Talk:Rococo

2003

Whoa! we can't get there from here! Can we start afresh, using Fiske Kimball, Creation of the Rococo as a starting point instead? User:Wetman

rococo

sure, we can differentiate the two.

Article states Rococo comes from the Italian word "barocco", but it would seem to come from the Portuguese "barroco" – see English entry on Baroque. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.68.248.173 (talk) 10:01, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

As always German artists are completely underrepresentated in english Wikipedia artciles. Bah! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.8.17.10 (talk) 07:25, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

yang

Meandering, disorganized, and very vague. Writing needs to be worked over completly, and I suspect we may need new info too. I tagged it for cleanup, almost did "cleanup-rewrite" instead but I'm new here. Lampros 04:10, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

The German and French Wikipedia articles may give a re-editor some better ideas for making this vague article a more precise characterization of the rococo ideal. Fiske Kimball's book is available in paperback: excellent documentation, with the emphasis on Paris, needless to say. Nicolas Pineau needs a brief mention, you're probably already thinking— and an article all to himself as well. --Wetman 08:44, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Reorganization

Took a crack at it and started reworking the organization. Added separate headings for architecture, painting, sculpture, and music; moved many of the existing paragraphs to the (seemingly) appropriate headings. I tried to better reflect the style of the Baroque article as well as the French and German Rococo articles (as Wetman suggested).

There are still serious issues with the flow of the article and its bias towards furniture, but I hope this will give someone a place from which to dive in. Also, perhaps someone can find a more informative and brief description of the movement to start off the article?

Among others, I think the article needs to expand on Antoine_Watteau, François_Boucher, Fragonard, and Nicolas_Lancret.

-Raketenmensch 08:11, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

I think if Raketenmensch writes some good text for those four painters at their articles, then inserts concise versions here, he'll have made a real contribution... just not too much of the "moral depression dating from the time of Louis XIV" kind of talk I hope. --Wetman 09:46, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Haven't written text for the painters, but I did rewrite the first two sections of this article. I also edited the second section section to be a little more readable. It still needs work, though. And, what do y'all make of the Catholic Church section? If it is all one big quote from the Catholic Encyclopedia, does it belong here in that form? Raketenmensch 05:14, September 11, 2005 (UTC)

I do not think the Catholic section is appropriate. That level of verbosity on precisely what the Catholic church thinks of Rococo is only appropriate in one place: the Catholic Encyclopedia. It needs to be cut down to the bare minimum, rephrased, and more information about contemporaries who were also critical of Rococo art needs to be added. It is important to understand what people find lacking in art, because that is precisely what you see in the next generation or movement. Perhaps I'll go through some of my Art History texts and see if I can pull out some primary or good secondary material, and take a crack at the section this weekend. Emoticon 21:15, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Ah yes, I certainly think that while you're throwing out the baby you may as well throw out the bathwater, as they say. You do seem splendidly confident. I suppose that's what really counts. --Wetman 08:10, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Spelling

Rococo is the preferred English spelling (as opposed to Rococco). See [1]. Raketenmensch 02:15, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

It would be good to have some background, as roccoco is the only spelling I'm familiar with. Somewhat didactically Google auto-corrects it to rococo, but when you fix that you can see the alternative spelling crops up in all dialects of English -
Google: roccoco -rococo.
Hakluyt bean (talk) 18:53, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Roccoco just is not the English-language spelling, however "familiar" it may be. OED does not list rococco or roccoco as alternatives. If this article did not state that "Late Baroque" was an alternative style designation, one would be tempted to read the second line of text.--Wetman (talk) 00:51, 22 May 2011 (UTC)--Wetman (talk) 00:51, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Removal of Cleanup Template?

Any thoughts on removing the cleanup template? I think the quality is pretty good now. The bulk of this article has been rewritten since August and a lot of links have been added. Do we want it to look very different than it is now? Raketenmensch 08:11, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

No, better keep the cleanup template: it's needed more than ever, as long as the article is packed with inanities: "some debate about the art historical significance of the style"..."rococo was surpassed by the Neoclassical style"..."some critics used the term to derogatively imply that the style was frivolous"..." etc etc etc. We're still told "Le Dejeuner by Francois Boucher, demonstrates elements of Rococo " but the analysis of Rococo elements in the illustration is gone. Discussion of the term "rococo' is carelessly dropped in the current mishmash. A very mediocre performance. Some basic reading on the subject might sharpen the article. Perhaps some other Wikipedians might assist. --Wetman 10:53, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

English neo-Rococo

Is it worth adding a comment about Rockingham, probably the most famous producer of English neo-Rococo porcelain in the 1820s and 30s? BaseTurnComplete 20:56, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Sanssouci

I've added Sanssouci as an example of how rococo has been integrated into European architecture, as I feel it is an important architectural development, particularly with the so-called "Frederickian Rococo" style.

