Talk:Early Netherlandish painting

I could be biased but isn't "Flemish Primitives" just a better name for the article?

So I'm a Dutch guy in the Netherlands who loves Belgium and hates the Netherlands, that is my bias. That being said, in the Dutch language, I've never heard this movement called "Early Netherlandish Painting" before at all, ever, but maybe that's just me. I normally hear it referred to as "Vlaamse Primitieven," even in Dutch media. "The Netherlands" and "Netherlandish" is ambiguous because it gets easily confused as a homonym with the modern country of the Netherlands, and thus not with Belgium, while the vast majority, or practically all of these painters were from what is now Belgium. This is an art movement that is associated with Belgium and modern-day Flanders in particular.
It's like you're referring to a mostly Scottish art movement primarily based in Scotland with maybe a few painters in Berwick-upon-Tweed, that is well known as "Highlander Classics" (made up for the sake of analogy), which may not be totally accurate because not all Scots are Highlanders, but then people want to call it "Old British Painting," except here it's even worse because Netherlands the region and Netherlands the country are homonyms, so effectively in this analogy it would be called "Old Anglo-Saxon Painting."
And I'm sorry, I may be paranoid, but I always feel like there's a bit of Dutch-glory, fuck the Belgians bias in the making of these decisions.
Anyway, I know that the titles of these kinds of articles are probably based on what they are best known as in academic circles, so my question is, in the English language, is this movement better known as "Flemish Primitives" or "Early Netherlandish painting"? If in academic circles it's widely known as Flemish Primitives but you're worried about the fact not all or most of the Southern Low Countries were part of the County of Flanders, you can call it Flemish Primitives, and then just as with the current name clarify that despite the name it refers to a movement that flourished primarily in the Southern Low Countries (present day Belgium) as the article already does.
I'd rather have a layman confused about the modern state of Flanders not being the same as the Medieval County of Flanders than have them think all of this rich culture is actually Dutch. If it is indeed much more widely known as Early Netherlandish Painting then I'll shut up, but the argument can't be made that it's a more accurate name. Dapperedavid (talk) 10:39, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

"in the English language, is this movement better known as "Flemish Primitives" or "Early Netherlandish painting"" - the latter. See the sources, some of which in their original languages used "Primitive" names. The museum catalogues from London, Washington & New York all use ENP. "Primitives" just sounds wierd in English, mainly suggesting a non-PC term for African art perhaps. "Early Flemish painting" would be the next choice, but rather more of them were "Dutch" than you allow for, though working in the south. See Early Netherlandish Painting (Friedländer) for the origin (I think) of the term - it's the French who started this "primitive" stuff, but the word has different connotations in English & pretty much disappears in English say 70 years ago. Johnbod (talk) 15:52, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi David, see also the first three paragraphs in the "Terminology and scope" section that opens the article and goes into this in detail. Ceoil (talk) 19:01, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

I agree, the title should be 'flemish primitives', this is the name given in the country or countries where the art is from. Calling it Netherlandish gives readers the idea that this is a Dutch group of painters while most are Flemish. 213.119.27.136 (talk) 13:01, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

For what it is worth, I also think Flemish Primitives is a clear WP:CN but I suspect that this may be a WP:BRITENG thing. I disagree that the fact that "primitive" has negative connotations is relevant to the naming of the article and any ambiguities from its original translation is amply shared by the term "Netherlandish". And so much for it having "pretty much disappeared" 70 years ago: Princeton University Press, Guidebooks, and the most important art museum in Belgium did not get the memo... —Brigade Piron (talk) 18:23, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Rather neatly, the Princeton book is a reprint of a book (by some Netherlandish type) first published in 1950! Travel guides & Francophone museums are not RS for English usage. Actually the full title of the book and series is "The Flemish Primitives: Catalogue of Early Netherlandish Painting in the Royal Museums of Fine Arts of Belgium, Volume 6" - rather odd fence-sitting. It is not an Engvar thing, see the MMA in NY & NGA in DC in the references. Johnbod (talk) 14:46, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Might as well bring an ngram in here: see this link, which shows "Early Netherlandish painting" as the dominant term from 1963 onwards. "Flemish Primitives", like "Italian Primitives", now sounds archaic in English, but perhaps the Dutch language doesn't have the same hang-ups as English. In my experience "Netherlandish" never refers to the present-day Netherlands. Ham II (talk) 17:59, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Yes, thanks. Picking up a point from the original post, I can fairly confidently say that "a layman confused about the modern state of Flanders not being the same as the Medieval County of Flanders" is not something that is likely to be a "worry" for native English-speakers, but I know from past discussions it can get Belgians very het up. It can be demonstrated from the OED etc, that English usage of "Flanders" and "Flemish" has been very flexible and often vague since the Middle Ages. Johnbod (talk) 02:28, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

