Jump to content

Talk:Beeldenstorm

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

More sources:

[edit]

Johnbod (talk) 18:55, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

and from my user page: Beeldenstorm - [2], Bourges 1562,Calvinist-Lutheran iconoclasm, Utrecht, Elliot, now clear, France,Prescott,[3], [4], Antwerp English account, Delft, politics, [5], [6], summary, Braudel Med, Waagen Aertsen, Johnbod (talk) 14:37, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Beeld/Bild

[edit]

To the rude person who informed me to "check a dictionary" or Dutch Wikipedia- I actually had. And "beeld" in the Dutch wikipedia links directly to German's "Bild". And in German, Bild means "icon" or "image", often also "picture"- the German word for statue is "Statue" (or less frequently, "Standbild", meaning "standing icon/image"). And I have no desire to go through your 300 or so un-captioned edits to see where you decided "beeld" means "statue" and nothing else, but thanks for the equally rude suggestion. After seeing your remark, I took your advice and looked at a few online dictionaries. Google translate, babelfish and a couple others. They agreed that it means primarily "image", with "statue" further down the list (although to your credit, "statue" was one of the translations). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.232.211.114 (talk) 00:38, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It was actually changed recently by a (?Dutch) ISP, but after investigation I decided he was right. The German is not at issue. You might try [7] = sculpture only, [8] = group sculpture etc. In the Dutch article on this, the lead has "Tijdens de beeldenstorm werd de inventaris van honderden katholieke kerken, kapellen, abdijen en kloosters geroofd of vernield. Altaren, beelden, doopvonten, reliekschrijnen, koorgestoelten, preekstoelen, orgels, kelken, schilderijen, kerkelijke boeken en gewaden moesten het ontgelden...", where "beelden" is linked to the sculpture article. "Sculpture storm" would probably be more accurate, but sounds even odder. The references above include an academic paper on how the Dutch have pursuaded themselves it was only "sculptures of saints" that were destroyed, rather than the wholesale smashing-up that contemporary accounts record. Johnbod (talk) 01:20, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The German usage is just about identical to the Dutch. The base 'Bild'/'beeld' means 'image'. A 'Standbild'/'standbeeld' is an image that stands, a statue. None of the German or Dutch terms however, is in practical use for a sculptured image of just anything: it's the image of a person and/or an animal (possibly with very little decorum like sitting on a rock or leaning on short column) – though 'Bild'/'beeld' may also be used in the sense of an image of anything on or in a painting or photograph, and a 'TV-beeld' is a TV image, the 'Standbild'/'standbeeld' is a large statue, as one finds on a square, thus generally free-standing on the ground (possibly on a socle). A smaller sculpture is usually called a 'Bild'/'beeld', but that term can also refer to a 'Standbild'/'standbeeld'. On e.g. a mantlepiece, it may also be called a 'postuur' (though a posture reminds of a body positioning, the object do not necessarily depict people or animals: also e.g. chariots, buildings, etc, but never pottery, and usually not sculptured but rather poured into a mould or hand-formed, e.g. porcelain, earthenware,...).
One should also think of e.g. Dutch 'verbeelden' (= to imagine, getting an image in mind), 'afbeelden' (= to create an image of) and 'afbeelding' (its noun), 'beeltenis' (synonym of 'afbeelding'), 'beeldhouwen' (= to cut an image, to sculpture; may also be used for carving relatively simple decorations at furniture), 'beeldhouwwerk' (= sculptured work of art). As in English, the technique of creating an image often determines the term for the object: 'schilderij' (= painting), 'tekening' (= a drawing), 'sculptuur', 'projectie', 'foto' etc; and further, for flat images, 'portret', 'portretteren' (= portrait, to portray).