Neutral POV?

I noticed a lot of text uses very flowery adjectives, such as this

"Here, on the Kentian mantel, the crowd of Chinese vases and mandarins are satirically rendered as hideous little monstrosities, and the Rococo wall clock is a jumble of leafy branches."

and this

""Courtly" would be pretentious in this upper bourgeois circle, yet the man's gesture is gallant. The stylish but cozy interior, the informal decorous intimacy of people's manners, the curious and delightful details everywhere one turns one's eye, the luxury of sipping chocolate: all are "galante.""

I do not have the time to go through the article to find every example, but I recall seeing lots of texts like these. This does not seem to be the traditional Wikipedia writing of giving a very objective, straightforward POV.

Why do you think descriptions like those are not neutral? They don't seem to be biased for or against the artworks or the movement. Do you think there are competing interpretations of those pieces that aren't represented here? They may not be bland, but shouldn't descriptions of visual works of art convey the detail, emotion, and social context of those works?

Raketenmensch 01:46, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

• "The development of Rococo in England is considered to had been connected with the revival of interest in Gothic architecture early in the 18th century." Ignorant nonsense! Note the use of "is considered". Connections among immigrant Huguenot engravers in the wake of Nicholas Dorigny, and Gaetano Brunetti and silversmiths (like Paul de Lamerie 's father), the Swiss stuccatori Bagutti and Artari, the engraver Goupy, Hubert Gravelot, Hogarth, the Slaughter's Coffe House set and the "Saint Martin's Lane Academy"—these might be apropos in offering a more knowledgable account of the introduction of Rococo in England. The subject has been examinied in print by writers like Mark Girouard and Geoffrey Beard: Rococo: Art and Design in Hogarth's England was the thick catalogue of the 1984 exhibition at the Victoria and Albert Museum: it contains a useful article, Michael Snodin, "English Rococo and its Continental Origins". Even a little reading would sharpen this ever more hopelessly amateurish article. --Wetman 18:44, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Pronunciation?

What is the proper pronunciation of "Rococo"? Can someone versed in IPA add the appropriate notation to this article header? --DDG 15:10, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

dumb kind of art

I would just like to question what "the dumb kind of art" is, as mentioned in this article. The Rococo style of art(the dumb kind or art) emerged in France. ...who wrote this, and what is the significance? --24.57.192.146 06:31, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh Gasp! An article on Rococo without a picture of Fragonard's the Swing!? It is perhaps the essence of what Rococo is all about! Dramatic Excess! Please someone add a picture - it would be most helpful.

Rococo in Popular Culture

The Arcade Fire in their new album, "Suburbs", has a song called Rococo. The song is about today's youth culture who seem so wise and cultured and yet know not what they talk about.

From the LA Times review: "In one of the record’s many wonders of sequencing — a lost art in the download age resurrected on “The Suburbs” — “Modern Man” is followed by “Rococo,” a resplendent epic wound up by near-hysterical strings that encases one of the album’s trickiest sentiments: Making fun of the modern kids. It’s hard to tell if Butler was once one of them or not. Is it a swipe at what he knows all too well, or is he simply casting disparagements? Either way, Butler sounds angry. He nearly spits out the word “rococo,” as if the fanciful living rooms of old — picture the Draper household in “Mad Men” — will explode into flames from his very force."

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/music_blog/2010/08/album-review-arcade-fires-the-suburbs.html

roccoco [sic]

less commonly roccoco (!) Less commonly indeed! and much less commonly among people who can spell rococo. The mispelling made it to Wikipedia's front page today, thanks to this silliness.--Wetman (talk) 07:04, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Although I understand what you're saying, "roccoco" is not altogether incorrect but rather an archaic form and is often used in other languages as well: this 1884 German book spells it Roccoco. However, I'm wondering if it could be removed from the lede and an explanation on spelling conventions be added later on. freshacconci talktalk 12:28, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

"Gallery of Rococo painting"

Some of the example paintings in this section are slightly dubious examples of Rococo art.

