Talk:Early Netherlandish painting
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
As far as I know, the term "Flemish Primitives" is unusual in English. The usual term is "Early Netherlandish Painting" (e.g. in the famous work by Erwin Panofsky, to name only one art historian), as is also mentioned in the article.
"Flemish primitives" seems to me a litteral translation from the French name for this school of painters, "Les flamands primitifs"; in French "primitif" means also "early" (and cannot always be translated with English "primitive", which means "simple, undeveloped", which is definitely inappropriate to describe these painters).
I think the title is inappropriate and should be changed into Early Netherlandish Painting.
Regards, Friedrich Tellberg 4 Aug 2005
- The article itself clearly states that "Because of the ambiguity of the word "primitive", art historians prefer the term "early Netherlandish painting"." I believe there is also a redirect from "early Netherlandish painting" to this page. These painters are known as "de Vlaamse Primitieven" in Dutch and as "les primitifs flamands" in French. Primitive here should be understood not so much as "early", but rather as "original" in the sense of "that which is at the origin of something". It is very well possible that the term is unusual in English, although this article has been around for quite a while and you're the first reader to make this remark. If the title is changed, the article itself should be rewritten as well. - Karl Stas 15:24, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
-
- A check with Google Fight reveals that Early Netherlandish painting is the more common term, so I have made the necessary changes. - Karl Stas 15:46, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
-
- Flemish Primitives (like Italian Primitives) was standard 100 years ago, but is now out of use in English. My understanding is the same is happening more slowly in other languages. There was a pejorative element to the terms - ie they couldn't get perspective right etc —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Johnbod (talk • contribs) 12:46, 11 December 2006 (UTC).
[edit] references
the inline numbers seem to relate to the arrows in the references list, but without saying which is which. I don't know how to sort this out, but if anyone does, please do...Johnbod 12:42, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
