Jump to content

Talk:Art Nouveau/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.
Archive 1Archive 2

Miami and Shanghai

Didn't Miami and Shanghai conserve many samples of Art Nouveau? Or is it Art Deco?

That would be Art Deco you mean, at least in terms of Architecture.

"The movement was the result of intense and flamboyant activity in the visual arts by individuals wishing to change the character of European civilisation. In the first decade of the 20th century it was everywhere. It was simultaneously vulgar and élite, loved and hated. There has been no consensus however, on whether it was a style or a movement. The span of Art Nouveau ranged from 1870 to 1914."

Inserted by an enthusiast who hadn't read through the article. Books on Art Nouveau abound. One could find some early objects from c. 1888 with Art Nouveau touches, if we had a lot of illustrations and a professional audience. No one could find an Art Nouveau object of 1870, however, unless Naturalism and Japonisme were confused with Art Nouveau. Is a "movement" a style that people write about and defend in the press? Is a style something that comes and goes without being discussed? These are empty categories with no information in them. The first sentence is a riff on the word "reform" already in the article. Art Nouveau is not a movement of socialist-anarchists really.
I have added in a couple of informative paragraphs from an orphan article Art Nouveau Jewellery. Are we to have Art Nouveau Textiles Art Nouveau Bookbindings? Too like Pokemon! Wetman 05:27, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Female Artists?

I understand the time period of the art nouveau movement, but I've searched this page and there are no female artists mentioned anywhere. There must be some... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.34.130.44 (talk) 16:30, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

There are a few...Elisabeth Sonrel, Margaret Macdonald Mackintosh, Milla von Luttich, Mary Golay, Jane Atché, Mary Tytler etc. --Turn685 (talk) 05:24, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Art nouveau and New Art

When giving the English translation of the name, because this is the English Wikipedia, you can say "Art Nouveau ('new art', in English)" or "Art Nouveau (French for 'new art')". Please do not say "Art Nouveau ('new art' in French)"; that is ambiguous and might possibly imply that "new art" is a French term and that "art nouveau" is a term from a non-French language. The difference is small, and it's true that most readers will "get" things based on context, but the difference in ambiguity is real and complicates automatic translation etc. When Wikifying an article, pay attention to possible changes in meaning when applying changes in style. Thanks. (unsigned comment by 00:46 UTC, 24 July 2005 138.88.246.236)

Cinema

Hello,

You should add more imformation about the work that the artist did and who the artist are, because i personlly think that it i very hard to understand. And also i think you should include more about how this movement changed the worlds view on art.

"Historicism"

As currently used in this article the meaning of the word is obscure and needs elaboration. pmr 11:08, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Replaced it with "eclectic historic revival styles" --Wetman 21:53, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Art Nouveau, Architecture, Images

I would like to point out that images used within an article should illustrate the subject in a graphical and obvious manner. The scope of Art Nouveau as an architectural style is quite limited, often confined in interiors and as decoration. The recent addition of pictures of St Petersburg buildings is confusing to the reader, while the Vokzal station or the Hotel Europe seem to be known for their Art Nouveau interiors, their neo classical facades, as interesting they may be, hardly illustrate the subject. The extravagant St Louis World Fair entrance or the Bellas Artes Palace in Mexico are confusing enough in that only elements of their architecture display an "Art Nouveau" character. At best, only the dome of the Vokzal station betrays its "Art Nouveau" influence, but then it's much more obvious on the Bellas Artes Palace. Anyway, I'm removing the pictures of facades of St Petersburg buildings, they just aren't illustrating "Art Nouveau" in a useful way for the casual reader, making the article more confusing. Equendil Talk 16:40, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the above and would go further. Far too many of the illustrations on this page relate to architecture, conveying the false impression that this was the main mode of expression in art nouveau. It was not. Could an editor more intrepid than I please undertake a revision or at the very least second this before the article is revised?Neuroradiologist (talk) 02:16, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Similarly, I'd like to cast doubts on the "Demon seated in a garden" by Mikhail Vrubel as illustrating "Art Nouveau". I just don't see it. Equendil Talk 17:01, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

In general the emphasis of this article on architecture seems misplaced. There is not sufficient discussion and illustration of objects for daily living produced in the art nouveau style. The casual reader might benefit from more on LC Tiffany, Ecole Nancy, Liberty, and the multiple well known German firms as well as the influence of Bing and other promoters of the new style. Discussion and illustration of architecture ought to be pared down. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.233.160.36 (talk) 02:47, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I think we should restore the external link to architecture in Riga in the external links section. It seems they have a noteworthy concentration. I found the pictures interesting, appropriate, and not particularly commercial. Hu 18:51, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

  • It's a commercial site with several layers of ads, that kills the site right away for me, though the domain name in big letters across every picture was pretty effective too.
  • The site is a travel guide for Riga, with just one gallery of pictures related to Art Nouveau and no text. That's rather light as far as content goes. Lack of comments makes it especially bad. An architectural style such as "deconstructivism" is strinkingly obvious in pictures, Art Nouveau is a bit more subtle in that it's more about decoration than the global shape of buildings or global elements of architecture. If you don't direct readers, they'll stare at pictures wondering what they all have in common. Riga's Art Nouveau is rather atypical in places also, which would merit even further explanations. Equendil Talk 20:34, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
That being said, Riga is certainly noteworthy here, I just don't think this site is the right one. Equendil Talk 20:36, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Contemporary Art Nouveau

How about someone, who knows a bit more about it than I do, add a section about contemporary art nouveau. I can't think of any contemporary buildings in the style, off the top of my head, but a lot of modern bars have very art nouveau interiors, so the style is still alive.--Richy 17:23, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

No such thing, I'm afraid. Those pub bars, cinemas, etc that seek to emulate the Art Nouveau style cannot claim to be truly Art Nouveau and are nothing but pastiche. Some converted bars, on the other hand, (such as the Regal in Cambridge) are true examples of an Art Deco building undergoing a change of use. Cheers – Agendum 14:33, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

French Art Nouveau glass

An excellent non-commercial site on the major glassworks, deleted no doubt because it is in Italian. Someone may want to use it. --Wetman 13:31, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Scope problems

This page seems rather broad in scope. A general and exhaustive overview of "Art Nouveau" around the world is given without advancing some distinction between the main Art Nouveau "schools" (Paris, Brussels, Glasgow, Nancy...) or centres and local schools of only secondary importance. The paragraphs about creations called "Art Nouveau" in f.a. eastern and northern Europe, south America..., would be more appropriate in sub-categories. Some examples that are given belong to historical and exotic styles (f.a. Bellas Artes in Mexico City, Station of Sint-Petersburg...) and have nothing to do with Art Nouveau except that they were built around 1900.

Extent of practitioners

The statement "Art Nouveau was a movement that greatly influenced many artists and designers and later progressed onto the De Stijl movement (from 1880―1905) and the German Bauhaus school (early 1920s―1930s)." seems to be an exaggeration and doesn't apply to all AN designers and artists. Does anyone have back up on this? The only confirmation I have is for van de Velde. It is really time to fix this un-cited article. LPFixIt (talk) 02:19, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I propose we remove Mikhail Vrubel from this article. If we read the Wiki entry about him: "is usually regarded as the greatest Russian painter of the Symbolist movement. In reality, he deliberately stood aloof from contemporary art trends, so that the origin of his unusual manner should be sought in the Late Byzantine and Early Renaissance painting." it states attachment to other categories not AN.--LPFixIt (talk) 01:58, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

The Melbourne City Baths look more like Russian Revival architecture rather than AN. Shall we remove? Is the interior art nouveau? —Preceding unsigned comment added by LPFixIt (talk • contribs) 02:18, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Again, I think the article should stay focused...Ze'ev Raban was only 15 years old when AN ended. The artist's main article declares he worked in the Bezalel school style and later than the original AN movement.--LPFixIt (talk) 03:26, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Merger proposal (Jugendstil)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
The result was merge Jugendstil into Art Nouveau. --Stomme (talk) 23:35, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

It's easy to walk away from this article (and the Jugendstil one) being rather confused about the use of these terms. Jugendstil is, in fact, the German term for Art Nouveau. Any differences between what one finds in Darmstadt or other places are regional differences, just as in Belgian cities like Brussels, Antwerp and so on... Therefore, I propose merging Jugendstil into Art Nouveau. Please Support, Oppose or Discuss below. --Stomme (talk) 17:41, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Support

Oppose

I am concerned that the article will open up to an overly broad scope - which it already suffers from. As long as we do diligence to properly define the artistic style.--LPFixIt (talk) 19:53, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

  • Can the proponents give us an idea of how the new article would look? If one types "Jugenstil" into the search engine, would the user be directed to Art Nouveau? --LPFixIt (talk) 19:53, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Including the German name puts some context with the phrase Art Nouveau - see the user's comments above.--LPFixIt (talk) 19:53, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
  • As for the article becoming too broad, it simply a matter of recognising that Art Nouveau is the same thing as Jugendstil, just in two different languages (German and French). If the article talks about Art Nouveau in Germany, Austria, and many countries that have adopted the German term—which it does—then it is an article discussing Jugendstil as well. There is certainly a place for specialised articles, as various ideas get developed, but for now it's like having an two different articles on Aubergines and Eggplants. For example, there could be an article on Jugendstil in Germany or in Vienna, and so forth. But the premise of the current article is that Art Nouveau is an international movement, and with internationalisation comes adopted terminology as the style spreads. Which leads to the question: yes, Jugendstil would redirect to Art Nouveau when discussing it in it's general terms. And the header would discuss this (probably a bit better than what I have already added). An honest Jugendstil article would say something like: "Jugendstil is the German term for Art Nouveau, and has been adopted when discussing the use of the style in Germany and in many northern, central and eastern European countries." Hey, I like that! --Stomme (talk) 21:38, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Also: The book referred to by Sterner is a translation (I think) of the German book Jugendstil: Kunstformen zwischen Individualismus u. Massengesellschaft, published in English as Art nouveau, an art of transition: from individualism to mass society. The bibliography information in the article seems to be for the German publication (1975, Cologne). You might double check that the publication date (and translation) isn't 1982. --Stomme (talk) 22:11, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
  • (not that this means it is proper but) In US colleges, Art Nouveau is presented as AN and secondarily presented as Jugenstil. The hierarchy may be unfair to German culture/language, but it looks as though the French name is primary. I really appreciate the effort Stomme put into this article.
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.

