Talk:History painting

from the page

Cut from the page as irrelevant.

These "history paintings," as they were called, demonstrate how profoundly painters, actors, directors and critics influenced one another and how interdependent they were in their critical interpretations, depictions and productions of Shakespeare's plays. In the nineteenth century the relationship between literature and the graphic arts was much closer and the definition of "literary" criticism was broader than it is now. A critic like John Eagles blurs most of our modern distinctions when he says of Daniel Maclise's painting The Play Scene in "Hamlet" (1842) that "It is the business of the dramatist to make good pictures, and whether it be done by the players or the painter, what matter, so they be effective, and the story worth telling; and how shall they be better told than as the author intended they should be represented? The boards of the theatre and the canvass are the same thing--the eye is to behold, and the mind to be moved."

This strikes me as entirely off-topic. The assertion in the opening paragraph is rather weak; I have never heard paintings based on Shakespeare's works called history paintings. Goldfritha 19:55, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

They were in fact classed as history paintings. Johnbod (talk) 13:45, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

• If that were the only irrelevancy, we'd jump for joy. The whole article is written in passive and circumlocution. It's as if it were grafted from a foreign language reference of great antiquity. Utgard Loki 18:53, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

A second to other comments

If the term "history painting" included religious and all the other categories listed here, what meaning would it have? This article has no meaning as currently written. Wduncan43 (talk) 13:25, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Improved/clarified I hope, but the article is still pretty poor. Johnbod (talk) 13:44, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Military art

I have been trying to clean up the Military art article. This source[1] points to historical war art as being a subtype of History painting. I can find no clear reference or definition for "Military art" other than that and it seems to me "Military art" should simply be merged into this article. Other views? Ohioartdude2 (talk) 04:46, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Lead

Sentence below was the lead of this article[2] but did not summarize and seemed to make the unreferenced claim that André Félibien defined the genre in some way. Needs to be integrated into the article in a much clearer form. Ohioartdude2 (talk) 16:14, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

History painting, as formulated in 1667 by André Félibien, a historiographer, architect and theoretician of French classicism, was in the hierarchy of genres considered to be the grand genre.

top image

I don't know how long this has been here, but I just deleted a painting of Diana and Actaeon that was chosen as the top illustration. Apologies for the hysterical edit summary, but good grief—that's an example of mythological painting, and the gallery of full of actual history paintings from which a choice could be made. "History painting", as the article actually does say, doesn't mean "having to do vaguely with the past." I'll look through the gallery and Commons and try to find something more exemplary. Cynwolfe (talk) 15:07, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, again, for overreacting. The choice of painting pushed one of my WP buttons, which is: images are often chosen for the number of naked female bodies exposed, and not because they are most apt for illustrating a topic. I know "history painting" can mean large-scale works and not just "historical paintings." At the same time, it seems less confusing for the reader if we use a painting that is in fact historical in subject, and then place illustrations in the body of the article to explain that large-scale mythological or religious narratives are part of the genre in its up-to-19th-century usage. The Goya meets all the criteria for "history painting," and as a plus has its own article. Cynwolfe (talk) 15:44, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

I think I will revert, as the Titian served well to illustrate to those equally as ignorant as yourself that mythological and religious paintings form the vast bulk of history paintings, at least until the 19th century. I suggest you try reading articles before deciding they are wrong. Choosing two military paintings that were painted within a few decades of each other clearly subverts the article's attempt to clarify the misconception that the term naturally tends to generate among anglophones. The Titian also has its own article, & is rather better known than the Goya - it is the Tres de mayo that is the famous one. Johnbod (talk) 05:55, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, OK, but that was incredibly insulting and rude, given my explanation of why I overreacted and my apology. In fact, it seems pretty insensitive to the concerns of women that images are often chosen for female nudity rather than what's most apt or obvious. I gave reasons for the choice, particularly since the image I moved up from the gallery also has its own article and in addition had been a featured image. Since "mythological painting" is a subject-matter genre, and since in fact historical painting redirects here and is a boldface topic of the article, the principle of least surprise seemed to me to apply. Cynwolfe (talk)

