Jump to content

Talk:Pre-Raphaelite Brotherhood

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Old stuff, 2004-2005

[edit]

This sentence is rather unclear:

The group's intention was to reform art by rejecting what they considered to be the mechanistic approach adopted by the Mannerist artists who followed the concept of painting prevalent before the High Renaissence and artists like Raphael and Michelangelo. Hence the name 'Pre-Raphaelite'.

It seems to say the Mannerist artists painted in the style prevalent before the High Renaissence, which surely can't be right. -- Tarquin 11:08, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

perhaps it is supposed to be after the reaissance? That would make sense.

Yes, it's utter and complete gibberish. This is the sentence as I originally wrote it: "The Pre-Raphaelite Brotherhood was a group of English painters, poets and critics whose intention was to reform art by rejecting what they considered to be the mechanistic approach adopted by the Mannerist artists who followed Raphael and Michelangelo. Hence the name 'Pre-Raphaelite'." Some idiot has rewritten it. There is also a lot of other nonsense here about the 'high point of English art in the middle ages', and about varnishing between layers of pigment - which has nothing to do with the PRB whatever and is historically false. This article needs to be completely re-written. Paul B
By "mechanistic" is it meant "thoughtlessly repetitive"? There are several concepts that use the word "mechanistic" as a designation. 173.61.223.45 (talk) 16:51, 23 May 2018 (UTC)DaShawn Bivins[reply]

Citing a source for "four declarations" of the Pre-Raphaelite Brotherhood in "Early Doctrines"

[edit]

In the section Early Doctrines (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pre-Raphaelite_Brotherhood#Early_doctrines), four declarations are listed. These declarations appear in almost every other description of Pre-Raphaelitism on the web, always without citing a source. Can someone please supply a reference? Thanks in advance.71.171.17.39 (talk) 13:41, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done, but your search technique leaves a lot to be desired - use google books. Johnbod (talk) 15:19, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Johnbod! (Thanks also for the condescending comment.) Interestingly, I previously tried Google Books, searching for what I had construed to be the most unique part of the text, "self-parodying and learned by rote," but no such phrase was found, as this part of the quote appears in Latham as "self-parading and learned by rote." Latham cites Cecil Lang as his source; Lang in turn quotes Dante Gabriel Rossetti. His Family-Letters with a Memoir. The online versions of this work (see http://www.rossettiarchive.org/docs/pr5246.a43.rad.html) also contain the phrase, "self-parading and learned by rote" rather than "self-parodying and learned by rote." Since you are obviously more erudite and thorough than I, do you perhaps have any other sources that can resolve the discrepancy? 71.171.25.54 (talk) 03:30, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Don't know about that, I'm afraid - I got good results off searching in "most indispensable of all, to produce thoroughly good pictures and statues." So what happened to the statues I wonder? Oh, alright - the 1st page of the intro to the 1984 Tate exhibition catalogue has "self-parading". That's p. 11., by Alan Bowness, who is also rude about this manifesto ("a touching naivety"). It also makes more sense surely? Johnbod (talk) 03:47, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
With "statues," maybe Rossetti is trying to be inclusive of all the early members of the Brotherhood. Thomas Woolner was primarily a sculptor (http://www.victorianweb.org/sculpture/woolner/38.html), although he made some decent paintings and wrote poetry. 71.171.24.75 (talk) 09:30, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
we did have it correct originally, but some dickhead "corrected" it back in 2007. Johnbod (talk) 03:53, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, lots of other web pages have quoted this page: Google displays 4430 pages with the exact phrase, "self-parodying and learned by rote," while only 871 pages have the exact phrase, "self-parading and learned by rote."71.171.24.75 (talk) 10:15, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It may well not be our original fault - lots of people auto-correct unusual words, sometimes without realizing it. Johnbod (talk) 13:45, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, "self-parading" certainly makes more sense. I also note that "Nature" in the original source is capitalized, and I have now changed this in the article. Best! 71.171.25.54 (talk) 03:58, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Pre-Raphaelite Brotherhood. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:33, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 24 March 2023