Citations

The Sterner book I was using is the third edition: copyright 1977, it is also the first English language version of 1982. Shall I fix in the footnotes? —Preceding unsigned comment added by LPFixIt (talk • contribs) 01:04, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Jugendstil pronunciation

Okay, I've never messed with an IPA key before, but I wanted to give it a shot for Jugendstil since the article has the pronunciation for Art Nouveau. Could somebody who understands IPA better than I give an opinion? Here is what I get for Jugendstil: [juː gɛnt ʃtil]

Or maybe somebody at least knows where we can find it already converted to IPA... --Stomme (talk) 14:14, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Merge - Link to old Jugendstil talk page

Article merged: For reference, here is the old talk-page Jugendstil --Stomme (talk) 23:35, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Bold type

The use of bold type in the lists of cities and artists is getting out of control. Is there a standard for deciding which ones are truly important and those which are not? I think the tendency has been for various editors to add bold type to whichever cities and artists they think are important, without benefit of evidence. We might be better off removing the bold type altogether. Any thoughts? ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 20:39, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I think the whole list of cities is serving no purpose, none of the entries are substantiated, their links won't provide additional information about Art Nouveau, having so many cities listed is contrary to the idea that they are "centers" of anything, and the bold type is more evidence there's something wrong with that list. Notable "centers" of Art Nouveau should be mentioned in the body of the article, in context (and we do have several sections covering just that already). The rest need not clutter this article.
The list of "practitioners" is a vaguely more useful, at least their entries might be somewhat related to the subject, but it's a similar case. Undiscriminating lists such as this are best covered by categories, and as above, notable people should appear in the body of the article.
I'll be bold and dispose of the city listing. Equendil Talk 04:00, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Introduction

The opening sentence is rather annoying to read because it contains two parentheses followed by an 'also known...' with another parenthesis. Surely this can be broken up so as to make the sentence more readable? 211.28.211.21 (talk) 13:10, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Done. Please note that everyone can edit Wikipedia. Equendil Talk 21:33, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Jugendstil in Germany - Center in Hamburg? Nope!

In the Germany section the city of Hamburg is called out as the center of the German Jugendstil movement. I believe this to be incorrect. The German Jugendstil article calls out Munich and Darmstadt as the main centers, as do the articles about Darmstadt and Munich themselves (check both English and German versions, search for Jugendstil). Nowhere is Hamburg mentioned or called out as a center of Art Noveau or Jugendstil.

I am removing the mentioning of Hamburg and will replace it with Munich and Darmstadt in the Germany section. If you disagree please provide a reason why Hamburg should stay - thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.164.16.10 (talk) 06:31, 14 December 2009 (UTC) Changes done. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cyberroach (talk • contribs) 06:34, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Belgium, Switzerland and France

Alphonse Mucha is Czech artist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.176.226.26 (talk) 18:18, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Too many architecture pictures

I've noticed an overabundance of art nouveau architecture photos here. I do think architecture should be represented but there's almost no paintings/other works by artists. The whole movement should not be confined so I will be changing out some photos. --Turn685 (talk) 12:28, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. Awien (talk) 12:48, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

File:HortaELWI.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:HortaELWI.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests March 2012
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:HortaELWI.jpg)

This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 20:18, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Head hurts

The lede goes on for several pages, and is impossible to follow. Doesn't anybody who knows more about this want to make it less... overwhelming? The intro is pretty much a full page, and with more links than can be handled. What happened to the lede being a *summary* of the article? Dendlai (talk) 13:07, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Agree -- the lede is supposed to merely summarize what is discussed at length in the body text. Instead, the body text of this article completely ignores most of the lede and is therefore missing much important information. The body text is skimpy, jumpy, and out of order. All that stuff in the lead needs to be moved to the body. The lead only needs to be a couple of sentences. Softlavender (talk) 08:35, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Length?

The Art Nouveau Article is exceedingly long in my opinion."Selene Scott (talk) 18:57, 31 July 2012 (UTC)"

Agree. The whole article is too long, some content should be moved to separate articles. The introduction in particular is too long, too many details, content should be moved into separate sections. Regards --Erik den yngre (talk) 13:25, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
At 56k, the article is not so long as to require splitting. Please try to re-organise the article before splitting. Op47 (talk) 12:36, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps it's OK with some better structure. --Erik den yngre (talk) 13:47, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Separate new articles

This is just an idea but maybe there could be separate articles about Art Nouveau in other countries. Like Art Nouveau in Spain or Art Nouveau in Italy where more of this in depth information could be transferred to. There's a lot of photos and country-specific info on the article which could be moved to separate pages. It also looks like there's people adding more and more photos to represent their country's inclusion in the article. There's so much history in each country it might be better to start new pages and expand there. --Turn685 (talk) 21:03, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

It's also hard to cover every country's history of art nouveau on one page. An idea could be to have the page represent a broad idea of Art Nouveau with specific information channeled into other pages. --Turn685 (talk) 21:06, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
That's a possible solution to the issues suggested above. The article is perhaps not too long only counting words, but lots of aspects of Art Nouveau treated in a single article makes it a bit complex to read and too edit. This will particularly be the case if more material is added for each country, and I imagine that there is indeed a lot more than can be said about this topic with regard for instance to Latvia, Norway or Austria. A possible to start may be to be to create separate articles when the country-specific section is so long that it deserves it's own page. --Erik den yngre (talk) 18:09, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
The idea may be a good one, but it is not really appropriate to use split tags since the article currently does not have sufficient material to justify splitting. If on the other hand if you were to write an article called e.g. "Art Nouveau in X" then you could just go ahead and create it. Op47 (talk) 22:08, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
OK, perhaps remove the split tag, but the intro is still too long and complex in my opinion Regards, --Erik den yngre (talk) 12:13, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Reorganization

This article has been needing some type of reorganization for a long time now. So I've made a go at reorganizing the entire thing. All of the information in the article is still there and has been moved into sections that will help flow the material. After moving the information around I also realized that there were large parts of history the article is lacking (for instance, the info for France). If there is any information that is missing, I apologize ahead of time because I've spent a lot of effort to copy every single sentence. If something doesn't flow right or needs editing feel free to improve on it. I hope the article is a lot easier to read now with these changes. --Turn685 (talk) 21:16, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your effort. It seems that the geographical section may still need some reorganization. Particularly the two headings "around the world" and "outside Europe" are not logical. For instance Latvia belongs to section on Eastern Europe, while France and Germany perhaps Western Europe. --Erik den yngre (talk) 11:24, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for pointing that out. As a non-european I wasn't sure if Latvia was considered part of eastern europe or northern europe. The article might need some more work on the geography part....--Turn685 (talk) 20:13, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
  • I'm afraid I'm somewhat appalled by the changes of the last months. The lead is now far too short, & full of stuff that should be in "Naming". Something needs to be done about the Olympic opening ceremony format too. Johnbod (talk) 12:38, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Czech lands

Czech lands (Czech: České země) is an auxiliary term that is used mainly to describe the three historical regions of Bohemia, Moravia and Czech Silesia, which compose the Czech Republic. Hafspajen (talk) 12:32, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Pictures

The galleries are smaller px to allow more pictures. The others are bigger to show the details. The thumb sizes are uneven, there is a reason why there is px sizes. Everything is well balanced, even rows and there is a balance between the text and the pictures. Once somebody starts changing the size, everything is collapsing. Hafspajen (talk) 21:52, 21 October 2013 (UTC) Hohum, you don't like talkig to me or what? Hafspajen (talk) 18:18, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict). upright=0.9 allows your desire for 200px images, and also lets users choose for themselves via their user preferences. See WP:IMGSIZE. What may look great on your particular resolution, monitor size, and browser, probably doesn't suit everyone, so this gives them both choices. (Hohum @) 18:19, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
Additionally, gallery mode ="packed" allows for *larger* images in the same space. (Hohum @) 18:21, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Edward Everard Facade

This is without a doubt one of the glories of the Arts and Crafts Movement but what makes it Art Nouveau? — Preceding unsigned comment added by SimonW11 (talk • contribs) 10:59, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Lead image

Hi! The current photo "Loïe Fuller Table Lamp by François-Raoul Larche gilt bronze" isn't all that characteristic for the Art Nouveau style. I don't consider it to be a good lead picture for this topic. I'd prefer a painting or an architecture photo like this one, it's essentially Nouveau. -- Cheers Horst-schlaemma (talk) 15:39, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

I sort of agree, although there is some value in not showing the predictable architecture or decorative arts. There is room for 2 images here. I'd prefer not to have a painting (as opposed to a print - none are exactly "characteristic" of AN, even Klimt. Johnbod (talk) 17:00, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
Alright I wanted to say "print" instead of "painting", my bad. :) -- Horst-schlaemma (talk) 19:20, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Switch out pics under fine art section

how about this one
Hi, I'd like to mention that I think some of the pictures under the fine art section should be replaced. There's seven Mucha pics and while he was a great influence on Art Nouveau, Mucha does not represent the entire print/poster movement of Art Nouveau. Turn➦ 05:27, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
Maybe. The glass & ceramics sections also have lots of the same people, though nice pics. Meanwhile Klimt is right down at the bottom - how many ever get that far? Is that German banknote really AN, or worth having? Johnbod (talk) 02:27, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
.Good point. You may all try to help finding pics, I spent quite a lot of time trying to find for example glass & ceramics and was not much I found that was satisfactory. More and other print/poster would also be fine. And the pictures about Klimt and other artists should maybe presented differently. Hafspajen (talk) 02:38, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
I went and switched out two of the seven Mucha pictures but feel that they still aren't fully representative (especially when you have artists like Mackintosh and Toorop). I agree that Klimt should be presented differently. Maybe switch out a larger pic with a Klimt painting? The lack of diversity of ceramic/glass objects may be because of the selection on wikicommons but that is just my guess. Turn➦ 12:55, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
I've made some changes - the bank-notes are gone etc. Johnbod (talk) 02:56, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
Some quite good changes. Hafspajen (talk) 02:58, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
Thanks! That's it for now, Johnbod (talk) 03:01, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Proposed montage for lead image

I'd like to suggest that we have a montage for the lead image, as the French article on the subject does, which represents different media and the major countries involved. I've put together the image below, using images from the article, and would welcome your comments and suggestions. SiefkinDR (talk) 16:44, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

I don't like these, especially in visual subjects. The images are all too small. That's not to say the current puics don't have problems - the lead two are much too vertical, and enormous with a default setting of 300px, like I have. I don't think the top one is very representative either. Johnbod (talk) 17:01, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
How about this? The main advantage of a montage is that you can represent several aspects; architecture, graphic art, furniture, glass. all of the images in the montage can be clicked to enlarge them, and they are also found in the article itself, with more complete captions and descriptions. I agree that the present image is not typical of art nouveau, as described in the content of the article. How about this? It represents architecture, graphics, furniture, and glass. and Belgium, France, and the United States. Cordially, SiefkinDR (talk) 09:53, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
300px was too large. Just reduced to 220px. Coldcreation (talk) 10:18, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Art Nouveau. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 17:48, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Style Moderne

For a discussion on the term Style Moderne, its origins, its relation to Art Nouveau and subsequently Art Deco, refer to Talk:Art Deco, Style Moderne. Coldcreation (talk) 10:23, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Dear Coldcreation: Thanks for catching my error about Sagrada Familia; I didn't know it was Basilica. It doesn't seem like it's ever going to be finished, does it?

i'm going to be adding more illustrations and text to the sections on the national forms of Art Nouveau. I'm particularly interested in the Russian version, since I lived there for eight years. By the way, I'm moving a little towards your position on the term Style Moderne; I see that Bing mentions it by name in his advertising for the Maison de l'Art Nouveau, as he mentions Tiffany style. I still think Art Nouveau was the most common term used in France, along with the English 'Modern Style.' Jean Lahor mentions that the British and French showed their dislike for each other by using each other's terms for Art Nouveau. As for the use of "Style Moderne" for Art Deco,

I see that Alistair Duncan writes that most early Art Deco furniture and decoration from 1910 was only slightly different from Art Nouveau; Sue and Mare made a few stylized bouquets and garlands, added bright colors smoothed out some of the curves, and used very expensive woods and materials, but otherwise it was very similar; it was luxury furniture. The really modern version didn't arrive until the split within the Union of Decorative Artists after 1925 when they divided into the contemporaines and the modernists. Or at least that's Duncan's version. Somehow we'll sort it all out. Cordially, SiefkinDR (talk) 15:40, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Latvia section

What happened to the section about Art Nouveau in Latvia? Riga is the city with the highest concentration of Art Nouveau architecture anywhere in the world. Yakikaki (talk) 20:26, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Art Nouveau or Art nouveau?

