Talk:Rembrandt

Goya Quote

I'm not a native Spanish speaker, but is there a better translation of Goya's quote that respects the negation aspect? I think there's a slight, but significant difference in meaning between, "I have had" and "I have had no other". Again, not a native speaker, but I think a more literal translation would be "I haven't had other masters than..." 2600:1700:2950:7B90:84:94CD:C69C:3B60 (talk) 06:15, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Greatest Artists in History

"he is generally considered one of the greatest visual artists in the history of art and the most important in Dutch art history" Either remove this sentence or assert the same in Michelangelo's page. That this ascription was removed from Michelangelo's page means that it can't be on any other artist's page. Adopt a set of consistent rules. Michelangelo is perhaps the greatest artist to have ever lived. Rembrandt is a dwarf compared to Michelangelo. And yet his opening paragraph asserts that he's one of the greatest visual artists in history, whereas Michelangelo's doesn't. 67.71.31.191 (talk) 03:30, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Tone Down the Superlatives

"Rembrandt's portraits of his contemporaries, self-portraits and illustrations of scenes from the Bible are regarded as his greatest creative triumphs."

Who writes this bullshit? This article needs to be heavily toned down. In proportion, Rembrandt was a middling painter considering the talent that the era produced. Compare the introduction written to Caravaggio, without whom Rembrandt would not exist and who is at least ten times greater than Rembrandt, which is devoid of these subjective superlatives and bombastic statements.

I know that some Northern Europeans inflate Rembrandt's value for lack of many artists of high stature hailing from the regions, but the deification of this average painter in this article is heavily unwarranted. 67.71.31.191 (talk) 09:52, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Sources for this? Johnbod (talk) 15:59, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Posthumous

JAMA Ophthalmology published articles in 2018 and 2019, theorizing, then refuting, that both Rembrandt and Leonardo may have had undiagnosed exotropia (commonly, "walleye"), a type of strabismus—an eye misalignment. Exotropia typically leads to favoring one eye, leading to vision resembling those seen when painted on a flat canvas.

I've removed this section as WP:UNDUE (and it was placed far too high). All top artists are plagued by this sort of thing. Note that a) the journal backed down, and b) as usual it was in the Christmas issue of the journal, no doubt alongside the studies on which chocolates the nurses take first from mixed boxes. Johnbod (talk) 15:59, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Moved discussion on captions

Why do you consider the caption edit "unscientific?" First of all, it's the incorrect name for the painting, which is "Winter Landscape" not winterlandscape. Second, there's no need for "Rembrandt only" in the description; it makes no sense. Knightoften (talk) 23:10, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

There is no need to discuss this childish nonsense.Taksen (talk) 06:04, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Why did you leave a message on my talk page? I cannot take you seriously, you are a beginner; the discussion should be here! Besides deleting is easier than adding, something that bothers me for years. Some Wikipedians like to think: What I don't know or have never heard of is unimportant and can be deleted, a dangerous attitude.Taksen (talk) 06:02, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

At some time I added: Rembrandt's only known seascape, The Storm on the Sea of Galilee (1633). This does not stand alone. There is another caption: The Shell (a cone snail) is the only known still life Rembrandt ever etched. Why didn't you change those too? Is it because your action is arbitrary? Between 1643-1647 Holland had a row of severe winters which influenced him. Taksen (talk) 05:04, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

@Taksen What? I left you a message because you reverted my edit. In order to avoid an edit war, it was best to speak with you personally. I did not delete anything.

Well, for starters, you can pull up the image yourself and see the source, which plainly lists the painting's title, "Winter Landscape." This is the official name. Second, I did not change the others because they make sense grammatically. You did not write "Rembrandt's only known winter landscape," you wrote "Rembrandt only winterlandscape." There are no problems with those other captions; they are written grammatically correct in English. I think you are misunderstanding the issue.

Lastly, I should warn you that beginning an edit war is cause to be blocked on WP. Knightoften (talk) 20:11, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

I hope everyone is happy with this. Johnbod (talk) 20:34, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Why a "Dutch Golden Age Painter"?