And I considered Tres de Mayo, since it had also been a featured image, but thought the color contrast didn't read as well to make the kind of at-a-glance impact that a top image needs. Cynwolfe (talk) 06:31, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

If the reader has the wrong idea, as most will here, then surprise can be useful. The Goya would not normally be described as a "historical painting", which is usually reserved for paintings from the Victorian period. Johnbod (talk) 06:39, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Maybe. Again, I'm sorry I flew off the handle, but you have no idea how many times I go to an article on either a female mythological figure or a saint, and the top image has clearly been chosen for the degree of nudity or sexual hazard, without regard to representing the most characteristic iconography. I had also just come from a discussion as to why the mythological Trojan War shouldn't have the same military infobox as, say, the Battle of Hastings and the American Civil War. Perhaps the Titian could have a more informative caption, if the purpose is to inform those of us who are so incredibly stupid as to imagine that historical painting, or even history painting, might deal with history? Especially since one might encounter such exercises in brute ignorance as History Painting Reassessed: The Representation of History in Contemporary Art, or this utterly misguided chapter about history painting and Irish political identity, or the dimwit that penned "The Art of History: History and the History-painting Tradition." I included "oil on canvas" and the grand dimensions of the Goya in the caption because the article says The term essentially covers large paintings in oil on canvas or fresco produced between the Renaissance and the late 19th century; the subject matter was chosen for "least surprise" in order to direct attention to those characteristics which would be shared regardless of subject matter. So if you think the TItian makes the point better, the caption ought to be more descriptive as to why it's a good example. Cynwolfe (talk) 07:26, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Groake, who I take to be a historian not an art-historian, does indeed seem a little confused, often talking as though he thinks history painting does indeed mean the painting of history, but listing among his leading exponents Titian, whose histories I think all came from mythology, the bible & and possibly ancient history, though I can't really think of any of these, as well as Poussin & Tiepolo, who only painted the same 3 types, with nothing more modern. I'm on holiday so I won't look at the others. If you don't mind me saying so (and I expect you do), your position comes a lttle oddly from someone with a history painting featuring a male nude on their user page. Johnbod (talk) 01:07, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, I've also contributed nearly all the content at Sexuality in ancient Rome, where we have erect penises, illustrations of specific sex acts, and the words "fuck" and "cunt". I'm clearly not opposed to nudity and explicit sexuality when it's appropriate to the topic. What I'm opposed to is choosing an image because it's got the highest quotient of flesh (in their respective articles, Aphrodite should be naked, Athena not), if that isn't the most characteristic form of iconography. Or when nudity violates the principle of "least surprise," as explained in the policy on censorship. I've also tried to become more aware over the last few months of why so few women find WP a congenial place to participate: the habitual use of female nudity or sexually threatening images of women, when not the best way to illustrate something, is one of the factors contributing to a negative environment. I very emphatically want to say that I wouldn't accuse you, Johnbod, of choosing nudity for its own sake, because I know you do sober, good-quality work and are well-trained in art history. Second, my point with the links is not to defend, endorse, or advocate for their usage, but to point out that even in ordinary scholarly discourse, the terms "history painting" and "historical painting" are used in reference to content. This is the broader frame of reference for readers coming to the article. If they're coming because they've seen that kind of usage, it does no good to say "it doesn't really mean that." Clearly, it does mean that quite commonly in sources that would quality as RS in other articles that would potentially link here—which gives the article the opportunity to explain that specialist usage. Cynwolfe (talk)

