eyck is (almost without exception) considered as the "founder" of the "Flemish" school. Every scholarly publication on Van Eyck considers his art in the context of Flemish artistic traditions. In most cases Jan van Eyck is explicitly referred to as a "Flemish" painter. conclusion: It would be historically correct to call van Eyck a "Netherlandish" painter because this seems more neutral than Flemish or Dutch. I think however that it would be confusing because "Netherlandish" has somewhat lost its association to "de Nederlanden" in general. As he clearly belongs to what is called the "Flemish school" it is therefore tenable to call him "Flemish".

He should be referred to as an Early Netherlandish painter, which is the correct scholarly term, and the rest left to the biography. Johnbod 03:33, 18 July 2007 (UTC)