Talk:Pointillism

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.

Contents

[edit] Sunday in the Park with George

Worth mentioning Stephen Sondheim and Sunday in the Park with George in the music bit? MikeyB! 21:56, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

The music isn't pointillist at all is it? Hyacinth 07:50, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
True, but he claims (I believe) it is a different interpretation of Pointillism as a musical form MikeyB! 23:25, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Who is...

British Pointillist artist / Pogus Caesar - http://www.oomgallery.net / OOM Gallery ? Do we need this link? Is it more than vanity? Feel free to re-insert--RPD 01:58, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism?

The last edit is exactly what I consider vandalic: altering texts that try to get a bit closer to recent state of knowledge, without preceeding discussion on the talk-page. Therefore, I revert - and at the same time I try to fix the corrupt phrase which I had added earlier. --RPD 06:29, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

  • It is not necessary to discuss in a talk page the revision of entries which are incorrect. The entry was incorrect, and included what I consider to be nonsense introduced deliberately, some weeks ago: the term "pointillism" does not refer either to criticism or to the ridicule of a school of painting, which is what it said. The entry as I have revised it is correct, and I suggest that you do not revert. Thanks. - Corporal Tunnel 06:35, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pointillism

You have reverted the corrected entry which I made this afternoon to the prior incorrect entry in this category. The prior edits were complete gibberish when I fixed them today, and you have now reintroduced incorrect information and irrelevant asides - it is not pertinent that paint comes in tubes, for example; that has nothing to do with pointillism. Please restore the proper entry. Additionally, you have accused me of vandalism simply for correcting an entry which you seem to feel you own. You do not own it; that's not how things work here. I'll appreciate if you retract that statement. Thanks. - Corporal Tunnel 06:39, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Please supply valid reference for your point of vue. Mine is based on reference works since Rewald's Post-Impressionism and art historical research published since then. As far as I see, the present version of this article does not supply any sources, and your revert does not either. --RPD 06:46, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Pointillism is a name for a school of painting. It is not a spoof, a parody, or a joke. It may have been once in the 1880's, but that time is long past. Pointillism is a school practiced by a few artists, whose non-ridiculous works hang without parody in great museums the world over. Seurat, Signac, and Cross are three of the best-known practitioners; I was also going to add Pissarro, whose work I am rather fond of, but there is a limit to how many examples are needed. I am not supplying a POV, just fact.
Pointillism is also closely related to Divisonism, a fact you should not have taken out. As for references, Google finds 347,000, of which 31 also use the word "ridiculize." I believe you mean "ridicule." As far as that goes, there are several hits - well under 1,000 - that use that word. Some of those mention that Pointillism was at first ridiculed, along with nearly every other expression of modern art, and was then accepted as a meaningful school. Most are off topic. Any mention of ridicule is pure POV and does not belong in an introduction to the subject. It should probably trail along somewhere by the end as an interesting bit of distant history, if it is included at all.
A few references:
http://www.moma.org/collection/browse_results.php?object_id=79333
http://www.artcyclopedia.com/history/pointillism.html
http://www.ibiblio.org/wm/paint/auth/seurat/
http://www.artfact.com/features/viewStyle.cfm?gID=31
http://library.thinkquest.org/J0110603/pointillism.html
http://www.tiscali.co.uk/reference/encyclopaedia/hutchinson/m0012480.html
As to why you would remove a cogent and well-written simple explanation of how pointillism is like a modern press or monitor, or remove a relevant reference to a related school of optical painting, I find no explanation. Please restore my edit, which is correct and rather nicely written. Thanks. - Corporal Tunnel 07:17, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

  • At first, I have to apologise: I'am no native speaker, so you are probably right that it should be "ridiculed". Then, please have a look here on Neo-Impressionism, which I recently had prepared for rework and enlargement, but then I had no time to continue. There you will see the historical context which I was hoping to describe.
  • My alterations on Pointillism are meant strictly historical: Seurat as well as Signac would have prefered other terms, their friend and art critic Fénéon proposed a third (Neo-Impressionism - while most of the other critics amused themselves with this innovative manner to see and to paint. This is initially the background of the term. Later, both terms were mixed up or used alteratively, when the point of depart, the "scientific" analysis of visual experience, was more or less substituted by the technical aspect of using dots.
  • Keeping all this in mind I think the article needs to be extended, including the topics mentioned as well as others, probably.
  • Furthermore, I suggest to continue this discussion in the public space. --RPD 12:54, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
I agree about pursuing the conversation here on the Talk page, and thanks for moving everything over here. I also agree that the historical basis of the term, much of which I did not know before, deserves mention, and the information above is interesting and valid, so expansion of the article is a great idea.
However, to put something in a historical context, first we have to tell people what it is. Pointillism is not simply historical. It's a functional term at use in art and art history, and that is what should be brought to readers right up top.
I really don't see the point in removing my edit - which was not reversion, but was my non-trivial writing and organizing work - to make a point about word origins, which are less pertinent in an encyclopedia than definitions. For the time being, I am returning the piece to its spot in the introduction. I think it will be interesting and valuable to include the historical context you have provided. But surely that's not the way to introduce pointillism to a reader.
Also, you might find the word "disparage" to be closer to what you're looking for than "ridicule" - but neither of these can reasonably be in the first sentence on the subject. - Corporal Tunnel 14:24, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pen and ink

I've - for now - moved the recent (badly formatted) addition to the article: Pointillism can also be used in pen and ink pictures to create shading through spacing of dots. Is this technique called pointilism? Stumps 05:18, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

  • I shouldn't think so. Pointillism isn't just about the dots; it's about the dots and the colors. - Corporal Tunnel 14:31, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] =======================================================================

Did you know that it took 2 years for seurat to paint A Sunday in the Park

Did you know that A Sunday in the Park has about 3,456,000 dots

No - I haven't tried counting them. But I have noted that not all the dots are primary colors. Pointillists relied on the blurring of dots when seen at a distance, but they used more than the three primaries (just look at the Seurat portrait used in the article). The definition in the article needs modifying, at least with regard to the painting technique. Rikstar 21:22, 22 July 2007 (UTC)