• Angelica Kauffmann is under no circumstances a Rococo painter. Her portrait of Garrick has none of Rococo portraiture’s characteristic lightness of colour and tone, the wooden chair Garrick is sitting on is about as un-rococo as its possible to get!
• Equally Jean-Baptiste-Siméon Chardin is not a Rococo painter; his style and choice of subject are radically different from Rococo tradition. I fail to see how the work displayed (Still Life with Glass Flask and Fruit) has any Rococo elements.
• Joshua Reynolds was not a Rococo painter either. His portrait of Clive and family, sidelines nature, is dark and its figures look generally depressed.
• Jean-Baptiste Greuze is similar to Chardin.

The argument for including such works and painters may surround the idea that they were "anti-Rococo" however the title of the gallery clearly says "Rococo" painting and so their inclusion is entirely inappropriate. Rococo is a specific artist movement not a blanket term for anything painted in the 18th century. You might as well stick Death of Marat in there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dalisback1 (talk • contribs) 15:33, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Added the Rococo era as a gallery, works better than Anti-Rococo...Modernist (talk) 00:08, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I was just milling around and returned to this article. Two things struck me; firstly the poor quality of the section on painting, hopefully over the summer I'll have a go at adding to it, and secondly the 'Rococo Era Gallery'. As I said above Rococo is a specific art movement blah blah blah. Do we really need these other paintings? Surely their inclusion is a bit meaningless? The similar galleries for other art movements (Baroque, Impressionism, Realism, Expressionism etc.) don't include 'era' galleries. Any thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dalisback1 (talk • contribs) 00:18, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Copyvio

Tagged this article for copyright violation: this source has been used just copy-pasted. Please read wp:Wikipedia:Cv101, and act appropriately. --Napoletanamente (talk) 05:27, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Doh! That whole "book" is copied from wikipedia! Do check these things properly. Johnbod (talk) 05:35, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

You are right. Sorry about that. --Napoletanamente (talk) 18:31, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Ok, no problem, but this very often happens now. Johnbod (talk) 19:45, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

rococo graphic design

I think the Rococo page could greatly benefit from adding in a section on the era's typography and graphic design, under "Rococo in different artistic modes." Any thoughts? I don't want to just add in a new section without consulting long-time contributors to the article. Sabinajm (talk) 22:16, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

new comments at the bottom is the way, or nobody sees them. Go ahead. Sadly there don't seem to be any long-time contributors to the article, just long-time complainers about how poor it is, like me. Johnbod (talk) 00:08, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Lead length

I don't know enough about this subject to change it, but this article's lead is way too long. The problem is made worse by the length of the paragraphs. The information seems to be of quality, though. Exercisephys (talk) 17:42, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Art 1301

I am ready to work! Morgan Snapp (talk) 19:34, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

'rococo era painting' gallery section

Came here to ask if having both 'rococo paintings' and 'rococo era paintings' sections is a mistake. The above talk page section "Gallery of Rococo painting" clarifies the intended purpose of the section. It's not clear to the reader, that section needs a better title or a note of explanation. 'Contemporanous paintings'? 'Other 18th century paintings'? Back to 'anti-rococo'?

Or perhaps those paintings don't belong in this article at all, as suggested in previous discussion? If we can't find a source that states the relationship between these paintings and rococo, it's synthesis. Cyrej (talk) 10:07, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

I agree with the above. I don't see any purpose to having the "Rococo era" painting section; none of the painters in this section are described in other sources as Rococo painters, and the "Rococo era", which varied from country to country, isn't defined.

I also have a couple of questions about some of the paintings in the first gallery classified as "Rococo"'. In other sources De Troy is classified as a history painter or genre painter, and Vigée LeBrun was working long after the French rocaille was finished, and I believe was almost exclusively a portrait artist. I've not seen any source that calls her Rococo. CordiallySiefkinDR (talk) 14:07, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

I boldly removed the section. On the other two painters, I don't know enough to comment. If you do find a problem with the classification you might want to have a look at their own articles, too. Cyrej (talk) 19:19, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

I returned the section to the article. These were important, influential painters of the time and it is important to include major artists of the era; and it is of interest to note the differences between several of those artists with the more conventional Rococo establishment painters. This is an educational project...Modernist (talk) 21:30, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree with you. Rococo is not a matter of when they painted, but what and how they painted. "Rococo" is not defined in this article, or in the sources cited, as a period or era; it's defined as a style or a movement. It's difficult to see anything rococo in the paintings in this gallery. None of these artists are described in the articles about them as rococo in style. It's difficult to see any similarity between their work and those of the truly rococo artists, like Boucher. For example, Angelika Kauffman is described in the article about her as "a Swiss neoclassical painter." The others are variously described as history or genre painters or portraitists; none of their work resembles the style or subject matter of the truly rococo painters. Joshua Reynolds in described in his article as being a painter of the "Grand Manner"" of Britain, which had nothing to do with rococo. Gainsborough is described in his article as a "portrait and landscape painter," with no mention anywhere of rococo. It's also difficult to define the "rococo era" , since the French "rocaille" period was earlier than the "rococo" in other parts of Europe. You can't define all painters of the 18th century as "Rococo" painters.