I have real doubts about the wisdom of using The spelling Art nouveau instead of Art Nouveau in the text of the article. The common spelling in both US and British English is Art Nouveau; this spelling is used by Britannica, the Metropolitan Museum, The National Gallery and other sources. And in general in other articles. Snce this is the English language Wikipedia, shouldn't we use the generally accepted English terms? Respectfully, SiefkinDR (talk) 20:58, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. It has only been like this for a couple of months, and was changed without discussion. Feel free to change it back. Johnbod (talk) 03:54, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
This is an eternal problem here at wiki, between how terms are capitalized in the U.S. and how the same terms are not in France. Here we capitalize. Coldcreation (talk) 08:23, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
 Done. Coldcreation (talk) 07:17, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
Dear respected colleagues: Although in disagreement with above comments, Britannica included, RE the capitalization of nouveau in the name of an art period that is French-French, and as the guilty one at having corrected Anglo-French into Franco-French :) I hereby solemnly (and reluctantly) swear to leave Art Nouveau as is in article - so help me Seshat!
Cordially, --Blue Indigo (talk) 12:47, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Italicisation

AN is italicised throughout apart from in the article title and first words. Avant-garde isn't and Beaux-Arts architecture is inconsistent. Should AN be in italics where it is not part of a published work? Philafrenzy (talk) 21:35, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

I would regard the term as completely naturalised into English at this point, so not needing to be italicised. My old (78?) paper Britannica agrees. Awien (talk) 23:50, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
Absolutely, should not be italicized. I've gone ahead and removed italics from the term Art Nouveau. (Here's where italics were introduced). Coldcreation (talk) 04:57, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
I agree, no italics. Thanks for changing this. SiefkinDR (talk) 08:57, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Incomprehensible and unsourced text

"Art Nouveau architecture made use of many technological innovations of the late 19th century, especially the use of exposed iron and large, irregularly shaped pieces of glass for architecture. By the start of World War I, however, the stylised nature of Art Nouveau design began to be disused in favour of more streamlined, rectilinear modernism—thought to be more faithful to the plainer industrial aesthetic that became Art Deco."

I find this paragraph incomprehensible. Is it saying that art deco has a plain industrial aesthetic? Glass and iron were hardly innovations of the late 19th century; they were around since early part of the century. How did this section jump suddenly from art nouveau to modernism? How did it conclude that art deco emerged from industrial design? Streamlining came much later, not by the start of World War I. Since there's no citation, this appears to be someone's personal opinion. It needs to be better supported by facts and citations or it should be removed. SiefkinDR (talk) 16:08, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

I deleted it, its factually wrong and only leads to confusion.37.19.109.33 (talk) 22:44, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

How exactly can this article be improved to reach B level and what are its biggest shortfalls as of now ?

Curios to see how can this be improved — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.135.129.103 (talk) 14:58, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

That's a very good question. Did the the last rater give any indications? It seems to me to be pretty well cited, neutral and comprehensive.

I would say there are two things that could be done fairly easily and quickly.

1. Remove the rather large number of dead links
2. Add citations to sections without them or remove them. There aren't too many, but they stand out.

-It also might be possible to remove some duplication, where the same buildings or art are discussed in both the historical section and the sections by region, but some of that will probably be inevitable.

I'll see what I can do on the first two points, Cordially, SiefkinDR (talk) 17:57, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Deleted repetitive text

Deleted 3 instances of unsourced text that says the same in essence. Art Nouveau is succeeded by Art Deco. There is no need for that, it already says so in start of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.19.109.33 (talk) 22:52, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Merger proposal (Modernisme)

I propose that Modernisme be merged into Art Nouveau. It is Catalan term for Art Nouveau and I think it belongs here, would like to here what everyone thinks. MrStefanWolf (talk) 23:59, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Oppose - Like Vienna Secession sufficiently distinct, & with a decent article, to make this not beneficial. The header seems wrong! Johnbod (talk) 00:14, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
Oh wow I would propose Vienna Secession than too, think it would be good and helpful to have them all on one place (plus they are already mentioned cause they are regional Art Nouveau). Please fix if you can/want cause I am not so skilled in Wikipedia use. MrStefanWolf (talk) 00:30, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
Oppose per Johnbod. Coldcreation (talk) 03:00, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
Oppose; it is a distinct style, and merits a separate article.SiefkinDR (talk) 07:30, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
Although it is still early, consensus seems to be emerging. Since majority seems to be in favor of keeping distinct regional styles than according to consensus - Jugendstil Germany, Secession in Central Europe (some call it Hungarian secession), Stile Liberty(Italy), Tiffany Style (USA), World of Art (Russia) and Jugendstil in Nordic countries should have their own articles that should be cross-referenced (way this article can be improved already by linking existing articles). Cause it seems a bit inconsistent that Glasgow School, Vienna Secession and Catalan Modernisme have articles while others do not. Do not want to jump the shark thought, plenty of voices to be heard.MrStefanWolf (talk) 10:16, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Decorative arts and applied arts

What is the difference between applied arts and decorative arts? This new sentence in the lead seems to be a bit repetitive. SiefkinDR (talk) 15:01, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Do the links help? Perhaps not much. Generally the "applied" are more functional I think - the "decorative" include "ornaments" which have no use, such as say porcelain figures. Both are traditional classifications which use traditional categories that do not entirely stand up to analysis. But, say, the Paris Metro entrances are applied. Johnbod (talk) 15:02, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
Most of the sources I've looked at use the term "decorative arts". The Oxford English Dictionary defines it as "a style of decorative art and architecture..." The Collins English dictionary describes it as "a style of decoration and architecture." The Victoria and Albert Museum site calls it "the first new decorative style of the modern age." The only place I found the term "applied arts" was the site of the Metropolitan Museum, which calls it movement which "influenced art and architecture, especially the applied arts, graphic work, and illustration." The Tate Gallery site calls it "an international style in architecture and design."

I'm not sure the Paris metro entrances are a good example of applied art; they were meant to be purely decorative, not functional, and nearly all of them they were removed very shortly after they were installed and replaced with more functional designs. Art Nouveau was never designed to be functional; everything about that I can see is purely decorative.

Whatever definition we use of course has to be supported by citations. I think the the term "a style of architecture and decorative arts" has the strongest references. What do you think? Cordially SiefkinDR (talk) 15:38, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi SiefkinDR—I would change that sentence to read: "...is an international style of art, architecture, applied art, and decorative art, that was most popular between 1890 and 1910." Bus stop (talk) 14:50, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
That's a good suggestion, but I don't think it works as a concise summary of this article. I wouldn't include "Art" by itself, because there's very little about the fine arts in the article; the painters listed are not defined in the articles about them as Art Nouveau painters. For the most part the only thing Art Nouveau about them is period date they were active. And again I would recommend leaving out the applied arts, which seems to me to be defined exactly like decorative arts. What in the article is an example of applied arts but not decorative arts? I would prefer we use definition used in the (Oxford English dictionary, Websters, Victoria and Albert Museum, "an international style of architecture and decorative arts"; or we call it either 'design' like the Tate Gallery, or "applied arts" like the Metropolitan; but not both decorative and applied arts. I think "International style of architecture and decorative arts" is the most accurate, and, more important, the best-sourced. Cordinally, SiefkinDR (talk) 15:47, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
There's no shortage of refs using "Applied". "Art Nouveau was never designed to be functional; everything about that I can see is purely decorative." Really? A chair is functional, or light or plate. The Metro entrances clearly keep the rain off, and support a large sign. Johnbod (talk) 16:04, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
I guess if "decorative art" and "applied art" mean the same thing we can use one or the other. If given that choice I would choose "applied art". Bus stop (talk) 17:08, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
SiefkinDR—you are saying "I wouldn't include 'Art' by itself, because there's very little about the fine arts in the article; the painters listed are not defined in the articles about them as Art Nouveau painters" but there is a section on Vienna Secession including artists such as Gustav Klimt and Koloman Moser. Klimt's paintings I think would be fine art and not applied art. And I think they show an "art nouveau" sensibility. I'm not opposed to rewriting the lede but I'm not sure what it should be. Bus stop (talk) 04:17, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
I understand what you're saying, but I think it's important that we make a narrower definition in the lead, and especially important that the first sentence be supported by reliable sources. Otherwise, from my experience, people will be constantly re-writing it. I've not seen sources that say that Art Nouveau is a particular painting style. I know that Klimt and Moser are now included, but the two articles on those painters mention only Vienna Secesssion, and say nothing about them being Art Nouveau artists. They don't have any of the characteristics of Art Nouveau as currently defined in the article; particularly the influence of natural forms. Also, we still have a lead that describes Art Nouveau as being a form of both decorative and applied art, though those two things are virtually identical. Right now the definition in the lead is so broad as to include anything created in that time period. think it's too broad, and should be more specific. I think it's better to say a style of architecture and decorative art flourished in Europe between 1890 and 1914, that featured curves and forms taken nature. That describes nearly all the works now in the article. Or something similar, with a source. Cordially, SiefkinDR (talk) 18:45, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
I rather agree that Klimt, Moser and other Vienna Secesssion painters are not really, AN, though obviously related. But equally, many posters by various people clearly are AN, & should be treated as "fine art" (ie, not applied or decorative), despite their advertising function. Other artists such as Aubrey Beardsley clearly are AN. Johnbod (talk) 18:56, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
How about: "Art Nouveau (/ˌɑːrt nuːˈvoʊ, ˌɑːr/; French: [aʁ nuvo]) is an international style of art, architecture and applied art that was most popular between 1890 and 1910." It just removes "especially the decorative arts". Bus stop (talk) 19:06, 4 December 2018 (UTC)


That's not bad. It wasn't exactly international, it was only in Europe and the U.S.; Art Deco was the first really international style. How about "Art Nouveau was a highly decorative style of art, architecture and applied arts that flourished in Europe and The United States between 1890 and 1914."

