Talk:Northern Mannerism

Images

• File:Vessel Presented to Henri II, design by Jean Cousin the Elder.jpg
• File:Mantelpiece, Château de Madrid, Paris, drawing by Jacques Androuet du Cerceau.jpg

I've added these two images to Commons, if they are of any use. They're a bit printy, as usual. The first is the design for the gold object (I presume the top bit is a lid). The second is an architectural drawing, because it struck me there's a lack of such in the article. It's not very well drawn (they don't give a date for the drawing, so I've just given du Cerceau's active dates—it looks early du C to me), but Blunt seems to think this chateau was significant. I've put reffed notes on the image descriptions. qp10qp (talk) 19:03, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks - I'm trying to avoid architecture totally; it worked to rather different rhythms outside France, it seems to me, and I don't know enough about it. There are bits scattered around in other articles - eg Henry II style, which could do with a rename imo. Johnbod (talk) 20:36, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

And a rewrite! Second sentence in, and this: " Francis I and his queen, Catherine de' Medici" ... Oh, my. I rush off to change it. qp10qp (talk) 01:28, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Done, phew! What an odd article. I've always felt that Henry's style, in his relatively short reign, was a continuation of his father's, and that the real changes come in the later sixteenth century, when Fontainebleau is over and the French Renaissance becomes very strange. I mean, is there a stranger artist than Caron? A more solitary sculptor than Pilon? For me, the sudden rise of the Huguenots and the outbreak of the Wars of Religion is the turning point. qp10qp (talk) 01:39, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

And then there's Henry IV style - don't look now! There are a whole bunch of these bitty articles around; I've added the most respectable to See also here. It reminds me why I usually prefer topics of a managable size. But I don't do architecture if I can avoid it. - Wetman & Giano are very good, though I don't know they do much this early. Johnbod (talk) 02:09, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Requested move 22 October 2024

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. There’s no consensus to move at this time. Best, (closed by non-admin page mover) Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 04:34, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

---

• Northern Mannerism → Northern mannerism
• Antwerp Mannerism → Antwerp mannerism

– Per MOS:MOVEMENT, these should not be capitalized. Sources are quite mixed. Dicklyon (talk) 04:02, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose both, and keep the long-standing titles, over the (now reverted) moves, typically done without any discussion by Dicklyon. The sources will indeed be "quite mixed", because "Northern Mannerism" and "northern mannerism", as well as "Antwerp Mannerism" and "Antwerp mannerism" will mostly REFER TO DIFFERENT THINGS, the sort of nuance this disruptive editor is as always oblivious to. In particular "Antwerp Mannerism" is NOT a local form of Mannerism, and indeed pre-dates the Italian movement. Johnbod (talk) 14:13, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

  John, I've been studying sources to try to find "Antwerp mannerism" and "nothern mannerism" (with lowercase mannerism) referring to different topics than the topics of these articles we're discussing, but I'm not seeing it; all the lowercase ones I find appear to me to be about these exact same topics. What am I missing? Got examples? I do understand that Antwerp and Italian [Mm]annerism were distinct and independent, the term "mannerism" in each having been applied retrospectively, but don't see how that affects the capitalization question. Dicklyon (talk) 16:27, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose. "Mannerism" is a term which, like "Realism", "Symbolism" and "Impressionist", needs an initial capital letter to differentiate the art movement from a more general meaning of the word. My copy of the Concise Oxford English Dictionary gives this sense of the word a capital letter, as do (in running text) Britannica, Grove Art Online, the Art & Architecture Thesaurus, the Thames and Hudson Dictionary of Art Terms and the Association of Art Editors Style Guide. Ham II (talk) 07:19, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
• Weak oppose, for now. This ultimately needs to be an RfC about this entire class of article, but we should not introduce an inconsistency within a category of articles in the interim. There's a long-standing though probably weak claimed though uncodified consensus (coming ultimately out of a few arts-focused wikiprojects, whose output on the question has been inconsistent over time and across projects) to capitalize the names of major arts movements (but not genres, and the dividing line between them is extremely blurry, as is that of "major"). This wouldn't change when a modifier is added. [However, the modifier itself being capitalized in such cases should probably not happen unless the modified version is itself a major arts movement in its own right. So, possibly a leading capital-S in "Southern Mannerism", but not a leading capital-N in "neo-Expressionist", nor a capital-R in "Deco revival".]

  I say "weak oppose" because I think that this supposed consensus should be explicitly revisited with an RfC at WT:MOSCAPS and advertised at WP:VPPOL and various wikiprojects. The results of this vaguely defined capitalization habit often fail the test at the top of MOS:CAPS (capitalize only that which s consistently capitalized in independent reliable sources), so this is basically an arts-specific stylization that is directly conflicting with a more general one WP MoS rule; and it's a WP:CONSISTENT problem, especially where the distinction between a movement and a genre is unclear; and the notion of capitalizing something because it's a movement is directly counter to MOS:MOVEMENT (i.e. a "magical exception" for arts movements in particular has materialized out of nowhere and probably does not enjoy the consensus that is claimed for it); and the rationale for this, "needs an initial capital letter to differentiate the art movement from a more general meaning of the word", is bogus, an idea that we have a specific guideline against, at MOS:SIGCAPS. The solution to potential confusion between a generic usage of a word and a topic-specific one is more precise writing (e.g. state explicitly, at first occurrence, that something is an arts movement), not throwing capital letters around as if they can mystically signify something specific to all of our billions of readers, which they cannot.

  I don't seem able to find a Wikipedia guideline codifying this capitalization of major arts movements in the first place. Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Visual arts#Capitalization and art movements throws up its hands and declares it a "complex issue" without providing a rule, and tries to rely on some external style guides (one particular to a specific organization, another just a random website that has long since been usurped for something else), which don't provide internally consistent or practicably applicable advice, nor advice consistent with each other, nor advice consistent with present de facto WP practice. Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Music does not address the question (though it provides some not entirely consistent capitalization of certain terms like "Classical" and "Baroque"). Wikipedia:Naming conventions (music) doesn't address it, either (but is opposite the MOS:MUSIC style and has consistent lowercase "classical" and "baroque"). In short, this is a bit of a shit-show and needs a clear resolution across the entire subject of arts movements.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  17:38, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose both. Antwerp Mannerism is capitalised by the majority of major sources & others: Metropolitan Museum of Art & [1], London National Gallery, The Courtauld, Britannica, Oxford Reference, The Historians of Netherlandish Art, and most book and journal sources. Apart from those specifics for this specific movement, capitalisation is the norm in art history. Fine, maybe different conventions in music theory, but its IMO very arrogant, and confusing to readers, for Wiki to abandon IRL conventions for the sake of uniformity of in-house style. Ceoil (talk) 00:41, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

And requesting that SMcCandlish stays on point, so that people with lives can follow without having wead through the twists and turns of random thoughts that enter his head as he types. It's really presumptuous and tiresome, I have to say. Ceoil (talk) 00:29, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose. These seem to meet the MOS standard for upper case. Srnec (talk) 20:10, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.