I thus assume that 'Bild'/'beeld' mainly used to refer to a sculpture or statue. The by the historical 'Bildersturm'/'Beeldenstorm' knocked off heads or more from statues of e.g. saints at the outside and inside of churches and monasteries, became rarely replaced, but sometimes removed leaving an empty console. It is until this day what a child notices, before it learns the history. Unlike Johnbod's reference to a paper may suggest, I did not spot broken images of animals (such were not worshipped) or damaged undeterminable decorations. I can't testify whether also paintings may have been defaced or destroyed: in my area, the 'Beeldenstorm' was quickly followed by Spanish Fury lootings. The cathedral and all but two other churches in my home city are known to have been spared by the 'Beeldenstorm' and still all their interior ornaments that have some value, are Baroque, nothing Gothic remains apart from relatively few paintings that had effectively been hidden for safety. At least in present-day Flanders it is so bad, that 'Gothic' only refers to architecture including the buildings' statues and other stone sculptures; the rest of Gothic Art (e.g. church furniture) is long gone from my people's collective memory. Hence, the Flemish may testify of what "the Dutch have pursuaded themselves".
Certainly, 'Sculpture Storm' would be the translation of "Sculpturenstorm", a word that does not exist. In Dutch, the term 'ikoon' (= icon) is very rarely used, unless for foreign Orthodox religious art - and now again borrowed-translated from English for the icons on a PC screen. I perceive 'Iconoclasm' (related to 'icon' and 'clash') as identical to 'Beeldenstorm', both terms mainly put in mind slashing sculptures of people. The Dutch-language term does not explicitly refer to an idol, but our historical awareness makes us think of saints or bishops. And both terms are generic: an iconoclasm or a 'beeldenstorm' might occur anywhere at any time. An article on this English WP about the iconoclasm in the historical Netherlands might be titled 'Beeldenstorm', for such in Germany 'Bildersturm'... but frankly, e.g. 'Iconoclasm in the Low Countries' or 'Iconoclasm (1566-67)' would be better.
If on the Dutch language WP, an article titled 'Beeldenstorm' would be limited to the one in the Low Countries, it makes the mistake of navelstaarderij (= the staring at one's own belly-button) and should be expanded for 'beeldenstormen' world-wide and more rare 'Iconoclasme' should redirect to 'Beeldenstorm' (with content as this WP's Iconoclasm). Apart from shortly saying that both terms may mean the same, the current separate articles have a too specific content of the (Christian) 'Beeldenstorm' and the (Orthodox) 'Iconoclasme'. These should be named as I suggested for this English-language WP.
​▲ SomeHuman 2011-08-21 03:54-04:17 (UTC)
This just demonstrates that Dutch is a different language from English, a point some have difficulty grasping. In English "Beeldenstorm" is well established as a term for this specific outbreak, the subject of this article, which is therefore correctly titled. It would not be the correct title for the more general article on Reformation iconoclasm that we don't yet have. On the specific point, Byzantine iconoclasm, the original source of the word, probably hardly involved sculpture at all, as there wasn't any Byzantine religious sculpture to destroy. Johnbod (talk) 15:16, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It did not demonstrate that Dutch is a language of a different nature than English: only that Dutch is not another name for English. I showed that the naming on the English-language WP is correct, and that the Dutch WP should follow the proper example. That means that on the Dutch WP, 'Beeldenstorm' needs to cover a multitude of iconolasms. For this here WP, in English, of course that pure Dutch name can only refer to the wellknown episode in Dutch speaking countries.
Whether the original source of a term involved precisely what is now understood by that term, or not, is not relevant: etymology proves many terms to have obtained narrower, broader, or even quite different meanings. For a WP article, the content must describe the current meaning of the article name, though it may be interesting to show that there have been historical meanings as well, most certainly in case the older meanings occasionally still show up in commonly available texts. One must not attempt to fit the current meaning (which we do not decide) into the original and/or etymologically recognizable meaning. It follows that for the Byzantine period, the described iconoclasms may differ from iconoclasms in later periods (elsewhere). For that kind of topic, there is no 'current' meaning (less it would be this month's riots in England, at which some people's icons like cars and expensive shop articles were damaged — unlike many other riots against e.g. politics or races, these recent events in which groups of locals turn against the material values with symbolic meaning in the local culture... might become described as an iconoclasm by future socio-historical experts, wait and see): at present, the general article on 'Iconoclasm' can only describe the various historical meanings.
​▲ SomeHuman 2011-08-25 07:17-07:30 (UTC)