I don't think I would include Beardsley in here as Art Nouveau. he certainly influenced it, but he died before the movement was really underway. We also could consider using the term "movement" rather than style, as the French do, since it contains a variety of different styles. SiefkinDR (talk) 20:30, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

I don't know why you say this - his career was entirely in the 1890s, from 1891/2, when the movement was surely "underway". Johnbod (talk) 19:45, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
Do sources support that it is a "highly decorative style of art"? Bus stop (talk) 05:51, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
I found these citations in a quick search; I'll look for some others.

Considered the first new decorative style of the modern age, Art Nouveau was an exotic and decadently modern departure from the French historical tradition." Victoria and Albert Museum, what is Art Nouveau?

"a style of decorative art and architecture popular in Europe and the U.S. at the end of the 19th century and beginning of the 20th century, that uses complicated designs and curved patterns based on natural shapes like leaves and flowers." Oxford English Dictionary


Encyclopedia Brittanica on-line: "am ornamental style of art that flourished between about 1890 and 1910 throughout Europe and the United States. Art Nouveau is characterized by its use of a long, sinuous, organic line and was employed most often in architecture, interior design, jewelry and glass design, posters, and illustration. It was a deliberate attempt to create a new style, free of the imitative historicism that dominated much of 19th-century art and design. Art Nouveau developed first in England and soon spread to the European continent, where it was called Jugendstil in Germany, Sezessionstil in Austria, Stile Floreale (or Stile Liberty) in Italy, and Modernismo (or Modernista) in Spain. The term Art Nouveau was coined by a gallery in Paris that exhibited much of this work."

Cordially, SiefkinDR (talk) 08:27, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Art Nouveau developed first in England? I learn something new everyday. I've always been under the impression it was Franco-Belgian in origin. In the French Larousse, it says "En 1895, le collectionneur et marchand français d'origine allemande Samuel Bing ouvre à Paris un magasin d'objets d'art et le baptise « L'Art nouveau », reprenant ainsi l'expression créée par la revue belge l'Art moderne, fondée en 1881." (Sorry for the French). It seems the ball got rolling with Eugène Viollet-le-Duc, in France, around 1863-1872. The first hint of Art Nouveau in England, according to Larousse, dates to 1888, unless we hark back to 1861, with William Morris, a disciple of John Ruskin; hardly Art Nouveau. Coldcreation (talk) 09:12, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
The Oxford Companions (Art & Decorative arts, largely the same entry) take the same English-first line, dating the style to "c. 1890-1910". Morris seems a deal closer to AN than Viollet-le-Duc, I must say. "When English creations began to appear a cry of delight sounded throughout Europe. Its echo can still be heard in every country" - Bing in 1898. Our article takes a similar line, with a French source. But many British designers were ambivalent or hostile - Walter Crane, whose style had been foreshadowing much of AN for years, called it "a strange decorative disease" when it arrived. Johnbod (talk) 09:37, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
The Metropolitan Museum of Art writes "Art Nouveau influenced art and architecture especially in the applied arts, graphic work, and illustration. Sinuous lines and 'whiplash' curves were derived, in part, from botanical studies and illustrations of deep-sea organisms."[4] I like that definition because it avoids the term "decorative" and includes the term "influenced". Bus stop (talk) 13:06, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

My problem with the Met description is that it that it doesn't actually define Art Nouveau, it just describes its influence and some examples of the style. Why are you so opposed to the term decorative to describe Art Nouveau? SiefkinDR (talk) 16:05, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

"Why are you so opposed to the term decorative to describe Art Nouveau?" It's just a meaningless term. You've said "And again I would recommend leaving out the applied arts, which seems to me to be defined exactly like decorative arts." If the two terms are so similar, and I agree they are similar, why not use one or the other? "Applied art" has a theoretical meaning, even if we can disagree as to which individual objects are examples of applied art and which are "fine art". But "decorative" has the unfortunate downside of trivializing an object. In its strict use—"the decorative arts"— I think it is similar to "the applied arts". But unfortunately the word lends itself to dismissing something as being "decorative", or "overly decorative", or "too decorative". My concern is the avoidance of value judgements. We're not concerned with whether art nouveau is good or bad. By the way the indentation on this page is a cross between the art nouveau sensibility and the art deco sensibility. Bus stop (talk) 17:12, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
The indentation here is almost Orphist. 19:04, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
@Johnbod: From article Viollet-le-Duc: [his] drawings of iron trusswork were innovative for the time. Many of his designs emphasizing iron would later influence the Art Nouveau movement, most noticeably in the work of Hector Guimard, Victor Horta, Antoni Gaudí and Hendrik Petrus Berlage.[1] Strange that there is no mention of AN at the William Morris article. Edit: No mention of AN at William Morris or John Ruskin articles either. Coldcreation (talk) 16:37, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Viollet-Le-Duc, Eugène-Emmanuel (1990). The Architectural Theory of Viollet-Le-Duc: Readings and Commentary. MIT Press.
And the longish Victor Horta gets by without mentioning Viollet-le-Duc! The index to Art Nouveau: A Research Guide for Design Reform in France, Belgium, England, and the United States, by Gabriel P. Weisberg, Elizabeth K. Menonm Routledge, 1998 has 10 entries for Viollet-le-Duc, but too many to count for Morris. Johnbod (talk) 19:29, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Copied sentence

Hi,

In the 'Jewelry' section, the sentence "Art Nouveau is characterized done by soft, curved shapes and lines, and usually features natural designs such as flowers, birds and other animals. The female body is a popular theme and is featured on a variety of jewelry pieces, especially cameos" is plagarised from the source cited, which reads "Art Nouveau [...] is characterized by soft, curved shapes and lines, and usually features natural designs such as flowers, birds, and animals. The female body is a popular theme and is featured on a variety of jewelry pieces, especially cameos." I have tagged the sentence for a copy edit in the absence of a more relevant tag.

Thank you. 2A02:C7F:4684:A300:B5F7:25C9:271A:1043 (talk) 13:39, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Length of the article with recent large edit

I have made a large edit and while most of it is self-explanatory I would like to comment on some aspects and my guiding principles when doing it:

There are discussions above that the article is already long and I deliberately made it 50% longer. Why?

  • While some areas or localities of the art movement were considered in detail, others were considered substantially less or were absent at all. I stand for equal consideration of different areas and localities (or corresponding to their importance).
  • In my opinion, information in current subsections is not enough for separate articles.
  • The movement was all about variety and I think the variety should be briefly but nevertheless shown in the each subsection. To cut a description of its local variation is difficult. What to delete and what not to delete among areas of the same importance? I suppose the length of "Art Nouveau in Riga" subsection is optimal: one row of pictures, couple of paragraphs below. But it should be beared in mind that the activity of Latvian masters in areas other that architecture and sculpture is rather unknown and this length would not suit e.g. "Modernisme" or "Vienna Secession" subsections.

Improver 03 04 (talk) 07:39, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your hard work and contribution. Article is already large but I think it does not go into details enough. While pictures are helpful as well as main representatives of style, what I would really need to learn more about this exciting topic is more expert analysis and explanation on respective regional variants. Thank you again, this must have been massive task. Aocdnw (talk) 16:56, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Section 2 "History" split

Section 2 History was not really a sequence (as it normally is with History sections)

  • The events behind the subsections 2.2 Maison de l'Art Nouveau (1895), 2.3 Beginning of Art Nouveau architecture (1893–1898) and 2.4 Paris Exposition universelle (1900) are also behind the subsections "Art Nouveau in France" and "Art Nouveau in Belgium and the Netherlands".
  • Many following subsections (e.g. Vienna Secession, Jugendstil in Germany, etc.) are covering events that happened before Paris Exposition universelle that constitutes the subsection 2.4.

Thus having two separate sections "History" and "Local variations" suits better.

Improver 03 04 (talk) 07:43, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Local variations: split, renaming, amendments of the content

  • I suggested that the place where artists lived and performed is more important that where they were from. Thus I moved Swiss artists acting in Paris to the section "Art Nouveau in France". The fact that Alphonse Mucha is already there supported me in that move,
  • As Modernisme was a regional movement of struggling for independece Catalonia and there were quite no Art Nouveau in Spain outside Catalonia I put Catalonia instead of Spain in the title of the subsection (like it is for Vienna Secession not featuring the fact that it is in Austria). However, when mentioning the country I attributed Catalan heritage to Spain,
  • The Hungarian movement was highly distinctive from others of Austro-Hungary so I extracted it to a new subsection while renaming the rest as "Secession in crown lands of Cisleithania",
  • As stated in the beginning of the article, Art Nouveau is the total art (Gesamtkunstwerk). But some local variations were hugely biased (e.g. Modernisme showing mostly architecture and Modern in Russia showing quite no architecture). So I added examples of other areas of application to these subsections.
  • In many local variations it is impossible to show all areas of application with one row of pictures. As their description is in separate paragraphs anyway I decided to add the second row of pictures when necessary. In my opinion, thus this section of the article became easier to read.
  • To show the wide variety of the movement in every case I tried to illustrate words with works of different artists from different countries. In case of local variations I tried to illustrated local distinctive features rather that better-known and more appreciated masterpieces that are just excellnet illustrations of the knowledge its creator imported from abroad. While the latter are important examples within the country, in the global scale they are neglectable.

Improver 03 04 (talk) 07:46, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Mosaics, sculpture and its relation with architecture

There were no subsections for mosaics and sculptures in the article so I added them. As for mosaics, I decided to put them under Ceramics. As for sculpture, it was really difficult to make clear distinction between it and ornamentation. In some sources small mascarons are considered as an ornament but if they are big they are sculpture and I failed to find the clear border. I would much appreciate if someone would make a better distiction. To the moment, I decided to put sculpture into a separate subsection and add ornamentation to the name of the Architecture section as ornaments were the distinctive feature of the movement.

Improver 03 04 (talk) 07:48, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Structures with Art Nouveau features but that are not mainly Art Nouveau

I deleted structures that are not mainly Art Nouveau (like Jubilee Synagogue in Prague that is mainly Moorish Revival).

There are lots of structures of other styles with Art Nouveau features in the world and I think they can be shown only in a separate subsection of "Relationship with contemporary styles and movements" if necessary. I don't think it is necessary (the article is already large that you can read in the above discussion).

Improver 03 04 (talk) 07:50, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

There are many artists or structures of the movement without pages in English Wikipedia but with pages in other languages of Latin script.

Wikipedia is all about the links so I added links to such pages.

The main reason why I think adding links to such pages can be helpful is that people who can read in English can get some basic information (pictures, dates, geographic names etc.) that is not presented in English Wikipedia, while knowing the language of the page is not required.