Surely we can agree that a "Dutch Golden Age Painter" is not a nationality. The problem with this is, of course, that not all people who were part of the "Dutch Golden Age" were actually Dutch. Granted, most painter were, but definitely not all of them, and most definitely not all scientists or philosophers. Secondly, apart from Jan Steen and Frans Hals, I don't see this practice in many other articles. The article on Johannes Vermeer for instance says something completely different, the same goes for Gerard ter Borch or Samuel van Hoogstraten. It would've been much better to include this at a later moment in the lede. Nico Gombert (talk) 21:41, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

No it isn't a nationality, but it is what Rembrandt was and by far the most useful link to have at the start of the article, and includes his nationality. There are PLENTY of other articles starting like this - if you see some that don't it would be helpful to change them, if helpful edits are what you do! WHY would it "have been much better to include this at a later moment in the lede"? Do we really want to send people off to read Dutch people or even Dutch Golden Age?? Your first sentence: "Surely we can agree that a "Dutch Golden Age Painter" is not a nationality. The problem with this is, of course, that not all people who were part of the "Dutch Golden Age" were actually Dutch. Granted, most painter were, but definitely not all of them, and most definitely not all scientists or philosophers. " is both irrelevant and off-topic. What has this to do with it? Please explain. Johnbod (talk) 17:51, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Agree that "Dutch Golden Age Painter" is the more useful context. Note that MOS:FIRSTBIO uses the lead sentence of Petrarch as a good example: "a scholar and poet of Renaissance Italy", not "Italian scholar and poet" or "Aretine scholar and poet". Similar case. Ewulp (talk) 23:04, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

My entire point is that it doesn't include his nationality. And it objectively doesn't, because there were lots of people who were part of the Dutch Golden Age who weren't Dutch. Why does this need explanation? Descartes was part of the Dutch Golden Age, just as Pierre Bayle, John Locke and Clara Peeters; yet they weren't Dutch. There are indeed other articles that write "a Dutch Golden Age painter", but there are also lots of articles who don't do this. My point is that it would be better to change the first category rather than the second.

In that light the example you gave of Petrarch is telling. First of all, there are plenty of articles of the Italian Renaissance who don't start like that (Michelangelo, Da Vinci and Dante are all Italian) and secondly the Italian Renaissance is (of course) fundamentally different from the Dutch Golden Age. (In that light the example is flawed.) Nico Gombert (talk) 12:06, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

"Dutch Golden Age Painter" has a certain convenient ambiguity (as to "Dutch"). I wouldn't use it for eg the German Ludolf Bakhuizen, though he only took up art in Holland. We have a similar useful redirect for Italian Renaissance painter which is often used, and should be used more. You've made your position clear, but so have Ewulp & I, preferring the version we've had for years, here and elsewhere. Back it goes. Johnbod (talk) 15:12, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

So Ewulp and you are dictating what happens on Wikipedia? Your arrogance is really astonishing. First of all, this discussion has just been opened and I have only heard the opinion of one other person who hasn't even responded to my response (Ewulp). Secondly, your arguments make no sense whatsoever. The example you give of Bakhuizen is exactly an argument for my reasoning, namely that there are painters who are not Dutch, but are still part of the Dutch Golden Age. How do you intend to make that difference clear by only stating "Dutch Golden Age painter"?

Moreover, your statement "We have a similar useful redirect for Italian Renaissance painter which is often used" is simply not true, as I've proved above. Nico Gombert (talk) 19:15, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Your edit summary on 30 May, reverting me, said "There is a discussion now on the talk page for some time.." - now it hasn't started yet, apparently! Frankly none of your last makes any sense at all - please rephrase comprehensively. I don't know how many people you were expecting to join the discussion - 3 isn't a bad turnout these days, especially when two are extremely experienced editors in this area (though one has fewer than 20 edits). Johnbod (talk) 21:27, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

What is your problem with this pathetic behavior? I obviously meant that I initiated a conversation on the talk page - which you insisted - but you refused to participate. Can you please explain your rude and pathetic reaction?