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (non-admin closure) ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 18:56, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pre-Raphaelite Brotherhood → Pre-Raphaelites – Per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:CONCISE. The proposed name is more common than the current one and also Pre-Raphaelitism ([1]). The term "Pre-Raphaelites" applies to some artists not part of the original brotherhood, so it has a wider scope, but the article already covers that in some sections (like Pre-Raphaelite_Brotherhood#Later_developments_and_influence or Pre-Raphaelite_Brotherhood#Associated_artists_and_figures). Vpab15 (talk) 18:02, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose per previous discussion above. The two terms do not cover the same thing - "Pre-Raphaelite" is notoriously loosely used to cover vast amounts of British and even North American art for the rest of the century, with no real connection to the actual PRB. Even several of the main Pre-Raphaelite artists only used the style of the movement for a relatively short period. As per the previous discussion, it is better to keep the article tightly focused. Of course the other redirects here. Johnbod (talk) 19:18, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    with no real connection to the actual PRB. The fact they are also called "Pre-Raphaelites" heavily hints they have some connection with the Pre-Raphaelite Brotherhood. Vpab15 (talk) 19:43, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    No, it really doesn't, except that they mostly lived in the same country and century. The "influences" on many are clearly from entirely different sources, but since the huge revival in interest in recent decades, "Pre-Raphaelite" has become an attractive branding for almost anything from Victorian painting. Johnbod (talk) 19:58, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. "Pre-Raphaelites" is the common name and recognizable to readers, and seems to be topic of this page. The "Brotherhood" is only a subset, and should not be the title for the entire page - unless all mention of non-Brotherhood artists is removed, and a new parent article "Pre-Raphaelites" is created. But as it stands, this is the "Pre-Raphaelites" parent page. Pre-Raphaelites already redirects here. The addition of "Brotherhood" in the title is unnecessarily cumbersome, unfamiliar and not reflective of the actual content of this page. Walrasiad (talk) 06:04, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • "should not be the title for the entire page - unless all mention of non-Brotherhood artists is removed" doesn't follow at all, and it would be an idea to create a different page to cover all the "loosely associated" artists, if anyone can be bothered. The article text (not the lists) ignores all these later camp followers and concentrates entirely on the Brotherhood, and the small handful of their friends at their time whom sources always group as honorary members. Johnbod (talk) 05:17, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
On the contrary. Reading the text of the the actual page, the terms "Pre-Raphaelites", "Pre-Raphaelite style", "Pre-Raphaelite works", "Pre-Raphaelite principles", "Pre-Raphaelite circle", "Pre-Raphaelite painting" etc. come up quite a bit, proving the term "brotherhood" quite redundant. There's an awkward attempt in some paragraphs to use "PRB" and "Brotherhood" rather relentlessly, but it comes up rather awfully. This is the "Pre-Raphaelites" page. The very first sentence in the lede points that out. The text expresses that. The list of artists captures that. That they may have thought or called themselves a "brotherhood" is a curiosity, unfamiliar to most, that can be dispatched in a sentence or two. It should not dominate the page and certainly not the title. The Wikipedia reading audience would certainly be better served by a more recognizable title. And I don't see what god is served by denying them that. Walrasiad (talk) 09:50, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
To add to that, out of the 40 references only three use "brotherhood". And none of the "Further Reading" or "External links". It is quite clear the majority of reliable sources don't refer to the movement as a "brotherhood". Vpab15 (talk) 10:19, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Lets not conflate different things. Ceoil (talk) 07:44, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose per the formal name of the group and movement, per long-term historical significance, and per Johnbod's reasoned points. The shortened version is the often-used nickname, both an almost catch-all version of the style and a handle which is less of a mouthful when discussing or referring to the art movement, but not encyclopedically correct. Similar to a proposal to change Impressionism to Impressionists or Expressionism to Expressionists, the topic is best described as presented on this page. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:15, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Additional sources

[edit]

Ran across this:

  • Horrocks, Jamie (June 2017). "Pre-Raphaelite Primitivism and the Periodical Press: Florence Caxton's The Choice of Paris". Visual Culture in Britain. 19 (2). doi:10.1080/14714787.2017.1328286. Abstract is available without subscription access.
  • Payne, Chirstiana (2015). "John Brett: A Pre-Raphaelite Imperialist". Visual Culture in Britain. 16 (2). doi:10.1080/14714787.2015.1038895.
  • Johnson, Chloe (2010). "Presenting the Pre-Raphaelites: From Radio Reminiscences to Desperate Romantics". Visual Culture in Britain. 11 (10). doi:10.1080/14714780903509847.

 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  08:58, 22 July 2023 (UTC); rev'd. 09:16, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pre-Raphaelite_Brotherhood&oldid=1241104570"