There is an opposition to that so I created this section to discuss this problem. Improver 03 04 (talk) 19:01, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree with the argument above. I think it's much more useful to create new articles in English, using the sources from the articles in other languages, rather than to link to the articles in other languages. Cordially, SiefkinDR (talk) 15:30, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
You brought the argument that is difficult to disagree with. I agree that creating new articles in English is better than referring to articles in other languages. But let's look practically: I added links to several dozens articles. How much time will it take to create exactly these (not some random) articles in English? How many new articles have been created e.g. last year? Links to pages of Ödön Faragó, Pál Horti, Miklós Zsolnay, Tádé Sikorski, Pierre-Adrien Dalpayrat, Albert Dammouse, Auguste Delaherche are in the article for more than a year. Guess how many articles in English about them were created in English last year? 0 of 7.
This example directly shows that it isn't worth counting on creation of new articles to artists mentioned here. While having links to Wikis in other languages can be helpful to the reader right now (as I wrote above).
And nevertheless, the argument you brought is not the reason to delete already added links. At your talk page you wrote "there was notice on the page that there were a large number of non-functioning links, which turned out to be the links to the Hungarian language Wikipedia". I would like to point your attention to the fact that the only notice I managed to find at the article after my edit was about disambiguation links, not about non-functioning ones. And it was not your edits that led to deleting the notice but edits of User:Natg 19. You can see it in the revision history: first Robot: adding dablinks template; 7 or more disambig links then Robot: removing dablinks template; fewer than 4 disambig links. If you bring other information I would admit my fault but for now your argument is misleading, pointing to the wrong reason for appearance of the notice.
You also brought the argument about the length of reflist that I didn't get. The reflist didn't change substantially after your edits.
So please bring real, reliable arguments for deleting the links. Improver 03 04 (talk) 17:23, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
My opinion is, that any deletion of material cannot be based on links to other WPs. In case such is disturbing someone, we may simply remove the links, but to delete entire sections with relevant persons mentioned is not an option, better the full unlinking in case and if in the future an article will be created here, we may link them again.(KIENGIR (talk) 17:33, 16 July 2019 (UTC))
I would mention not only deletion of the material but also deletion of citations for the material rewritten and left at the article. I asked User:SiefkinDR why he deleted the citation for the sentence about Otto Wagner that he rewrote (not changing its initial point) but got no answer. Improver 03 04 (talk) 18:40, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
By "material" I also considered citations and sources; all inclusive.(KIENGIR (talk) 18:43, 16 July 2019 (UTC))

The new sculpture and architecture sections

The new sculpture section seems to include any and all styles of sculpture from the period. The images show many works that lack the defining characteristics of Art Nouveau; that is to say, curving lines and whiplashes, and designs based on vegetal forms. They don't seem to be examples of decorative art. Not every work from the period was Art Nouveau, Art Nouveau was a decorative style. It's difficult to understand why many of these sculptures, and much of the architecture, is included here. What books or articles on Art Nouveau describe them as Art Nouveau? Same problem with the images of architecture; many of these works don't show any characteristics of the Art Nouveau, and are quite late. Cordially SiefkinDR (talk) 16:33, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

I am really surpised that after editing Vienna Secession section that was absolutely not about curving lines and whiplashes you bring this argument to the discussion. As it is stated in the beginning of the article, local variations were not exactly about the same expression as was initially in Art Nouveau in Belgium and France. And as I stated several sections above, I see the point of the article to examplify all the variety of the movement, not only curvy French and Belgian works of art.
E.g. where do you see curving lines and whiplashes, and designs based on vegetal forms in the Stoclet Palace? But it is in the article long before my edits and is attributed to Vienna Secession, that is included in overall/joint movement named by its initial variation i.e. Art Nouveau. I personally would not refer this building to Art Nouveau, it is rather an Art Deco building. But I don't have a strong argument that it is not of Vienna Secession and thus leave this building there.
Answering your question: the main source was the largest catalogue of Art Nouveau buildings in the world - http://art.nouveau.world/. Their criteria for inclusion are rather strict and thus buildings like The Jubilee Synagogue in Prague or Culture house in Skalica are not listed there. By the way, where do you find curving lines and whiplashes, and designs based on vegetal forms at the facade of Culture house in Skalica? And why didn't you oppose under the same reason to The Jubilee Synagogue that is definitely more Moorish than Art Nouveau? Both buildings were in the article for more than a year.
Some other sources were also used, too: e.g. Sprudelhof is the most prominent Jugendstil structure of Bad Nauheim, and you can find plenty of references and attributions about that, e.g. in Atlas of Art Nouveau (https://aboutartnouveau.wordpress.com/art-nouveau-atlas/), more precisely Jugendstil map of Bad Nauheim there (https://www.google.com/maps/d/u/0/viewer?ll=50.3646263993922%2C8.740807335735099&z=16&mid=1hUysfs7eybCRFd2Zf7a7vPAr_kfNgy8t), there is also information about Bad Nauheim and Sprudelhof at websites of both professional associations of Art Nouveau: Art Nouveau European Route (http://www.artnouveau.eu/en/city.php?id=8 page) and Réseau Art Nouveau Network (http://www.artnouveau-net.eu/Cities/AE/BadNauheim/tabid/87/language/en-GB/Default.aspx).
I didn't get the argument "are quite late". If you meant that some works were created after the style had faded I would like to point out that the fall of the style was not simultaneous all over the world: e.g. in South America, Catalonia and Portugal the style was still in use in 1920s and even in 1930s. And the inception of Modernisme is regarded to 1880s even though "parenting" Art Nouveau style was not born yet then. You disregard the value of pages in other languages but it is at the page of Café Majestic is Portugese (that you didn't exclude from the article though) you can find that this building is referenced to Arte Nova, though being built in 1921. And Casa Domènech i Montaner of 1918 is regarded as the last modernist work of Lluís Domènech i Montaner (see Lluís_Domènech_i_Montaner#The_major_works).
We can discuss specific examples as the reasons, sources are different from case to case. Improver 03 04 (talk) 18:31, 16 July 2019 (UTC)


The article, unfortunately, is turing into a catalog of every possible work that could be considered Art Nouveau in the world, with very little supporting text and very few supporting citations. Many of the works included are very far from the style described in the beginning of the article. If that's where it's going, it will very soon oon need to broken up into separate articles by country. SiefkinDR (talk) 09
19, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
I understand the reason why you posted this concern here but this subject is covered in the above section Length of the article with recent large edit.
I agree with you that creating separate articles for every local variation is the future. Some articles already exist: e.g. for Vienna Secession, Catalan Modernisme, for Art Nouveau architecture in Russia and Riga. Thus the question of optimal representation of a local variation in this overall article rises. In that section of the talk page I suggested that the Riga example is optimal, but this still is the subject of discussion. I will not support that the optimal length of a local variations' section is 1 row with just a link to the respective detailed article, without pictures. But other options could be considered.
I don't understand your exxageration about "every possible work that could be considered Art Nouveau". You know well that there are thousands of Art Nouveau objects in the world and here only 100-200 of them are mentioned. If you don't understand the reason of widening the article (that I expressed at this page above) I would write again in other words.
According to representation in global professional associations, only the minority of the existing variety was covered in the article. Of 19 municipalities making Réseau Art Nouveau Network (RANN) only 6 were substantionally covered in the article (Barcelona, Brussels, Glasgow, Lombardy, Nancy, Vienna) + Paris (that is traditionally outside of associations). Let alone Art Nouveau European Route (ANER) association with 77 members. There was no meaning at all of 6 RANN+ANER members (Ålesund, Bad Nauheim, Havana, Ljubljana, La Chaux-de-Fonds, Subotica), just brief meaning with no details (especially for architecture) of 4 others (Aveiro, Budapest, Darmstadt, Riga).
Now there is still no meaning of Oradea and Melilla, quite nothing about Terrassa and Havana, short mentioning of Subotica was deleted by you. But at least all major local variations are represented (Oradea and Subotica are of Hungarian Szecesszió; Melilla, Terrassa and Havana - of Catalan Modernisme). And one of editors has already expressed delight at the mentioned above section of the talk page (along with your expression of discontent with the edits).
I agree with you that more citations in Sculpture and Architecture sections would be helpful and I will add them with one of my forthcoming edits. I don't think it is a good idea to put citation at the gallery (to the moment no gallery in the acticle has citations) but it is worth adding them to the text.
But generally, the whole argument about "very little supporting text and very few supporting citations" is extremely surprising. Why do you pose the question about the lack of supporting text with citations if it were you who deleted them with your edits?
Moreover, if you are against lenghty descriptions with "very few supporting citations", why didn't you draw your attention to the Furniture section?
  • it already has the main article for it,
  • for more than 5000 symbols it has ony 4 citations (as far as I can count),
  • it has 14 pictures in the gallery
None of its dubious "achievements" were surpassed by recent edits, but you express your concerns only now (while this section stays roughly unchanged for more than a year).
Finally, your wrote "Many of the works included are very far from the style described in the beginning of the article" after my attempts to clarify that local variations are not looking exactly as Art Nouveau in Belgium and France (that is the style described in the beginning of the article, namely in "History" section). If you still don't get it and are unhappy about that - why don't you intend to delete Vienna Secession, Glasgow Style (and Nordic Judengstil with them) from the article completely (as they are not about curves and whiplashes)?
Improver 03 04 (talk) 19:07, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
I realized that the route of the problem is that the global movement bears the name of Franco-Belgian variation and it leads to confusion as characteristics of the former are much wider than ones of the latter. Maybe creating the article Art Nouveau in France and Belgium will be a solution? Subsections 2.2-2.4 of the History could also be moved there. Now they mostly represent the history of Franco-Belgian variation, while the history of other variations is represented in Section 2 only briefly and confusingly (e.g. The 1888 Barcelona Universal Exposition that incepted Catalan Modernisme is mentioned at the end of History section, after sections for 1893-1898, 1895 and 1900) and is mostly covered in the subsections of respective variations (e.g. Jugend magazine is mentioned within History section only in Origins, the history of Jugendstil it have birth to is covered outside the History section).
I see 2 advantages of the proposal: firstly, no styles that are not about curves and whiplashes will be represented at that article, secondly, the article about the global movement will become smaller while not losing in variety of represented variations. What do you think about that? Improver 03 04 (talk) 07:23, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
That's a move in the wrong direction, frankly. The article is now certainly too long, at 148k raw bytes. A number of the smaller sections should be moved off to more specific articles - in most cases adding to existing ones, rather than starting new ones. For example the section here on Art Nouveau furniture is longer than the supposed "main article", and should go there, with a few lines of text and a row of pictures here. Much of the local architecture should go to the local "Architecture of Fooland" articles, which in the great majority of cases have very little on Art Nouveau. Johnbod (talk) 12:27, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
I agree with you on Art Nouveau Furniture. That's what I wrote in this section above - in my opinion, cutting the article should start from it.
As for cutting of local architecture, I suppose we shoud first define the purpose of the article. As I have described it above, I see showing variety of local application is what this article should be about. Again, with 100K it covered only 6 members of RANN out of 19 + Paris, it is a very narrow coverage, Art Nouveau was not that limited to major centres.
I would suggest discussing the length of the article and its parts in the section I had created especially for that: Length of the article with recent large edit. The section I write these words in was initially created to discuss Architecture and Sculpture subsections.
As for the overall direction of edits, you also can see positive feedback on widening the coverage of the article in that section + that my edit was also thanked. So yes, it is long but filled with what people need rather than fluff. Improver 03 04 (talk) 18:24, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
That's an intriguing idea, to cut out the "French-Belgian" variation and have a separate article on Art Nouveau without mentioning them. What would you call the article on the rest of Art Nouveau, without the French and Belgian versions? You can't very well call it Art Nouveau. Cordially, SiefkinDR (talk) 14:42, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
I didn't mean to cut it completely. I meant following the model of Catalan modernisme: short (or not so short, as for now) description and gallery in the overall article with the detailed information on the topic at the main article. Improver 03 04 (talk) 18:24, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Other points

