Talk:Master L. Cz.

Germany Low‑importance

	Germany portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Germany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GermanyWikipedia:WikiProject GermanyTemplate:WikiProject GermanyGermany articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Biography

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles

Visual arts

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Visual arts, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of visual arts on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Visual artsWikipedia:WikiProject Visual artsTemplate:WikiProject Visual artsvisual arts articles

A fact from Master L. Cz. appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 3 January 2012 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that Master L. Cz.'s depiction of Satan in The Temptation of Christ provided an important precedent for Albrecht Dürer's Knight, Death and the Devil?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2012/January. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Master L. Cz..

Wikipedia

Aquatint?

(started at my talk)Johnbod (talk) 17:16, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just a quick question: the Grove claims that Master LCz used aquatint in his prints, but this seems very dubious. I thought aquatint was a later invention...? Lithoderm 00:36, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Still digging on this, but it does seem odd, but not an isolated reference. Johnbod (talk) 14:23, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unsolicited opinion: It must be an "aquatint-like effect" as he's at least 150-odd years too early (don't see it myself though - there's heavy cross-hatching in the Temptation) Yomangani ^talk 14:53, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll copy & continue this at Talk:Master L. Cz.. Johnbod (talk) 17:07, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So, the only mention of aquatint in Landau, David, and Parshall, Peter. The Renaissance Print, Yale, 1996, is p. 324, where a trial plate by Daniel Hopfer, who was certainly the important early etcher, is mentioned, citing the "classic study" by Gustav Pauli on the origins of etching (don't know it - in German?), who compared Hopfer's tonal etching technique with aquatint "even though it was made long before the recognised debut of the aquatint technique". However, they (Parshall in fact here) say Hopfer's technique "is not at all comparable to the technique of aquatint". More later. Johnbod (talk) 17:15, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

in Alan Shestack; Fifteenth century Engravings of Northern Europe; 1967, National Gallery of Art, Washington (Catalogue), LOC 67-29080, no. 125, he talks of "the variety & density of burin strokes" in the last engravings being "vigorously "painterly"". Anthony Griffiths in Prints and Printmaking, p. 92 , British Museum Press (in UK), 2nd edn [1], is interesting on "idiosyncratic but inconsequential" early experiments, mentioning Hopfer but not LCz. But I'm wondering if there is a more recent paper claiming he used aquatint. 87.194.52.251 (talk) 19:40, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pauli wrote something on etchings in German and Netherlandish incunabula - possibly that is the one meant; I don't think it has ever been available in English and is probably out of print in German too. Yomangani ^talk 23:53, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re. Yomangani: I thought I could see it, especially say in the rock face directly above the goat in the upper right. Yes, there's cross-hatching, but there appears to be some sort of even gray underneath it. However, in other reproductions I look at (say, in Shestack's Master LCz and Master WB) it's not there so much. I'm almost inclined to think that at it's either a quality of that reproduction, or even plate tone specific to the Cincinnati impression... @Johnbod, I'm looking, but so far I haven't found any more recent papers. Lithoderm 19:41, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On another note, is this his?: File:16th-century unknown painters - Christ before Pilate - WGA23785.jpg? Yomangani ^talk 00:48, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Per the 1986 Abrams Berlin cat yes - updated. Johnbod (talk) 01:00, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Update: the most recent source in the Grove's bibliography is from 1978, so if there is a more recent study supporting the claim they certainly haven't read it... They also uncritically repeat the assertion that he could be Lucas Cranach the Elder: The L.Cz. signature (recently interpreted as L.Cm.) suggests that he might have been the painter Lorenz Katzheimer, though he was documented in Bamberg only in 1505 and 1510, or that the oeuvre might be the early work of Lucas Cranach the elder, who came from nearby Kronach. despite the fairly thorough demolishment of this claim by Shestack on both formal and historical grounds... Lithoderm 20:40, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Grove haven't entirely grasped the concept that you can update stuff on the internet, it seems to me, or they just don't have the budget, like their colleagues on the OED. Johnbod (talk) 22:07, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]