Jump to content

Talk:Pieter de Hooch

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

Untitled

[edit]

There isn't enough information in the "list" to securely link illustrations with titles. It is of no use to the reader. --Wetman 10:28, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Works by Pieter de Hooch

[edit]

The following is the cut and paste of the discussion at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities archived at [1], for reference. olivier (talk) 11:01, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello great Reference Desk people. I have added a list of 84 works by Pieter de Hooch back in 2005, which I had found on a website which I now doubt was a very solid reference. At that time, references tended to be less common than they are now. Little changes have been made to this list ever since. I now seriously doubt that this list is accurate/ up-to-date. One reason being that over time, paintings attributed to a painter are discovered to have been painted by someone else. On top of that, different sources give different titles and years to the paintings, so that it is in fact quite hard to figure out what is what. I would like to clean up this list, and maybe make it in a table format with pictures. But before that I would need to have a reliable list to work on. Could you tell me where I can find something like an authoritative list of works by this painter, or how I could assemble such a list? Thanks a lot in advance! olivier (talk) 14:24, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wolfgang M. Freitag, Art books: a basic bibliography of monographs on artists gives several monographs, Arthur de Rudder, Pieter de Hooch et son oeuvre 1914 and others are utterly superceeded by Peter C. Sutton, Pieter de Hooch. Complete Edition. Valentiner listed 176 paintings, Sutton drops 34 of them and adds 25. Half a dozen paintings remain controversial. New pictures turn up from time to time. Wikipedia needs a real article on Pieter de Hooch, not a list, which is best done elsewhere.--Wetman (talk) 00:24, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
List are perfectly acceptable material on Wikipedia. In fact we even have Featured Lists. 75.41.110.200 (talk) 02:17, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Online resources would be more useful for me at this point. I agree that the current article needs a lot of improvement. This being said, yes, Wikipedia has lists, and some of them are even very good ones. Well, I am quite sure that User:Wetman knows that very well already. There are 1861 featured lists as of today. Some examples of lists that I find interesting: List of paintings by Johannes Vermeer (which needs improvement) and Christopher Walken filmography (this one is featured). And no, list of paintings by de Hooch do not seem to be well done anywhere online, therefore my question, and therefore my willingness to add one to Wikipedia. olivier (talk) 04:09, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List

[edit]

I have started a tentative improved list of works here User:Olivier/Worksheet/Pieter de Hooch. It is still very much a work in progress. Assembling such a list proves not easy. olivier (talk) 11:03, 25 September 2010 (UTC) Rizalninoynapoleon (talk) 03:00, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The painting The Asparagus Vendor doesn't appear in this article nor on your own list. It appears to be one of his major works, if the attribution is correct. robotrollcall 23:59, 7 May 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Targetpuller (talk • contribs)

Infobox of Pieter de Hooch

[edit]

Pieter de Hooch is an important painter of Dutch Baroque as the contemporary of Vermeer and thereby should be given a brief artist infobox Rizalninoynapoleon (talk) 03:00, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As this policy clearly states, "the use of infoboxes is neither required nor prohibited for any article". Moreover, the inclusion or not of an infobox should be determined by consensus and not by drive-by edits. This article has been without an infobox since its creation, so let's wait and see what others say. In this article, the sole purpose the infobox seems to serve is shrinking the image. Not to mention slightly inaccurate assertions that result from oversimplifying parameters ("born" isn't the same as "baptised". Likewise "dead" and "buried"). --Coco Lacoste (talk) 03:27, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If so then, how come that the infobox for Vermeer, Rembrandt, Rubens and Caravaggio have not been taken down. Also the Dutch Golden Age painting is sub-genre of the Baroque style as evident in the article mentioned. Rizalninoynapoleon (talk) 10:15, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As there are no more objections, I have placed the infobox. Rizalninoynapoleon (talk) 12:16, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There's never been one here and it's best to follow this recommendation. Nor do I think mediation is necessary. Victoria (talk) 14:50, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Rizalninoynapoleon, you seem not to understand how consensus works. There's at least one person opposed to having an infobox: me. Just because other editors haven't had their say doesn't mean an agreement has been reached. This page has very few watchers and the process may be slow. Infoboxes are a controversial topic and the inclusion or not of one in an article should be decided on a case-by-case basis (does this answer your question above?). Your adding the template without even an edit summary broke the tacit consensus, that's why I reverted you, explaining the reasons behind that in my edit summary. Your response was blind reverting me, deleting at the same time several minor prose tweaks I'd made following MoS. I reverted back, after suggesting here that more opinions were needed. Bar Victoria, who's provided a link to an ArbCom decision, nobody has said anything. Yet you've reverted me again, again without an edit summary, assuming that your edit takes precedence and riding roughshod over Wikipolicies and everyone else's opinions – not just mine because, as I've said, this article has never had an infobox. I'll hold off reverting back for the time being, waiting both for others to weigh in and the outcome of that hyperbolic case for mediation you've opened. --Coco Lacoste (talk) 06:45, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Slightly marginal note: Given that a) you have a track record of arbitrarily introducing infoboxes ([2], [3]) and being reverted ([4], [5]) and b) you've sheepishly politely asked for an infobox to be included but accepted the majority decision, I am totally bemused as to why you've decided to become so pugnacious over this article. Oh, and saying that the Rubens' article has an infobox when it was you who put it back in is disingenuous to say the least. --Coco Lacoste (talk) 07:47, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think infoboxes existed when I started this article back in 2004.

What exactly are the arguments here for or against? Let's cut the noise and the irrelevance about what's "required". There seems to be an objection that some of the parameters don't fit the subject...is that correct? And why is or isn't that fixable? postdlf (talk) 06:57, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Like many/most artst infoboxes, it made the picture to small to see properly, and the information carried was a poor summary of him and his career, and potentially misleading. The relationship between Dutch Golden Age painting and Baroque painting is rather complex and subtle, as in many ways they exhibit opposite qualities, so just describing someone like de Hooch as baroque should be avoided. Johnbod (talk) 14:47, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A picture doesn't have to be in the infobox, particularly when it's not a portrait of the article's subject. Re: the labeling as "baroque", that should just have been removed if inaccurate, while Dutch Golden Age painting definitely applies, though not really a "movement" as noted. Maybe the infobox field headers need more flexibility? But bottom line, I'm not seeing a conclusive reason not to have an infobox here because I'm not seeing any unfixable problems or any problems unique to this article. I personally don't bother with them when I start biographies, but I also don't go out of my way to remove them because some people find them useful, and they aren't harmful in and of themselves. postdlf (talk) 18:24, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Pieter de Hooch. 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) 20:22, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Pieter de Hooch. 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) 03:41, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ambiguous text

[edit]

Look for the sentence "The date of his death is unknown." To whom does it refer - the painter or his son ? If the painter - it contradicts the infobox data. If the son - why is it important ? GOLDSROBI (talk) 13:41, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Needless to say, the infobox is wrong. It is important because for a long time the son's death in 1684 was confused with the father's - date unknown. See the best sources, like the Rijksmuseum and ULAN. Johnbod (talk) 19:11, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I’ll try to check 77.137.74.112 (talk) 19:36, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pieter_de_Hooch&oldid=1216217676"