The article has historically used British English, and should continue to do so per WP:ENGVAR. Also please note that in English (of either sort) art has motifs and not "motives" (since about 1890 anyway). The lead is ridiculously short for the article as it now is, & I also think the sections "Form and character" and "Relationship with contemporary styles and movements", should be far higher, certainly above the local stuff, & probably above the history. "Branches of application" should probably be above the "local variations" too, especially as this is sooooo long. Johnbod (talk) 12:27, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Interesting ideas about the structure. I agree the lead could be a bit longer, but given the large number of national variants and genres, it's hard to see how it couldn't turn out to be extremely long. The Art Deco model isn't too bad; Origins and brief history; influences (at least the major ones, as this could also get very long); by genres (architecture, decorative arts, etc.) then by region/country. Form and character is tricky, because of all the regional differences. I don't know if it's realistic to include every genre for every region or country. It could also be a more graphic and summary form, with a separate box on each country, with the names and links to the leading 2-3 architects, artists and buildings. Most important is that it stick to verifiable facts (names, dates, places,) with good images and not get into an academic discussion of who influenced what. Cordinally, SiefkinDR (talk) 16:04, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
No, the lead needs to be considerably longer - see WP:LEDE. It could be all sorts of lengths, within policy; I don't really understand why "it's hard to see how it couldn't turn out to be extremely long". Please don't leave blank lines before your replies. Johnbod (talk) 16:26, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
Actually the lead was mostly better back in 2016, before you started editing the article! One might just restore that, with modest changes. Remember that a very high proportion of our readers only read the lead, and most often not all of that (especially when the next bit is a long section giving the Finnish name etc etc). Johnbod (talk) 16:47, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for posting a link to a version from 2016. I like its general sequence of sections more the than present one. I support moving "Form and character" above "History". But I would like to note that this section should be rewritten as it now represents only whiplashes&curves of the initial style in Belgium and France, while ignoring straight lines of Vienna Secession, Nordic National Romanticism etc. That is what we discuss at this talk page in the section above.
I would also support moving "Relationship with contemporary styles and movements" above "History" if it did not break the logic: the first and detailed mentioning of Arts&Craft movement is in "History" and thus in the subsequent "Relationship with contemporary styles and movements" it is covered only briefly. I would support first rewriting these sections and then moving "Relationship with contemporary styles and movements" above "History".
As for moving "Branches of application" above "Local variations" I am not that sure but I would not be against it if done.
By the way, do you remember what was the main reason to change the overall sequence of the sections?
And thank you for correcting me about "motifs". Improver 03 04 (talk) 19:09, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
Actually I started editing the article in 2015. Cordially, SiefkinDR (talk) 18:42, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
As to the organization of the lead and the article, I would suggest we follow the plan of the Art Deco article, which faces very similar issues of multiple genres, origins and countries.
1. Naming
2. Influences and beginning
3. History: briefly, how it spread and when and how it ended.
5. Genres: Architecture, painting and graphics, furniture and interior design, glass, etc, with small number of selected examples of each.
6. Geographic reach, by region or country. Leading 2-3 artists and works per country.
This structure seemed to cover the topic, and an even longer period, without getting too long. What do you think? Cordially,

SiefkinDR (talk) 18:28, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

That might be too long, especially 6, and including examples (also 5). Only the main countries need to be mentioned individually I think. What is key, and difficult, is a useful & concise summary of what the style looks like. The old version had this, but as pointed out above, pretty much only dealing with the whiplashes&curves stuff. Why don't you try a draft here, for comments? Johnbod (talk) 19:45, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
I agree with the general sequence and disagree with limitations you try to pose. As I stated at another section of this Talk page, what is the purpose of the article? I see the purpose in showing/exploring the existing variety and thus giving hints what to study next.
The long-going notion is that the article is too long. But do we have sufficient data on how people browse the page? That most users do actually look through all these dozens of subsections the article now? If yes, I would like to see the statistics. Or do most of them choose what they are interested and explore only that leaving the rest unread (and thus the notion of article length is irrelevant)? I suppose the latter could be the case as the web goes mobile. Unfortunately, I haven't stumpled uopn data on Wikipedia, but I suppose the trend is also true for it. And at mobile version all sections are hidden by default and you have to manually open it (that is contrary to the logic of desktop version where all the content is by default shown to everybody).
The next issue is Leading 2-3 artists and works per country. My first question is How do you suggest to define who is leading when there are 5-7 well-known leaders?. E.g. for Finland, Cisleithania, etc. The second one is If there are that many genres do you mean that with listing ONLY 2-3 leaders some genres will be inevitably not covered? As it was for Catalonia were 2-3 leading artists are architects of UNSECO World Heritage objects and thus painting, sculpture are other genres were not covered? The third is Where do you propose to put existing information from the article that you think is odd now? To stub articles? Or to delete it from Wikipedia completely? As I have shown in the example of artists with pages only in other languages at this Talk page above, there is low probability that these articles will be developed in near future. And most genres and regions do not have their own main articles now.
And when it comes to Only the main countries need to be mentioned individually, how do you propose to define main countries? By which criteria? E.g. before I started editing the article Hungarian Szecesszió didn't have its own subsection and its leading artist was not even mentioned in the article. While in RANN 4 cities of 17 do represent the former kingdom (isn't the percentage huge? For comparison, only 6 cities of 17 + Paris (that is out of RANN) were covered in the article then). Improver 03 04 (talk) 04:03, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
I would also like to comment on the proposed restoration of the lead.
The point of my edit of the lead was to remove duplication with the Naming section where quite the same is written (in the general trend to cut duplications and reduce the length of the article). Thus I think it is not a good idea to restore the lead unchanged. I suppose only the distinctive movements (Judendstil, Secession, Modermisme, National Romanticism, Style Liberty, Tiffany Style, etc.) that are included in the Art Nouveau in global scale are worth mentioning in the lead, while all local variations of their naming should be left in Naming. The mentioning should not be language-centered (as it was before and is in Naming now) but rather movement-centered as it is movements that we want to underline in the first place, while how they are called in different languages is covered in Naming.
The discussion at this section mainly goes in the direction of overall structure of the page. Maybe it is worth to move the part concerning the lead to the separate section? Improver 03 04 (talk) 04:36, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
These are the guidelines to be followed for the lead, according to tke manual of style.
"The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies.[2] The notability of the article's subject is usually established in the first few sentences. As in the body of the article itself, the emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources. Apart from basic facts, significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article.
As a general rule of thumb, a lead section should contain no more than four well-composed paragraphs and be carefully sourced as appropriate."
Cordially, SiefkinDR (talk) 15:41, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of section on "World Art Nouveau Day"

The section on "World Art Nouveau Day" needs to be deleted. It gives no information at all on the style, and appears to be purely for the purpose of promoting tourism and tourist organizations. All of the "citations" go to tourism promotion sites. Wikipedia should not be used for promoting events or organizations. Cordially, SiefkinDR (talk) 14:58, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

I support deletion.
But excuse me, what was the reason to create this section yesterday and then to suggest deleting it the next day? Why not to suggest deleting this sentence without creating a section for it?
I appreciate you moved this sentence out of the lead but don't think I was worth creating a special section for this sentence. Improver 03 04 (talk) 19:16, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
I apologize for my delay in deleting. I moved it first, then looked at the citations and saw it was mainly a promotional site. Cordially, SiefkinDR (talk) 04:35, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
It doesn't belong in the lead, so it's own section was an obvious choice, given it doesn't really fit in elsewhere. But it is probably WP:UNDUE anywhere, except "See also". It is in the category. It still seems to be going on in 2019, and here, but in pretty low key way. The category is enough I think. Johnbod (talk) 13:39, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Jugendstil

Jugendstil redirects here, - can it please appear in the lead? Yes, I know it goes to a section, but still. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:43, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

I have proposed just above returning to to an old version of the lead, where in fact it was mentioned, and bolded. Another reason to do so. Meanwhile I have bolded it, which it should be as it redirects here. The discussions above could do with more eyes. Johnbod (talk) 17:09, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
The point of my edit deleting Jugendstil from the lead was to remove duplication with the Naming section where quite the same is written (in the general trend to cut duplications and reduce the length of the article). I didn't consider the importance of mentioning Judendstil, Secession, Modermisme there as distinctive movements that are included in the Art Nouveau in global scale. Thus I think it is not a good idea to restore the lead unchanged. I suppose it is worth mentioning only the distinctive movements in the lead while all local variations of their naming should be left in Naming. Improver 03 04 (talk) 04:21, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Saint Petersburg Mosque

Are you sure this is Art Nouveau? It looks very Persian architecture and main article has no mention of style. Aocdnw (talk) 17:33, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Yes, it seems pretty straightforward "Central Asian Revival". I'll remove it. I doubt this is the only over-optimistic attribution in the article. Johnbod (talk) 19:50, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
I agree with you about I doubt this is the only over-optimistic attribution in the article. What do you think about Culture house in Skalica (mentioned in Cisleithania section)? I suppose it also lacks Art Nouveau features to be mentioned here but was not that sure as with Jubilee Synagogue. Improver 03 04 (talk) 04:40, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
The mosque does not follow French and Belgian Art Nouveau but is attributed as the mix of Persian architecture and National Romantic style (that is a part of global Art Nouveau movement). It is attributed as National Romantic e.g. in Wikidata: [[5]] There are plenty of other resources that attribute it to National Romantic style but they are all in Russian.
If under main article you mean Art Nouveau architecture in Russia it is written there "The mosque and the church at the list above are not pure National Romantic - they are influenced by Islamic and Romanesque architecture respectively".
But if Jubilee synagogue in Prague was deleted from the article for the same reason and the article is generally to be cut - I agree with deletion of the mosque. Improver 03 04 (talk) 13:41, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
No, I meant article about mosque itself. It says "The architect Nikolai Vasilyev patterned the mosque after Gur-e Amir, the tomb of Tamerlane in Samarkand". Aocdnw (talk) 16:20, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
It would be good idea to add reference in Art Nouveau architecture in Russia even if it is on Russian. Aocdnw (talk) 16:36, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the idea. I will add citations to the mosque and catholic church (that is also not purely National Romantic with the next edit. Improver 03 04 (talk) 04:12, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

as an aside

I find it a bit sad that 22, Rue du Général de Castelnau has been thrown out as an example of Art Nouveau house. Not only is it a remarkable building and a Monument historique, it also housed the office of its two architects, Lütke and Backes, who were masterful exponents of the style, and deserve more recognition. --Edelseider (talk) 11:41, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

I was sad to see Louis Sullivan removed, one of pioneers of modern architecture. His main page Louis Sullivan and Britannica page [6] say he worked in Art Nouveau.
I am also sad to see Vienna Secession compared to Jugendstil and not treated as style on its on, even if there were artist and architects taking part in both variants. I also think "The Secession style was notably more feminine" to be wrong. Its symmetry, bold geometric shapes and use of line appear more masculine to me than general Art Nouveau and Jugendstil.
And I second your grief, it looks so clean and Parisian, not counting notability related to architects since I do not have that much knowledge on topic. Aocdnw (talk) 15:43, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
Yes, the article as it now is largely the result of two waves of heavy editing by individuals following their own taste, with no consultation. So it has all sorts of issues. Johnbod (talk) 15:52, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
I believe you complained that the lead was too short and didn't contain enough information. This is an attempt to correct that. I welcome your comments and suggestions.