Oh, and since you've expressed an interest in my heterosexual female taste for naked men, if I were choosing a nude male for my user page because it was a nude male, I'd go for one more like this, not that doughy-lookin' Mercury. Just sayin'. I think you may be trying to pursue an argument where there is none. Cynwolfe (talk) 16:57, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Butting in; I have to agree with Cynwolfe here on one thing, I think the Titian is misleading and maybe salaciously chosen. Although I wouldn't go for the Goya myself; would be more inclided towards Oath of the Horatii. Its the dry and literal French 18th century painters I think of when I think of history painting, which isnt very often. Ceoil (talk) 07:35, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

is this because you disagree with the article lead, or because you haven't read it? The more I see comments like this, the more clear it becomes to me that the basic meaning of the term is not understood even by editors active in this area (something confirmed by external conversations) and therefore the more important that the lead pic does not reinforce misunderstanding but corrects it. Johnbod (talk) 14:16, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Johnbod, with all due respect, get over yourself. I have done a lot of work on Ingres for example, Gericault and Titian, and I understand the term quite well. You dont have to be such a, ugg. Ceoil (talk) 22:03, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

ps Cynwolfe, how about this beauty. Ouch, hehe...David Mellor has nothing on that pic ;) Ceoil (talk) 07:47, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Johnbod, you might try thinking about the content of the comment, instead of trying to discredit the person making it. Nobody's arguing with you in substance, only about the most effective presentation for the benefit of readers. It isn't unusual for a term to have a common meaning and a specialized meaning. If the purpose of the top image is to provide an impeccable example of the specialized meaning, then the caption needs to be more explanatory. The current caption just identifies the painting, and doesn't do anything to explain away the misunderstanding that we ignoramuses might bring to the article. However, I agree with Ceoil that choosing a top image on the basis of "most surprise" seems counterproductive. The article has a grand total of one footnote. If you want to defend it as ipso facto authoritative, OK, but there might be more productive things to do. It might be worth pulling out two or three examples from the large gallery to illustrate the section on the history of the genre more directly, with expanded content and sources. A short final paragraph-section could acknowledge the common or generalized usage that one might encounter in non-specialist RS. (Ceoil: A Chelsea F.C. replica kit? Tee hee.) Cynwolfe (talk) 20:15, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Not here to take sides: but the above made me interested in comparing this article to Grove Art's entry. The lead I think fairly summarizes Grove's explanation of history painting, if obviously more briefly and glossing over post-Renaissance aspects (a problem of article organization or level of completion as opposed to inaccuracy). Grove's entry starts out with much emphasis on Leon Battista Alberti's conception of istoria--and Grove has a separate entry for Istoria [historia] ("Term first used in the 15th century to refer to the complex new narrative and allegorical subjects that were then enlarging the repertory of painters. While remaining in use, its meaning became less clearly defined and more generalized in the 16th century..."). Grove's history painting entry has things like "During the 16th century, the majority of Italian paintings, whether of religious, mythological, literary or historical subject-matter could at some level be classed as history painting". I agree that an explanation of this in the caption of the existing image would be helpful. It might also be helpful to contrast, in two images and captions in the lead, a Renaissance and a neoclassical history painting for example (agree with Ceoil re David; prefer Death of Socrates as, at last, an historical subject actually recognizable to the average reader; it is mentioned along with Oath in Grove). Riggr Mortis (talk) 22:59, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

The lead clearly needs expanding, & bolstering with quotes, and the caption, but I am still on holiday. The existing two first images were carefully chosen to provide exactly that contrast - a classic 16th century mythological image, which contains the full mixture of elements of the "lesser" genres that made history painting top of the tree, & an 18th century historical one. If nudity is not liked in the lead, a religious image would be best to provide the same contrast, and prevent those assuming that the obvious English meaning is correct from continuing to do so. I'm afraid I'm still completely failing to understand why people think that misapprehension should be encouraged by the top images. Johnbod (talk) 00:26, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

I think the lead makes a good enough stap at explaining a difficult distinction. But its unwealdy and very couched, and seems to go back over itself with buts and althoughs. Rather than bicker pointlessly here -and sorry for my role in that- working on a clearer lead might be more constructive and satisfying. I dont really care too much, or at all, what lead image is choosen. Ceoil (talk) 00:43, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