Rename Protestant iconoclasm

[edit]

Why are we using a Dutch name for what is usually called Protestant iconoclasm in English? --JFHutson (talk) 22:59, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's how it's usually referred to in English. We don't have a general article on Protestant iconoclasm, except the section aticonoclasm. Johnbod (talk) 03:30, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I see now this article is about the specific Dutch events. The lead makes it sound more broad and it is linked as the main article for Iconoclasm#Reformation iconoclasm. --JFHutson (talk) 15:31, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Background

[edit]

Is there any particular reason why the Background part of the article contains none? What can be summarized to "So it happens that people destroyed works art" doesn't tell us why it happened, or their motivations. --Stalkerkun (talk) 20:15, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Beeldenstorm. 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) 22:47, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:USEENGLISH

[edit]

Is there any reason that guideline shouldn't apply to this particular article? --Andreas Philopater (talk) 21:21, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It does, but WP:COMMONNAME trumps it. Johnbod (talk) 04:03, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Then perhaps we should establish what the common name actually is. Is there any indication that most reputable historians writing in English use a Dutch term? --Andreas Philopater (talk) 10:57, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This list, compiled in 2017 suggests not, for a start. And since then we have "iconoclastic fury" this in 2018 and this in 2019, continuing the trend. Back in 2017 I seem to have missed Geoffrey Parker ("During the Iconoclastic Fury of 1566", Imprudent King, 2014, p. 300) and Roland Willemyns ("The iconoclastic fury (Dutch Beeldenstorm)", Dutch: Biography of a Language (2013), p. 86). Frits van Oostrom, not a historian of the period (and not a native speaker of English) still appears to be the only reputable author to use "Beeldenstorm" in a book published in English, and that at a Dutch press rather than in an English-speaking country. What strikes me now, is that we are here using a Dutch term for an event that took place in both Dutch-speaking and French-speaking parts of the Low Countries. So some evidence that the common English name for the event is not "iconoclastic fury" would be necessary for "commonname" to apply to the current article title. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 11:33, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As the article suggests, "Great Iconoclasm" is probably more common in English, but also has issues of ambiguity. Your research didn't cover that. I notice that "Iconoclastic Fury" seems to be used mainly or entirely by authors of a Netherlandish origin, who (or whose publishers perhaps) feel a translation is necessary, & have pretty much invented a literal one. It is a very obscure phrase for a native speaker. Here the Metropolitan Museum uses first "the Iconoclasm (1566)" then later (from their book) "1566, the year of the great Iconoclasm". If we were going to move the article title it would have to be to something like "Iconoclasm of 1566", but that is too limiting. Johnbod (talk) 13:31, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So you agree that "Beeldenstorm" is not in fact the common English name? --Andreas Philopater (talk) 13:40, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) No. There is no very common name in English, but "Iconoclastic Fury" certainly isn't it. Johnbod (talk) 13:44, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So why is it so easy to find reputable publishers putting out academic texts that use it? From a cursory search I've provided 15 examples (about a third of them by "authors of a Netherlandish origin" – a long way from your "mainly or entirely"). --Andreas Philopater (talk) 13:47, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's just as easy to find equally good sources using other phrases. Btw, the great bulk of the destruction was in Dutch-speaking parts of the Low Countries, was it not? If only because of the positions of government troops. Johnbod (talk) 13:51, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Please provide evidence supporting the assertion that "It's just as easy to find equally good sources using other phrases", or indeed for any one other phrase used as frequently as "Iconoclastic Fury". --Andreas Philopater (talk) 13:57, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The thing is, you have found a handful of authors who use "Iconoclastic Fury", but actually there are far more don't title the episode at all, just talking about "iconoclasm of 1566" or some such phrase, as here, here (later on the page "iconoclastic fury or beeldenstorm", Arnade, here, here, here and many, many others, including 19th century works. "Iconoclastic Fury" just hasn't caught on in English. Johnbod (talk) 16:00, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Johnbod, I'm glad you agree that "Beeldenstorm" meets neither WP:USEENGLISH not WP:COMMONNAME. Now we just have to determine what best does meet those guidelines. I note that two of the five links you give to show that "Iconoclastic Fury" is not in general use do in actual fact use that term, so can be added to the dozen or so already cited in its favour. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 17:43, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Returning from a long time away, I'm astonished to find this article still at "Beeldenstorm". Any objections to moving it to an English title? --Andreas Philopater (talk) 16:34, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, of course there are, as you should know by now. "Iconoclastic Fury" is no more common, and is much less precise, referring to various periods and episodes, whereas in English Beeldenstorm is much more specific. You'll notice that no first-language English speaker has ever turned up to support your campaign over the years. For some reason you find the use of a Dutch term upsetting, but no one else seems to. Johnbod (talk) 16:59, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • I didn't say "to Iconoclastic Fury", I said "to an English title". Curiously, your 'as you should know by now' is followed by an assertion that we already established two years ago is not backed by the evidence. Every time we've compared notes, "Iconoclastic Fury" has turned out to be a lot more common than "Beeldenstorm" in English texts, or than any of the English alternatives like "Iconoclastic outbreak", "Iconoclastic rioting", etc. Even when you said you'd found five sources that didn't use "Iconoclastic Fury" to set against the dozen that did, it transpired that two of those actually used the term you were presenting them as evidence for the non-usage of. As to "first-language English speaker", it's okay – if you feel you need confirmation from one, I can give it. Oddly, no first-language English speaker has ever turned up to support the usage of "Beeldenstorm" in the face of the evidence, either, ever since you first asserted it to be the common English term back in 2012 (long before I ever became involved). This is by all appearances a very low-traffic talkpage, which it occurs to me probably reflects how few people search for "Beeldenstorm" in English to start with. Rather than clinging to conviction, perhaps ask yourself if it's possible that your belief that "Beeldenstorm" is common in English might be mistaken? --Andreas Philopater (talk) 19:18, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Beeldenstorm&oldid=1206218031"