Talk:Gothic boxwood miniature

Proposed Move

This article should be moved to Gothic boxwood miniature (in the singular) in conformity with Wikipedia:Naming conventions (plurals). Ecphora (talk) 16:11, 1 February 2017 (UTC) Ok, have done so. Ceoil (talk) 19:51, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

@ 103.240.241.239 (talk) 18:48, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Lede image of skull

With this edit by Ceoil, the lede image was changed to a skull: [1]. I like this article, which represents an fascinating art form, but can we not use the skull as the first image? This is just my opinion. Ceoil has done a great job with this article! Attic Salt (talk) 22:18, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi Attic, uh I don't really care, but have switched back per you wish. Hoping to add a gallery shortly, so there will be more to choose from then. Ceoil (talk) 22:31, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Prayer bead number

The section on Prayer Beads contains the sentence: "Some artefacts consist of a single bead; more rare are those consisting of ten half beads, including those gifted by Henry VIII to Catherine of Aragon." I wonder if this is strictly accurate. It sounds like the miniatures are either a single bead or ten half beads. Are there not any with two beads? three? four? etc.? Attic Salt (talk) 13:53, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Hmm, good point. Will take a look. Ceoil (talk) 16:58, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Collections section

The Collections section contains this one-sentence paragraph: "The earliest modern collection where they were considered objects of art with intrinsic aesthetic, rather than merely functional, value is that of the dukes of Bavaria, as recorded in a 1598 inventory which contains several boxwood miniatures."

I find this awkward. I also wonder if the length of the sentence, its position as a stand-along paragraph, make it too prominent. Can this be reduced, and possibly combined with the next paragraph that discusses other collections? Attic Salt (talk) 14:17, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Have reworked this Attic Salt. Ceoil (talk) 09:00, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Lede section sentence

The lede contains the following sentence: "There are around 150 surviving examples; some 20 are in the form of multi-panel polyptychs such as triptychs or diptychs, or may be in the form of a tabernacle or monstrance." As this is written, it sounds like of the 150 miniatures that exist, 20 are polyptychs, but all the others are "tabernacle or monstrance". This excludes prayer beads, skulls, etc. IMO, this needs to be rewritten. Attic Salt (talk) 13:24, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

I worked this sentence into the first paragraph of the lede, where it seemed to fit better. This also allowed for some removal of redundancy. Attic Salt (talk) 13:50, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Prefer the reworked version, yes. Ceoil (talk) 09:01, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Somewhat redundant sentence in Iconghrapy.

The section on Iconography contains the following sentence: "According to the art historian Lynn Jacobs, given that the objects were intended for private, secular prayer, the detailed descriptions of church enclosures, with their Gothic architectural forms, were probably intended to evoke a church interior." In addition to being awkward, this sentence is essentially saying that a miniature's depiction of church enclosures was intended to evoke a church interior. Isn't that a bit redundant? Perhaps this sentence can just be deleted? Attic Salt (talk) 14:16, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Agree, can go. 15:24, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Done. Attic Salt (talk) 15:30, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. PS; can you help replying on the FAC talk page to some of the issues I notice you have resolved; esp given you have been for months doing a lot of heavy lifting to the extent that you are now as they say "involved" :) Note wrt Johnbod, have new sources and hope to expand today or tomorrow. Otherwise you are quite free to raise issues / complaints there. Many thanks as always. Ceoil (talk) 15:36, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Okay, will do. But I need to take a break for today. Can you please look at my recent reorg of material from "production" down to the polyptychs section? Thanks. Attic Salt (talk) 15:53, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Will do, after a bite to eat. Ceoil (talk) 16:07, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Changes seem sensible to me. Ceoil (talk) 17:25, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Confusing sentence in Polyptychs section

"Part of the appeal of the Passion was that the contrast between relatively simple scenes from the Life of Christ, and highly detailed vistas of more complex scenes, such as the Crucifixion or depictions of Heaven and Hell set in deep relief." This was noted in the featured article review. I don't see how to fix it. Attic Salt (talk) 13:45, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

I think we can loose most of this, Attic - will take a look. Ceoil (talk) 16:56, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, hope you all don't mind if I butt in. The sentence makes sense to me, but needs some tweaking along the lines of something like this: "Part of the appeal of the Passion was the contrast between relatively simple scenes from the Life of Christ, juxtaposed against more complex scenes with detailed vistas, such as the Crucifixion or depictions of Heaven and Hell set in deep relief." The only question is whether the simple scenes are set in deep relief or the vistas? Victoriaearle (tk) 18:15, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

That seems better indeed Victoria. Will have a crack at it again. Ceoil (talk) 20:04, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Religious

Hi Attic, re this edit, I think it was more the run on blue links that my earlier edit was trying address. Its obvious from the mentions of iconography in the lead that the imagery is Christian, and have now also reinstated that link down further in lead. Hope this ok with you. Ceoil (talk) 16:58, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Christian