I'd also like to get your opinion on the very large number of links to tourism promotions ties that have been added lately. I don't think that is the purpose of this article, and I'm sure you don't either. Cordinally, SiefkinDR (talk) 16:57, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

We surely can all agree on the fact that tourism promotion is not a purpose of Wikipedia... but also, that tourism is one of the elements that keeps these buildings and cityscapes alive! --Edelseider (talk) 17:09, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
Reply to Johnbod so there is no confusion. I see you review Good Articles and have knowledge in this topic. Can you give some pointers, maybe start discussion with section by section basis so we can comment and help out or something similar. I would love to help on this topic when it comes to references and general input. I realize this could be massive work and I am maybe asking too much. Cheers! Aocdnw (talk) 19:19, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
Yes, I'm afraid it would be a massive amount, though I agree it would be good to do it. As you can see above, both the editors concerned has a talent for lengthy talk page responses which rather smother the chances of getting anywhere. This article isn't central to my interests, & someone else should take it on. Sorry! PS: That's not to say that many of their changes aren't positive. Johnbod (talk) 23:26, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
I removed 22, Rue du Général de Castelnau not because I thought it isn't worth of mentioning but because the information in Architecture subsection was mostly repeating one of above sections, and images did not feature any specific ornamemtation nor architectural details. Besides that subsection, it was not mentioned anywhere in the article. If you find a picture that would exemplify any part of the followong text of the subsection not worse that any existing images do, I would not be against restoring its meaning (as long as it even has its own page). I am not attached to any of the images in the subsection. Their task is only to visualise the text. Improver 03 04 (talk) 14:52, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Too much tourism promotion

A growing number of the citations in the article, and a majority of the most recent citations, are tourism promotion, with citations to magazines and sites which are promoting tourism to certain Art Nouveau sites. That is not the function of Wikipedia. These need to be replaced by sources that are neutral and more serious, or the material taken out. Some of the information is certainly questionable, such as the claim that Le Corbusier was an Art Nouveau architect. This article needs to avoid being turned into a tourism promotion site. Please. Cordinally, SiefkinDR (talk) 16:43, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Did you know that the really small and beautiful town of Guebwiller has some very cute Art Nouveau architecture? Category:Art Nouveau houses in Guebwiller. This is my kind of private tourism promotion... :) I can see your point very well but once you point out a place of obvious interest, it is difficult not to invite or incite people to go there! --Edelseider (talk) 17:14, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
I certainly have no problem with articles on European towns, but this is an article on a style of decorative art, and it really needs to focus on the history and characteristics of the style, based on verifiable and reliable sources, rather than a list of places to visit. There are lots of sites for that. Cordially, SiefkinDR (talk) 18:35, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Völkerschlachtdenkmal

The Monument to the Battle of the Nations is one of most impressive buildings of its kind. It is also emphatically not Art Nouveau. It is associated with the movement Leipziger Sezession, which was co-founded by the major artist, Max Klinger... a towering figure of symbolism. The MBN should be associated with symbolism and eclecticism, but not with Art Nouveau! --Edelseider (talk) 19:02, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Max Klinger certainly did work in Jugendstil and Vienna Secession styles. He created Beethoven sculpture for famous and praised 14th Exhibition of Vienna Secession. His sculpture was center piece of entire exhibition, it even says so on his page. My layman impression is that sculptures inside the Monument are Jugendstil. Also it appears those sculptures were done by Franz Metzner. Aocdnw (talk) 19:16, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
Layman impressions are rarely good enough. I have visited the monument twice and there is nothing Jugendstil about it. The Leipzig Museum of Fine Arts owns the most important collection of Klinger works, both in size and in importance. I have seen the Beethoven statue there. As a matter of fact, symbolism has both predated and influenced Art Nouveau (with people like Fernand Khnopff, Arnold Böcklin, Odilon Redon, late Gustave Moreau, Franz von Stuck, Giovanni Segantini, and Klinger), and there is absolutely nothing contradictory in the fact that Klinger was a symbolist and an occasional collaborator with the Vienna Secession, especially since Gustav Klimt (and Koloman Moser, and others) came from symbolism, too.
As for Franz Metzner, he was as close to symbolism as he was to Jugendstil, and in the particular case of the MND, he followed the iconographic program of the architect, Bruno Schmitz, who was an eclecticist. --Edelseider (talk) 19:29, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
Exactly, I do not know why you are pointing out him as towering figure of symbolism, that would not automatically exclude him from being Art Nouveau as well. Metzner page says " was an influential German sculptor, particularly his sculptural figures integrated into the architecture of Central European public buildings in the Art Nouveau / Jugendstil / Vienna Secession period. His style is difficult to classify". Just saying. Aocdnw (talk) 19:35, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
And you are damn right to say. But I recommend the German article instead. In general, the German articles on German artists are better than the English articles on the same subject, because of the accessibility of the sources. The only exceptions are the top artists about whom many books have been written in English as well, such as Hans Holbein the Younger. Franz Metzner is rather obscure, even for Germans. The connection to Klinger is that the latter was the dominating artist in Leipzig at the time when the MND was built. --Edelseider (talk) 19:41, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Art Nouveau in Strasbourg

Art Nouveau in Strasbourg (yep, that town again... and why not?) is just as specific and idiosyncratic as it is in Barcelona or Vienna. Because the city is at the crossroads between Germany and France, it has taken influences from both, and shaped them according to the rather more conservative taste of the locals. Don't take my word for it, here are excellent, non-tourist sources: [7]; [8]. I think that we should mention this somewhere in between "Art Nouveau in France" and "Jugendstil in Germany". --Edelseider (talk) 13:55, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

As Strasbourg was the part of German Empire then and most architects who worked there were Germans, I suppose it should be mentioned in Jugendstil. However, the city is not a member of any Art Nouveau associations (while in Art Nouveau European Route there are 77 members). I personally agree that Strasbourg should be mentioned but it is just the fact that its Art Nouveau Heritage is minor. And there is an opposition among editors of the article to add more cities "as the article is already sooo long". Thus if I were you I would rather bring independent sources to confirm the importance of Strasbourg's Art Nouveau heritage to withstand the opposition. Yes, these sources are probably "touristic". Improver 03 04 (talk) 14:34, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
No, these sources are not touristic, they are pedagogic. The CRDP is affiliated to the French Ministry of Education and the University of Strasbourg. The other link is to a high school research project. Bad move, Improver 03 04! --Edelseider (talk) 14:44, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
I think it should be mentioned, it is notable. Problem is, article is too long and we are glossing over many things. What we really need is more articles on regional variants we could link to in depth reading. We do not have article Art Nouveau in France and we really should. Aocdnw (talk) 15:11, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
Excuse my English, I should have written "these sources would probably be touristic". I meant not that two you brought but other ones, that ideally should be unbiased. Because these two are obviously from Strasbourg. And for proposed edits to be generally supported sources, supporting notability of Art Nouveau in Strasbourg should be unbiased.
I totally agree with Aocdnw about creation of an article for Art Nouveau in France in genetal or Art Nouveau in Strasbourg. We don't have many of these kind of articles. And they would enable to deliver new information and value without making this article substantially bigger. As for Art Nouveau in France, I have already proposed it to make this article less Parisian, as Aocdnw presented it: thus the general bias of the article to Franco-Belgian Art Nouveau could be moved there. Improver 03 04 (talk) 02:06, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
In fact, there is an article Art Nouveau à Strasbourg on French Wikipedia, along with Art nouveau à Paris. :) --Edelseider (talk) 07:23, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
Yes, there are lots of articles about Art Nouveau in different languages. And if they appear in English Wikipedia, that would be great. Improver 03 04 (talk) 13:16, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
And you can add a link to Art Nouveau à Strasbourg at Art Nouveau and let's see what happen :) Improver 03 04 (talk) 15:38, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
The French article on the Art Nouveau topic is a mess. Have a stroll through this nice room instead. ;) --Edelseider (talk) 15:43, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Yo, folks, I did it: Art Nouveau in Strasbourg. --Edelseider (talk) 15:52, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Proposal for cutting Section 2 History

As Timeline of Art Nouveau is added as the main article for the section, I propose to substantially cut Section 2 History (except subsection 2.1 Origins as they are not covered in that article). Improver 03 04 (talk) 14:25, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

If we were to cut something from History I suggest that be "Beginning of Art Nouveau architecture (1893–1898)", maybe even entire section. We already have heavy focus on architecture in general. Second section would be "Paris Exposition universelle (1900)", I don't think we need all these pictures and descriptions. We of course have to mention it, but we already have main article for that topic and should link it via Main article. Aocdnw (talk) 15:09, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
Totally agree. Improver 03 04 (talk) 02:22, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
Sorry, but totally disagree. How can you have an article about Art Nouveau without explaining how it originated? How can you skip or cut down the the Paris Universal Exposition, which made Art Nouveau known to the world? You would have to change the name of the article to something else, because it wouldn't be about Art Nouveau. Cordially, SiefkinDR (talk) 09:19, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
I say you are right, SiefkinDR. --Edelseider (talk) 09:29, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
No one said it should be removed, just trimmed down. Also, think it was Barcelona Exposition that made Art Nouveau know to the world, that is what article says. I would reiterate that we have heavy French Nouveau bias in article as is. Aocdnw (talk) 09:56, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Consensus building and improvement of article

It appears to me we have reached consensus for

  • In this article, in subsections like sculpture, painting etc. we only put things that are pure or close to pure Art Nouveau
  • Unique regional variants go in regional subsections
  • Article is too long
  • We lack articles on regional variants
  • All editors have little bias for certain variants (expected for art topics)

Did I miss something and is there objection for statements above? Feel free to give input. I propose creating large section for article improvement and list all subsections we have in article there so we can consolidate subject and not have so many topics. I also propose archiving all discussion before 2019 since have vibrant discussion going on. When it comes to further consensus on article in general we can use this topic and add subsections, my attempt to little organize things. Cheers! Aocdnw (talk) 15:22, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

You are correct on all points, except maybe for the length. The topic deserves a long article.
What I think must be integrated more clearly and forcefully is (as I mentioned above) the relationship between Art Nouveau and symbolism. It is alluded to in several places, but without a definition of what are the differences and the common denominators. --Edelseider (talk) 17:44, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
I would also add to written by Edelseider that Secession in art in general should also be covered. There is Sonderbund westdeutscher Kunstfreunde und Künstler presented in the article forSecession in art along with Secessions already presented here. Thus it should be explained why it is not included in Art Nouveau. Improver 03 04 (talk) 07:02, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
I agree with Edelseider: yes, we have reached consensus on everything except the length. I have already written above that the percentage of users reaching the article via the mobile version should probably be growing and there the problem of the length of the article is not that vital.
I am not against archiving but I don't see the point. Everybody who wants easily sees where is an old discussion and where is recent one.
I also would like to ask you to join discussion at the section below if you have different opinion in comparison with what is written by its creator. Improver 03 04 (talk) 02:19, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

I would also like to point out the notion that the article is biased to French/Belgian eponymous variation (Aocdnw even brought that the article looks Parisian) not covering other variations enough. Improver 03 04 (talk) 07:02, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Problems with Organization and Sources

Keep the history section

The history section should be retained. It's a feature of all the articles on major art movements and styles. The Timeline is interesting, but it gives only single sentence to such events as the 1900 Paris Exposition, and many other events. The other problem is the sourcing; the section has a single source, which appears to be a promotional site. That's not an adequate source. This section could be okay as a standalone article, if the sources are improved, but not as a substitute for an actual history of how Art Nouveau developed.

