Talk:Trompe-l'œil

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] The Game of Trompe L'Oeil

Throughout history trompe l'oeil paintings have been more of an artistic intellectual game then a decoration. And deception is the object of this game. Although art styles, like the rules of the game have changed through the centuries, the name of the game has remained the same... trompe l'oeil.

Trompe L'Oeil, to fool or trick the eye, is an artistic and visual trick. In trompe l'oeil the viewer must only be deceived or tricked for a moment, but they must realize they have been tricked or the purpose of the trompe l'oeil is lost. The Trick makes it a Trompe!

[1]

The instant the deception or trick is realized, and the viewer stands back in astonishment, the artist can consider their mission accomplished and the game won.

--4.247.120.119 03:03, 22 October 2005 (UTC)Linda Cassels-Hofmann

[edit] Merger proposal

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
The result was merge Quadratura and Sotto in su into Illusionistic ceiling painting. -- Stomme (talk) 14:21, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

We currently have articles on: trompe l'oeil, Quadratura, Sotto in su and Illusionistic painting (mostly Baroque), which is just too many. I think Quadratura can stand alone, but I'm fairly clear that Illusionistic painting should be merged here (PROPOSAL A), and am proposing this is also done with Sotto in su (PROPOSAL B). Please !vote or comment below, using A, B or of course oppose. Johnbod (talk) 18:05, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Support

  • A & B, as nom - or Stomme's alternative below. Johnbod (talk) 18:05, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Oppose

[edit] Discussion

I can see the sense in that, & would be happy to go with it. Trompe-l'œil is the only one of the terms to be widely used outside art history, and is always going to have the body-painting and the rest, which is fair enough I think. Johnbod (talk) 21:15, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Okay, I now suggest leaving trompe l'oeil as is and Sotto in su and Quadratura should be properly merged with Illusionistic ceiling painting (the content is more or less there now). --Stomme (talk) 00:47, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
yes - looks good. Johnbod (talk) 02:13, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi Johnbod and anyone else watching. I think it's time to make redirects from both Sotto in su and Quadratura to Illusionistic ceiling painting. If, at some time, somebody wants to really expand either (for instance, the full meaning of quadratura, they can still do so). But for now, I think the new combined page gives most people the information they were looking for (and more!) without all of the repeating. I'll wait a bit, and am happy to do the dirty work if no one objects (or you can just revert me if you do). --Stomme (talk) 12:58, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Looks good to me; nice work. Johnbod (talk) 14:22, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Done! --Stomme (talk) 15:46, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.


[edit] Why does the name of this article include a hyphen?

In my observation, trompe l'oeil is typically written without a hyphen -- I checked several dictionaries, but see also, for example, the name of the French museum, wrongly hyphenated in this article's link (follow the link and see). Nandt1 (talk) 00:40, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Pardon me if I'm being thick, but your note seems to say that you checked several dictionaries and they wrongly hyphenated "trompe-l'œil" as we have, even though it is more typical to write it without the hyphen in your observation. Is that what you intended to write? Oxford dictionaries are not consistent, but the The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Art and Artists (ed. Ian Chilvers. Oxford University Press, 1996. Oxford Reference Online. Oxford University Press. [accessed 17 May 2008]) seems happy enough with our current spelling (hyphen included). Are you suggesting that we write it without the hyphen? If your comment is about Trompe-l'Oeil museum in France, then you only looked at the splash page. In the text itself there is always the hyphen. Otherwise, I don't see the link to which you are referring (the only red link is your user name). I only have a the Grand dictionnaire terminologique of Canadian French right on-hand, but it does hyphenate the term. I've always hyphenated it in French, and I usually see it hyphenated in art literature in English (with exceptions, however). I quickly looked at the links (some of which should probably be removed) and the French sites seemed to include the hyphen and the English ones were mixed.--Stomme (talk) 01:19, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Nonetheless, I've added that it can be without in English, ref'd to the NGA, who don't use it. Johnbod (talk) 01:27, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
That's fair.--Stomme (talk) 01:36, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

To try to be clearer, I am saying that general English language dictionaries seem to dispense with the hyphen (e.g., American Heritage dictionary which I have to hand here), which causes me to question why an English langauge article like this would include it.

On the museum, while the label of the link from the Wikipedia article has inserted the hyphen in the name, I would accept that the museum's own webpage is internally inconsistent on the point -- on the home page and the address at the bottom of the webpage omitting the hyphen, but inserting it in some other locations. Nandt1 (talk) 00:42, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

A quick look at several English dictionaries (American, British and Canadian) shows that most, but not all, indeed dispense not only with the hyphen, but with the œ as well. Dictionaries largely follow usage, which tends, generally, towards simplification. Whether it is written "trompe-l'œil", "trompe-l'oeil", "trompe l'œil", or "trompe l'oeil", doesn't matter much to me, as long as one manner is consistently used throughout this article. It certainly doesn't matter enough to me to anything further about it—proactively or reactively. --Stomme (talk) 08:45, 19 May 2008 (UTC)