I feel that the article's first paragraph, and, really, the first sentence, needs to mention that these objects are Christian. As it stands, the first paragraph mentions "prayer", "tabernacles", and "personal devotion", but an explicit mention of the Christian context is not presently mentioned until the second paragraph. Are any of the miniatures secular? If so, then this might be mentioned somewhere, otherwise an upfront mention of Christianity is needed. Attic Salt (talk) 17:01, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

See my cross post above. Lets agree on a formulation.....Ceoil (talk) 17:07, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Very few are secular (perfume flasks etc)...though certain passages within larger works may be. Ceoil (talk)

Done. Ceoil (talk) 03:39, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

If some miniatures are secular, wouldn't this be worth discussing? Possibly a small section on this? Attic Salt (talk) 02:31, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Its mentioned in the preamble to the formats section, which is about as much as is deserved. I'm not sure a dedicated section is needed. best. Ceoil (talk) 03:38, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Okay, it seems that there are few (possibly one) existing non-Christian themed miniature (the perfume flask). I still think, however, that "Christian" needs to be mentioned up front, but I've said this enough already and will let you or others consider this. Attic Salt (talk) 13:34, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

We now say "Gothic boxwood miniatures are very small religious wood sculptures produced during the 15th and 16th centuries" Ceoil (talk) 14:00, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Charles VI

Are we sure we want to say Emperor Charles VI and not Emperor Charles V? Charles V, like Henry, Catherine, and Albert, reigned in the 16th century, while Charles VI reigned in the 18th century. Surtsicna (talk) 00:06, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Pinging Attic Salt and Ceoil. Surtsicna (talk) 13:50, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, good spot. Has now been corrected. Ceoil (talk) 20:15, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Citation needed

What is the rationale for removing the Citation needed tag on the claim that "Each miniature's production required exceptional craftsmanship, and some may have taken decades of cumulative work to complete, suggesting that they were commissioned by high-ranking nobles."? This seems like pure speculation on the part of the author, unless there is some academic opinion relating to the matter, which ought to be cited.Steepleman (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:11, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Adoration prayer bead

There is a fine white box overlaid on the upper left corner of the image. Is this an artifact or an indication that something is amiss?

Also, since the scale is an important part of Boxwood miniatures, perhaps a scale (explicit or implicit) would be welcome? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Riventree (talk • contribs) 13:16, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

 Partly done – uploaded a copy without the box (well spotted!) but haven't done the scale idea, which might need discussing. Best to all DBaK (talk) 19:19, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Online collection mention

A piece appeared in The Globe and Mail recently that mentioned boxwood miniatures. Specifically,

That stress on storytelling is typical of how many institutions appeal to online visitors, with the focus on offering virtual exhibitions. Toronto’s Art Gallery of Ontario, for example, hosts a digital version of its popular 2016-17 show of medieval boxwood miniatures that used scanning technology to discover how these impossibly tiny carvings were made.

There are also two beautiful high resolution images that appear in the article. Not sure how useful this will be to this page, but thought it was worth mentioning anyway. Tkbrett (✉) 16:40, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Tkbrett. We have a few(!) mentions of the Art Gallery of Ontario's Boxwood Project in the ext links, and some of its articles have been used of sources. Personally, I think its a first class resource, and to note that those behind it, Lisa Ellis and Alexandra Suda, have played a significant role in the huge revival of interest and appreciation this art-form has enjoyed in the last 5 years or so. Ceoil (talk) 19:57, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

References

Over use of fair use images

You can't "fair use" each and every example on display in museums, the idea is minimal usage. The AGO catalogue prohibits extensive usage of photos [2] and you can very likely take photos of the objects at the museum. Oaktree b (talk) 01:16, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

major work/minor work

Some works in the captions are treated as MOS:MAJORWORK and some as MOS:MINORWORK. There's no obvious reason why. They all look like major works. Spicemix (talk) 09:53, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Hi Spicemix, can you edit as you see fit. Ceoil (talk) 11:23, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Actually, they DON'T look like MOS:MAJORWORKs! Most of them have descriptive names, given by museums long after their creation, rather than titles that could plausibly have been given by the artist. The inclusion of phrases like "Miniature with..." is a dead give-away here. Johnbod (talk) 15:27, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

It would be tempting to change all the titles of works in this article (except the painting in the final image) to descriptive names in sentence case. And should Half of a Prayer Bead with the Lamentation (both in the article title and the image caption here) be Prayer Bead with the Prayer of the Rosary and the Lamentation? (However capitalised and italicised – Prayer bead with the Prayer of the Rosary and the Lamentation would be my suggestion.) Both halves are in the pic and both are discussed in the article. Ham II (talk) 20:08, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. Johnbod (talk) 00:47, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Also agree and have done some page moves and updated the captions. Ceoil (talk) 22:53, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

I found the article to be somewhat useful for future projects or essays. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Conman998 (talk • contribs) 23:14, 1 September 2024 (UTC)