For these reasons, I think we should include only artists whose work is clearly in the rococo style and has rococo subject matter. Cordially, SiefkinDR (talk) 13:15, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

As I stated above I disagree. These 'contemporanous' painters are amongst the historically most important of that time. They were aware of the rococo movement and they responded to it through their work. You may not want to deal with the fact that the style does correspond to 'when' the work was created but it is an important factor. In my view these artists works were important on their own as well as in relationship to their 'rococo' contemporaries work. The article is historical as well as related to a style and art historical context matters...Modernist (talk) 13:34, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Montage needed

I respectfully suggest that we go back to having a montage, as the other artistic movement articles do. Without a montage, you can usually have only three or so images before they start pushing into the the article below. The images now also overrepresent the Bavarian rococo, which is important, but not the whole story. The current arrangement also ignores all the other decorative arts, which are an important part of rococo. When you have a montage, you can have a larger number of images without bumping into the article, and it gives a more complete presentation of the period. If you want to have more detailed pictures of the decoration, they can be included in the text below in the appropriate section. Cordially, 17:40, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

I strongly disagree! If "other artistic movement articles" have them - which is far from universally the case (see Gothic art, Insular art, Ottonian art etc etc) - they shouldn't, as montages are generally terrible at WP's small image sizes. This was especially the case here, as all the montages contained fiddly detailed images, which conveyed nothing at all at montage size. They are also bad for the majority of our readers, who use mobile devices. Unfortunately, these montages get added by drive-by editors who like using their formatting skills but don't know or care enough about the the topic to add text. On Indian articles in particular they are a plague. The one at Baroque is equally awful. Of course the actual images can be discussed. The montage had 2/4 Bavarian images; currently there are 2/3, and a good deal of white space below. That the images "push into the article below" is a good thing. The current layout, with imageless text sections and mini-galleries, is overdone. Gallery images, even at 200px are very small, and text sections should have images too. Johnbod (talk) 18:10, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't agree at all with your comments about montages.

Size is not an important issue. If you click on any image in a montage, it enlarges to full size. Also, all the images in the montage are also found, in normal size, in the article itself. For an article on a topic that covers a wide variety of aspects and countries, you need more than 2-3 images. See the montages on the colors, and on various decorative styles.

Not using montages and galleries means crowding the images in the margins, which means they push into sections where they don't belong, which is extremely confusing for readers. It also greatly reduces the number of images, which, in an article about art and architecture, makes it much less useful.

The current three images for the article on Rococo don't at all accurately represent the whole style or period; only one very small part of it, at the very end of the period. There's nothing here about the beginnings of Rococo, Italian Rococo, or furnishings. A montage gives you a broader overview of the style.

Finally, what do you mean by a "Drive-by Montage?" I believe that most of the art and architecture style montages, including the one on Rococo, were made by editors who also contributed a large part of the text and citations in the article. Cordially, SiefkinDR (talk) 16:04, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Problems with section on Southern Germany and Russia

There are a number of problems with the additions made to this section by Informed Analysis, including spelling, grammar, and confusing syntax. This will require some editing and rewriting to bring it up to WP standards. SiefkinDR (talk) 18:34, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Word omitted in the very first sentence?

Shouldn't the first sentence say "the illusion of motion and drama" ? 2601:281:CC80:5AE0:A901:7E49:A51D:B5A9 (talk) 19:43, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Done - thanks Johnbod (talk) 15:46, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Frederician Rococo § Merge Discussion

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Frederician Rococo § Merge Discussion. Lexid523 (talk) 15:46, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Ca' Rezzonico (Venice) - Ceiling of the Ballroom.jpeg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:53, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: The Free Internet

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 29 August 2023 and 14 December 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Waffles yum (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Awolfson17, Cgah1.

— Assignment last updated by ReadyMadeAl (talk) 17:05, 19 October 2023 (UTC)