Having been through this argument several times before, Ham II has it, as and said before, this is the English language Wikipedia, and the article does explain. Ceoil (talk) 02:40, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

Jumping in to this conversation: as Ceoil rightly says, the article does explain, so does the title of De eeuw der Vlaamse Primitieven, and The Century of the Flemish Primitives: Late Medieval Art in the Royal Museum of Fine Arts in Antwerp by Paul Vandenbroeck (Q93435871). Lotje (talk) 03:59, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

Look, fine, but (the first book is in Dutch) yer issue is with how English speaking art-historians have referred to the period since the early-1960s, rather than any option to rename this article. Common totally applies here. It would be better to raise these these arguments in academic journals etc, as we are not decision makers here. Ceoil (talk)

Actually, it hasn’t really been proven that “Flemish Primitives” has been completely replaced by “Early Netherlandish” at all. It has only been proven as being an alternative term. Nobody ever uses that word "Netherlandish" when speaking. Even in pure scientific stuff, Wikipedia uses the common terms if they’re still widely used alongside the scientific names, like for animals. The dog page of Wikipedia is still “Dog” and not “Canis” and “Cat” is still that and not “Felis” or something. It’s not proper English and I doubt it was even created by an English speaking person. “Early Netherlandish” as a Wikipedia title is being geeky and overdoing it — and of course Wikipedia has long been suffering from nerd tyranny, which is the only reason why this page is not named what it should be: Flemish Primitives.—Loginnigol 11:14, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Hi, since this is on my watchlist, you might take a look at De eeuw der Vlaamse Primitieven. Hope that answers the question. Cheers. Lotje (talk) 12:36, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Ars nova?

"Erwin Panofsky preferred the term ars nova ("new art"), which linked the movement with innovative composers of music such as Guillaume Dufay and Gilles Binchois, who were favoured by the Burgundian court over artists attached to the lavish French court.[6]"
I under fully recognize that this is cited but I'm not sure how it could make sense. The ars nova style was active from 1310–1377 or the 14th century by the narrowest and broadest definitions respectively. Du Fay and Binchois were both composers of the 15th century, after ars nova and Ars subtilior and at the beginning of the Renaissance (Renaissance music begins around the 1400s). If all that is needed here are important ars nova composers then Guillaume de Machaut is by far the most prominent, followed by Philippe de Vitry. Aza24 (talk) 23:51, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

He seems to have got his dates wrong, unless the period covered by the term extended later in his day - nearly a century ago now. Maybe point the discrepancy out in a note, or just drop the point. Like some other Panofsky neolgilistic terms, it has not caught on at all. One notices that the music chosen in historical films and documentaries are more often than not similarly out of joint. Johnbod (talk) 03:25, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

I found the source and read the excerpt. He says that the term "ars nova" was originated to "glofigy the two great composers Du Fay and Binchois" – which is just... wrong? The term was coined in the 1300s for the music of the 1300s (in the broadest terms) by Philippe de Vitry and to a lesser extent Johannes de Muris, who both lived before Du Fay and Binchois... Aza24 (talk) 09:17, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Sizes of the files

Shouldn't the filesizes be reduced? Thank you for your time. Lotje (talk) 16:37, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Hi Lotje, its worth rasisng but a matter of taste; I wouldn't be in favour of reducing myself. Its a very long article out of necessity, and I think the text to image ratio requirement is met. Plus, the pics are lovely. Ceoil (talk) 02:32, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

@Ceoil: thanks for coming back on this. Indeed, the pics are lovely. I was only thinking to have them for example upright 1.20 or 1.35. My concern is only for readers on smaller devices . Lotje (talk) 03:49, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

Fair point. But on my old laptop that has only 50gb its not onerous. ps, some reductions wouldn't be the end of the world, and I do like to abide by accessibility, and was generally supportive of the much missed User:RexxS. Will be travelling for the next week, but will have a stab shortly. Ceoil (talk) 05:06, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for looking into this. btw, why is RexxS not here anymore Lotje (talk) 13:40, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Lotje, we all miss RexxS. Anyhow, have done some resizing. Ceoil (talk) 01:17, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

"List of Early Netherlandish painters" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect List of Early Netherlandish painters has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 October 30 § List of Early Netherlandish painters until a consensus is reached. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 00:38, 30 October 2024 (UTC)