History painting v. historical painting

"The term is derived from the wider senses of the word historia in Latin and Italian, and essentially means "story painting", rather than the painting of scenes from history in its narrower sense in modern English, for which the term historical painting may be used, especially for 19th century art." I dispute this, but Johnbod feels that the sources provided are sufficient. These sources are Ruskin (eminent art historian, but an 1854 source can't hardly describe how we now make or don't make a distinction between two terms, and in fact doesn't make that distinction), and (though not added to that sentence) the National Gallery glossary, which only mentions history painting, not historical painting, so can hardly be used to reference this. This leaves us only with Strong, which is first introduced much farther down in the page. It is unclear what part of Strong's book is supposed to support this statement. Assuming that this source does make this distinction: considering that most recent relevant sources don't seem to make this distinction at all, why would be take one source over many others?

Note: I'm not disputing that the focus of history painting may have shifted, and that the definition has been broader at times and narrower at others; but I dispute that it is common to make that distinction by applying "historical painting" to one and "history painting" to the other. Fram (talk) 11:51, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

The part re Alberti can be referenced to ANY book about Renaissance art, certainly Blunt. Just do a google search and so on. The NG definition is perfectly clear that "History painting" does NOT just mean painting of historical subjects. I realize that careful wording in English is not your forte, but note that the article says " the term historical painting may be used, especially for 19th century art" (my bold). It does not say historical painting only means that, as indeed many writers continue to use the terms indiscriminately and in a confused and confusing way. How you think that is not now referenced I don't understand. Johnbod (talk) 13:17, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Johnbod, what are you going on about? What "part re Alberti" have I challenged? Please don't use straw men or comments about my language skills. You have still not provided any source that makes your distinction between "istory painting" and "historical painting", all you have done is giving sources defining one or the other, without any indication that they believe that their definition of one of them is meant to exclude the other one (or differentiate it from the other one). What you so far have shown is that the definitions of what "history painting" / "historical painting" is, have changed over the years and centuries and from one writer or institution to another. What you have not done is given any evidence to support your distinction. There is in itself nothing "confused or confusing" about all of this, you are trying to separate two synonyms and are conducting some WP:OR to defend that position. 13:32, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

What are you going on about? The two definitions from the websites of the National Galleries clearly say that "history painting" "essentially means "story painting", rather than the painting of scenes from history in its narrower sense in modern English" since both list other types of painting. You don't I think dispute that "the term historical painting may be used, especially for 19th century art" (my bold) for scenes from history. You don't have any reference for your apparent contention that "historical painting" also includes religious and mythological scenes. In fact the proper use of the terms is unchanged since Ruskin's day. Johnbod (talk) 13:46, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Are you actually reading the same page[3]? [4]? The quote you provide ("essentially" and so on) is the text from our Wikipedia article, the disputed text. You are using the text that is disputed to support the inclusion of that text? That is rather circular... Yes, I dispute your sentence, especially the bolded part.

You state that "You don't have any reference for your apparent contention that "historical painting" also includes religious and mythological scenes." Let's see: Robert Witt (art historian) wrote in his 1902 book "How to Look at Pictures" (clearly more recent than Ruskin at least): "Historical painting includes, besides strictly historical scenes, all religious, mythological and allegorical subjects"[5]. Fram (talk) 14:03, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Please stay awake. The two refs support the text from our article. Are you saying that "the term historical painting may NOT be used, especially for 19th century art" (my bold) for scenes from history? I don't think so, but I have no idea what you are trying to say. The note to the article says that usage is not consistent, and I very much doubt you would find a more recent authority saying what Witt is saying - but do try. Johnbod (talk) 20:01, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

You are trying to create a distinction which has no support anywhere. I have given you a source that supports my POV, with literally the things you requested. You haven't even provided one that touches upon the distinction you defend. The refs don't support the text in the article. Please, give me a good source that makes an explicit distinction between history painting and historical painting. If there are no sources that make that distinction, then we shouldn't be introducing it either. Fram (talk) 06:41, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Johnbod, I think you may have unknowingly destroyed your whole argument. You provided a link to Webster's dictionary to support your "historical painting" statement[6]. What you either didn't notice or forgot to mention, is that at that very same source, "history painting" is a redirect to "historical painting"[7], so according to your source, the two are identical and can be used interchangeably. Thanks for proving my case! Fram (talk) 06:45, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