Apparently if you have fewer than 20 edits your opinion doesn't count? Up until now I haven't heard one sensible argument from the extremely experienced editor that you claim to be. Nico Gombert (talk) 11:03, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Painters who are identified with the Dutch Golden Age but are not Dutch are identified in the lead sentence as German (Bakhuizen), Flemish (Peeters), etc. which eliminates ambiguity, just as non-Italian artists active in Italy during the Italian Renaissance are identified (e.g., Giulio Clovio, Jacques Arcadelt). Your allegation that the redirect for Italian Renaissance painter is not often used is hardly proven by checking three articles; try googling "was an Italian Renaissance painter" site:en.wikipedia.org & notice copious results. To insist on a change with no consensus looks like "dictating what happens on Wikipedia". Ewulp (talk) 01:11, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm not disputing that people are using it, however, the three most important figures of that period are not being referred to as such (Michelangelo, Dante, Da Vinci). The same goes for Botticelli, Brunelleschi, Donatello, Raphael and Masaccio. So really, what are you talking about? By far the most important figures do not adhere to the practice you claim is being used.

And also, how can consensus be reached if it isn't even attempted (by reacting on each others arguments for instance, by engaging in a rational conversation). The practice at the moment seems to be that John, who considers himself very experienced on Wikipedia, is therefore more entitled to seeing things go his way? That my friend is "dictating what happens on Wikipedia". With sentences like: "You've made your position clear, but so have I. Back it goes." It's almost comical. Nico Gombert (talk) 11:06, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Oh, that's clever! But depressingly few actually used the Italian Renaissance painter link (more now - see my last edits). Readers were linked to Italians, Renaissance, Italian Renaissance, List of Italian painters, and painting. If, as is probably the case, Nico Gombert can't see what's wrong with that, I give up. Please remind me why two very experienced art editors reverting to keep the long-established text is 'astonishingly arrogant', but an editor who has only ever edited two art pages reverting them to restore his new text is not. Johnbod (talk) 01:57, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

It's not clever at all in my opinion, because people who don't know that practice (which is logical, since they don't read all those other pages) are not aware that there is a difference. I'm baffled that someone with the gigantuous experience that John has, is apparently not capable of seeing that. Apart from that, the Italian Renaissance is vastly different from the Dutch Golden Age (i.e. the DGA was far more international and multi-cultural). Especially for the Dutch Golden Age it should be made clear that there is a difference between nationality and participation to that specific cultural-historical period. This is impossible to achieve with your suggestion, because people won't check pages like that of Bakhuizen to see if there's a difference in nationality. Nico Gombert (talk) 11:13, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm just not seeing your problem at all: We say "Ludolf Bakhuizen[1][2] (28 December 1630 or 1632 – 7 November 1708) was a German-born Dutch painter, draughtsman, calligrapher and printmaker.[3] He was the leading Dutch painter of maritime subjects after Willem van de Velde the Elder and Younger left for England in 1672." I have to say "the DGA was far more international and multi-cultural" seems a most dubious statement! Johnbod (talk) 14:18, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

What's dubious about it? It seems to me to be a completely logical and uncontroversial statement.

Secondly, I'm not departing from Bakhuizen's article, because I'm in agreement with that. His background is indeed perfectly clear when you read that article. However, if one reads "Rembrandt, a Dutch Golden Age painter", then one is a. not aware of the fact that "a Dutch Golden Age painter" is not the same as a "Dutch painter" and (logically) b. it isn't entirely clear if Rembrandt belongs in that category or another.

Ewulp wrote "Painters who are identified with the Dutch Golden Age but are not Dutch are identified in the lead sentence as German (Bakhuizen), Flemish (Peeters), etc. which eliminates ambiguity". But this is problematic since readers of the article are not at all aware of the fact that this distinction is being made. How does a reader who has no clue of Dutch Golden Age painting knows this? Nico Gombert (talk) 16:07, 3 June 2024 (UTC)