If Webster's in 1913 thought that "history Painting" meant the painting of subjects from history they were plainly wrong, as dictionaries often are on art history. Unlike you I have the disadvantage of actually knowing something about the subject, and having read a lot about it, and I know that though the terms are often (and regrettably imo) used interchangably in discussing 19th century painting they are nevertheless not generally interchangeable, which was reflected in the carefully worded text which follows the modern meanings as set out by the 2 National Galleries, and indeed is shown by the contents of your badly-named category. A student who started writing about "historical painting" in the context of say 17th-century Rome would be liable to lose marks, and rightly so. In particular, which I may add to the article, you may have noticed that the phrase "historical painting" is avoided by many modern sources, who talk of "history painting" that has "historical subjects" and so on. The category is best dealt with at CFD now - your own note admits the name is ambiguous. Johnbod (talk) 12:30, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

• Johnbod, I'm done with you. If you want a CfD, go ahead, I'll !vote to keep and will answer other people's objections (assuming there are any). I'll probably not reply to yours though, since obviously I know nothing about the subject and you are always right, even when you are wrong. Good luck with that attitude. Fram (talk) 13:09, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Third opinion requested at Wikipedia:Third opinion.

This is a rather difficult one to deal with. There is no doubt that the term "historical painting" or "historical art" has, historically (!), been uned interchangably with "history painting/art". Reynolds, for example, repeatedly uses the terms in that way in his Discourses. It's clear that, to him, the word historical does not mean "representing a past event". Indeed when discussing portraiture he says "when a portrait is painted in the historical style, as it is neither an exact minute representation of an individual, nor completely ideal, every circumstance ought to correspond to this mixture". Clearly by "historical style" he does not mean "imitating an old way of painting". He means "elevated style": a style appropriate to history painting. This kind of ambivalent usage is very common in the 18th century and 19th century. Of course what happens in the 19th century is the growth of a new type of historicist history writing, which stresses that history is not a series of stories illustrating universal moral truths, but an unfolding of human experience in which each age is essentially different, so "historical painting", like the "historical novel", comes to be about reprepresenting that difference, immersing us in the experience of the past. The problem is that these changes are not reflected in coherent and consistent changes in terminology. A "historical novel" always means a novel set in the past; a "historical painting" or "historical scene" may not. I don't think there is any way of clearly resolving this problem. The best approach is probably to discuss in the article the fact that it is a bit of a problem. Paul B (talk) 13:21, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

I should add that it's certainly easy to find many examples of the term "historical genre painting", which was cobbled together by art historians to fudge this problem. Historical in that usage always means "set in the past". I should also add that art historians generally avoid using "historical painting" as a synonym for history painting unless it's clear from the context that the Albertian concept of Historia is the topic. Paul B (talk) 13:28, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I have removed for starters a newly added section that used a discussion of "historical painting techniques" as if it had any relevance to "historical painting vs history painting". It's "Historical / painting techniques", not "Historical painting / techniques", so not relevant here. Let's not confuse the issues even further please. (The original sentence was ""Historical painting" may also be used, especially in discussion of painting techniques in conservation studies, to mean "old", as opposed to modern or recent painting.") That the same combination of words can be used in different grammatical contexts is not really relevant for the discussion of the distinction between history painting and historical painting (if any), something that seems to be uncodified and rarely followed anyway. Fram (talk) 13:56, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Another issue is the fact that the word "historical" in the 19th century often meant "important" (i.e. likely "go down in history" as we might say). So when George Eliot writes that the "growing good of the world is partly dependent on unhistoric acts", she doesn't mean "fictional acts", she means everyday acts by ordinary people that won't be recorded in history books as important events. The same applies to art. That ambivalence is clear in the passage by Ruskin that's been quoted:

What do you at present mean by historical painting? Now-a-days it means the endeavoring, by the power of imagination, to portray some historical event of past days. But in the Middle Ages, it meant representing the acts of their own days; and that is the only historical painting worth a straw. Of all the wastes of time and sense which Modernism has invented—and they are many—none are so ridiculous as this endeavour to represent past history. What do you suppose our descendants will care for our imaginations of the events of former days? Suppose the Greeks, instead of representing their own warriors as they fought at Marathon, had left us nothing but their imaginations of Egyptian battles; and suppose the Italians, in like manner, instead of portraits of Can Grande and Dante, or of Leo the Tenth and Raphael, had left us nothing but imaginary portraits of Pericles and Miltiades? What fools we should have thought them! how bitterly we should have been provoked with their folly!

Of course from a factual point of view he's spouting utter tosh as usual. Events of the past were portrayed in the Middle Ages all the time, as they were in the other ages he mentions, but his central point is that we find the portraits historically valuable because they record "life as it was lived". Attempts to recreate the past in art (I assume he's referring to artists such as Jean-Léon Gérôme) are just excercises in historical fiction that will soon look out of date. So the word historical here has a multiple sense - he means it like Eliot: "what will go down in history" or "be remembered" as great, but he also means it in the sense that art provides both evidence and experience of the past when it it records it from within that experience. Of course this means that when he speaks of a "historical" portrait, he means something that's almost the exact opposite of what Reynolds meant by the same term. The convolutions are diffivcult to address in an an article such as this without diving headlong into OR land. Paul B (talk) 14:20, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

I've added History_painting#The_terms to address changes in usage, as the notes to the lead were getting too long. Johnbod (talk) 15:31, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

This source seems to nicely illustrate how what you see as a distinction between history painting and historical painting, is just a shift in definition over time, whereby history painting (or historical painting) gets slowly restricted to the more factual events, dismissing allegory, mythology, and religion to secondary roles. Fram (talk) 12:18, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

How so - like most modern sources it doesn't mention "historical painting" at all. I note you have not yet found a source later than 1913 than treats "history" and "historical" painting as synonyms, though clearly not for want of looking. Johnbod (talk) 13:13, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Oh, I wasn't aware that you were waiting for such a one. I was looking for one that made your distinction explicitly, but that seems hard to do. But if you want one, here's a 2005 book on Russian painting. This one from 2012, more focused on America, does the same. Fram (talk) 13:40, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I still am. The Russian one covers the 19th century & as it's snippets you can't really see what it is saying. The American one introduces "Historical" in a quote, and is talking about paintings of historical subjects, so doesn't help you at all. I've realized that your belief that the terms are still used interchangably comes from reading Wikipedia artist biography articles which are taken from EB 1911 or 19th century sources like the DNB or Bryan's Dictionary of Artists, where they may well be so used. Johnbod (talk) 13:49, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry that you can only see quotes of the Russian book, it is largely available through Google Books for me, and it covers eveything from 18th centyr until 20 th century, not only the 19th century (I'm aware that sometimes, Google veiws of books differ from country to country, making it sometimes hard to discuss these things). And I'm well versed in more recent works as well, thank you. It's not because I use Bryan to write articles (as a convenient starting point for others to elaborate) that I am not aware of more recent scholarship. But the easiest way to discuss these things and let othet people decide is to give, wherever possible, links to books that are (partially or completely) available through Google Books or something similar. This book doesn't seem to make the distinction, preferring "hitory painting" but interlacing it with "historical art" and some such at liberty. But in most cases, books stick to either one or the other, whichever they prefer, without any (obvious) specific reason why they choose either one. Fram (talk) 14:34, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Ambition

"Ambition" is not a defining factor of what is or isn't "history painting". While later history paintings often tend to go for the large-scale mass-scenes, adding "ambition" to the definition of the genre excludes way too many works, especially many of the older religious and allegorical works which are clearly included in the genre. A work like File:Cimabue - Flagellation.jpg fits perfectly in the definition of "history painting", but can hardly be called ambitious (or certainly not more ambitious than portraits, landscapes, genre paintings, ...). I have therefor excluded it again from the introduction of the article[8]. Fram (talk) 07:48, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Cimabue was was working before the concept of "history painting" existed. A painting of the Flagellation retrospectively fits the definition because of its topic, but he would not have had a concept that this topic was essentially different from many others, or rather that it required a different approach to pictorial construction. Once the Albertian model is established you then do have the concept of History Painting which introduces the notion that creative ambition is a factor. Paul B (talk) 10:01, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Is there any genre of painting (as an art) where "ambition" is not a factor though? How is "ambition" a factor in history painting, but not in e.g. genre painting? How is File:Colyn de Coter - The Descent from the Cross - Google Art Project.jpg defined by "ambition"? What genre would you put reliigious or "true" historical paintings (thematically) in that lack the "ambition" supposedly needed to define the genre? I fail to see which pictures fit the definition wrt subject matter, but get excluded from the category, the genre anyway because they lack "ambition"? Icons perhaps, in a way, but Western paintings? Fram (talk) 10:12, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Pages 7-8 of Green & Seddon (available on google books) are a longer summary than the 2 Nat Galleries of the meaning of "history painting". They address the periods of works the term should properly be applied to, the physical size of works, and the "ambition" that was a necessary part of the tradition. The term is not normally applied retrospectively, and Cimabue's small predella panel would not normally be included in the scope of the term though clearly the medieval development of narrative painting was the essential precursor to the later tradition. Also relevant: NG London glossary (as cited): "History painting was viewed as the most important of the genres from about the 16th century, and the climax of an academic painter's training. It was the equivalent of Epic or Tragedy in literature". NG Washington (as cited): "Sophisticated Europeans from the seventeenth through nineteenth centuries deemed “history painting” to be the supreme achievement in the visual arts". Similar refs are easy to find. Johnbod (talk) 11:35, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

I hope you can understand the difference between how something is viewed, and how it is defined? The 100m sprint is seen asa the Queen of grack and field disciplines, but that aspect of it is not a part of the definition of a 100m sprint; you'll also notice that "ambition" doesn't factor in the definitions of "epic" or "tragedy", or in the definition of "opera", or in any crowning discipline. Puns are often considered the lowest form of humor, but you don't define a pun by ranking it. Fram (talk) 11:45, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Oh, you think that ""ambition" doesn't factor in the definitions of "epic" or "tragedy", or in the definition of "opera", or in any crowning discipline"? That's a novel view, I'd say. This google books search on "history painting" + "ambition" is instructive: [9]. Johnbod (talk) 11:47, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

yes, very instructive: the very first links returned by that Google search discuss "ambitious history painting", which would be rather pleonastic in your definition, since there "ambitious" is an integral aspect of "history painting" already. Fram (talk) 12:09, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

This source also discusses the shift in focus between earlier history painting and 19th century history painting (all under the same name though, no new name is applied for the latter), and gives a definition of history painting. Apparently "ambition" is again not an integral part of the definition, which focuses on the narrative, story-telling aspect, the "istoria" of old.

Obviously, I'm not proposing that the position of history painting as the "highest", most difficult, most fulfilling, most ambitious of all genres is not discussed in the article or even in the lead; but that doesn't mean that these things are the defining aspect of what "history painting" is and what isn't. They are results of the topic, reflections on what it encompasses, what one needs to succeed as an historical painter, certainly in the eyes of older art historians. Fram (talk) 12:33, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Links for later

• p109 Johnbod (talk) 12:49, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on History painting. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130531094855/https://www.rijksmuseum.nl/en/research-and-library/painting-techniques to https://www.rijksmuseum.nl/en/research-and-library/painting-techniques

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) 13:08, 5 November 2017 (UTC)