I didn't mean to delete the History section completely, rather to cut it, as we seek opportunities to cut the artcile. The History section has lots of sources now and can be moved to the separate Main article of its kind. I also think that the Timeline made it clear that the narrative presented in the History section is rather not correct (e.g. there was a huge Modenisme activity before Art Nouveau incepted but later Modenisme became a part Art Nouveau, not vice versa, this kind of fact is not adequately covered in the History section, there is only a brief sentence about the exhibition in Barcelona in 1888. Improver 03 04 (talk) 02:32, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
And when it comes to sources, the article now presents no sources supporting that 1900 Paris Exposition was really that important (e.g. much more important than Exposition in Barcelona in 1888) not to be cut to a single sentence. If you want other editors to support your views, please provide good sources for the claim.
By the way, the new lead is a explanation of history of the movement. Any claims that the History should be covered in more detail than several paragraphs (especially as there are Main articles for some events and the Timeline article) should be supported by good sources. Improver 03 04 (talk) 06:49, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Architecture Section

The architecture section is too short, You can't cover Art Nouveau architecture with four pictures; and doesn't adequately discuss the subject. It also has only a single source, what appears to be a commercial site. This section should be giving examples of architectural features from different countries, showing what they have in common and differences. At some point there could be a separate article on Art Nouveau architecture, and when that exists this section could link to that; but there needs to be a good architecture section now.

I agree with what you presented here. I would like to point out further that even though the section is far from ideal, it has become better than it had been. I have this opinion because previously the section also was not about details and comparison about different variations. And now it at least lists details.
The proposed change is necessary but rather difficult to take. A person should study and cite so many sources for you (and not only you) not to blame him or her for bad sources and irrelevant opinion. Improver 03 04 (talk) 02:39, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
Moreover, if you think that This section should be giving examples ... from different countries, showing what they have in common and differences, then sections of Form and character and many subsections for genres should be rewritten too, as they present mostly French/Belgian variation now. And by the way, it will make the article even larger (I am not against it, I just would like to express that better/deeper is often is an enemy of larger).Improver 03 04 (talk) 06:40, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Furniture Section

Furniture was an extremely important feature of Art Nouveau. You can't cover it in a single paragraph; This section also lacks any sources.

Why aren't you happy with the approach that all the sources and details should be covered in the main articles rather that in an article where it is mentioned as Main? Most aspects covered in the Article are important, without cutting and moving attention to Main articles we won't be able to make this article shorter. Improver 03 04 (talk) 02:42, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Section on relationship with contemporary styles and movements

This section essentially duplicates the regional variants, and doesn't have any sources or citations.

Biggest problem - non-neutral sources and citations

I think the biggest problem with the current version of the article is sources and citations. More than half the citations in the article are from two or three sources which have been added by one editor. They seem to be commercial sites which promote Art Nouveau tourism; Art Nouveau World, Coup de Fouet Magazine, and the Art Nouveau European Route. I believe that these are good organizations and are doing useful work, but Wikipedia articles need sources that are neutral, authoritative and aren't promoting anything. Please see the Wikipedia guidelines on reliable sources. Cordially, SiefkinDR (talk) 18:57, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

I have studied Wikipedia:Reliable_sources and that's what I would like to say:
1. I didn't get why you claimed them as commercial and promoting Art Nouveau tourism. Where did you see any commercial part at them? It seems weird to me that you label touristic those websites that do not sell any tours or touristic products at all. They maybe only inform about exhibitions etc. - I don't see why filling a News section with current events should automaticaly make a website touristic.
2. On authority.
2.1. OK, I agree that Art Nouveau World is not authoritive. But do you mean that listing artists that took parts in a certain construction with citation of this werbsite is worse that not citing anything at all? I mean, we know that a building is built. OK, it is not good to claim that the building relates to Art Nouveau only by citing Art Nouveau World. But if it is confirmed at other sources that the building is Art Nouveau and the question is only about the parting artists? In case of already built objects we all know it had its own architects, sculptors, painters, etc. if it is evident via pictures that the respective genres are presented. Is not quoting anything better then?
2.2. What is wrong with professional associations of Art Nouveau? One of them even holds international congresses - what could be more authoritative than that? In my opinion, they describe the academic consensus of its members who are largely academics. What is wrong with articles of Coup de Fouet Magazine written by academics and reviewed by the editorial team? Should their regalia be mentioned when citing the source for you to change the opinion? Any piece of work dedicated to Art Nouveau by definition promotes Art Nouveau. Current books of bibliography as well.
3. What kind of sources are good in your opinion? Books? The problems with them are:
3.1. Websites are books of XXI century and have the same problem: if written by a single person, how can it be regarded as a valuable source? Any support of any book by any individual is by definition biased - e.g. they can just cross-promote their marginal views.
3.2. Many books are not available to read and check online. You thus impose a limitation of only those who can buy books can add new information to this article. So along with putting effort people should put their money too. And even if one does it, it is difficult to check whether the claimed fact is presented in books or not as they are not available for easy fact-checking. It makes books worse than professional articles in terms of checkability.
4. Another limitation you thus pose is the speed of work. Books are more difficult to navigate than sources available online. We all know that different variations exist and I don't understand why its representation in professional associations could be not enough to claim their importance. But if limited to books, to bring details about these variatons would mean much more work done more slowly. I would not mind changing fast-and-not-that-authoritive sources of the article to slow-and-authoritive ones. But only gradually. And I personally would not spend money on buying plenty of books (it seems to me that there are no books that would cover such a wide variety of Art Nouveau all in one book; if I am wrong, please correct me). And if you can advise (me and everybody else) any sources that are good in your opinion and easy to check, please do it.
5. As you think that my activity does not follow guidelines, why don't you follow them yourself? I mean, when you delete some information with sources behind it you don't present any sources with counteragruments at all, only your personal tastes. I would say it is an easy tactic to make the article follow your taste: to claim that sources you don't like are non-authoritive and thus you can edit anything you want. Don't take it personally, I really want to know why a professional magazine that has been for decades doing a massive work of couple thousand pages describing quite every detail and aspect of the movement is not neutral an authoritative.
Improver 03 04 (talk) 06:36, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
If you consider that the movement in Barcelona preceded Art Nouveau, then why is it in the article on Art Nouveau? It seems to me that its really a related but separate topic. It can be discussed this article as a variant, but this article should give priority, I would think, to Art Nouveau.
As to the organization and sourcing, it's OK to use a professional magazine as a source, but it shouldn't be the sole source for an entire section or topic. This article should follow the model of other articles on art and decorative styles and movements. See for instance, the article on Art Deco. Good sources on-line can include sites of museums of decorative arts, like the Victoria and Albert Museum, and the The Met’s Heilbrunn Timeline of Art History. Personally I think books are generally the best sources. I find very good sources at the Public Library and collecting books at second-hand book stores. Cordially, SiefkinDR (talk) 09:54, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
I would say Art Deco article is really not that good. It also has heavy French bias and makes no mention of Vienna Secession and Wiener Werkstatte influence on style (some even say creation of style, mainly work by Koloman Moser and architecture by Otto Wagner), which is inexcusable if you ask me. Aocdnw (talk) 09:59, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
It seems to me that Wagner and Hoffman were much more modernists than Art Deco. They both feature in the Modern Architecture article. Cordially, SiefkinDR (talk) 12:30, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
I agree with Aocdnw that Art Deco is not that good as an example.
  • Genres there are not moved into a separate category, like I did here. Thus the logic is broken when some things of equal importance are categories while others are subcategories.
  • Moreover, Asia and India are different subcategories, not one included into the other! And Mumbai is mentioned in both of them
  • Shanghai is often quoted as one of the capitals of Art Deco due to rich hetitage. It is mentioned only in 1 sentence and 2 buildings
  • Napier has been nominated for UNESCO World Heritage Site status after being rebuilt in Art Deco style only. It has only 2 sentences and 1 picture for it.
That is only what I briefly encountered. I am certain more problems will evolve with further study. If Aocdnw said there is French bias I tempt to believe him.
As for Modern Architecture, quite all major global Art Nouveau architects are mentioned there. Improver 03 04 (talk) 14:00, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
OK, let's summarize our current discussion of the section.
1. You accused my preffered sources of being touristic and commercial. When I directly asked you how did you get to that conclusion, you answered nothing. It is rather awkward to still see non-neutral in the name of this category after that.
2.1. I would like to know your position on questions I asked there, too.
2.2. You admitted that professional magazines are authoritative. Thanks. I suppose your reply corresponds to the websites of their issuers too.
3,4. Thanks for recommendation of decorative arts museums' websites. Unfortunately, they are not about outdoor things (architecture, sculpture) that my edits were mostly about. As for books, you again expressed your personal taste relating to no downsides I mentioned. Your it shouldn't be the sole source for an entire section is still quite imposing only those who can buy books can add new information to this article. Thanks for public libraries, but this option is good only in few countries when it comes to Art Nouveau literature.
5. Ignored at all. Improver 03 04 (talk) 14:00, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
By the way, in search for a book about Villa Fallet I found a great solution: Google Books. I would use it further to cite my edits with books. Thus my 3.2. claim is no longer valid, though 4. is - books are still not that fast to navigate (but faster with Google Books than offline). Improver 03 04 (talk) 15:07, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Art Nouveau and Modernisme

The article on Modernisme in Catalonia seems to make it clear that Modernisme preceded Art Nouveau by a little bit, and has some common features, but is a separate and distinct style. I would treat it as related to, but not part of, Art Nouveau. Cordially, SiefkinDR (talk) 11:56, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Your approach is not supported not only by both professional associations of Art Nouveau in the world (in fact, among 77 member communes of Art Nouveau European Route 23 are of Catalan Modernisme and Barcelona is the headquarters) but Catalans as well. If you have a look at Catalan version of this page you will see that is is called Modernisme. In Spanish - Modernismo.
ca:Art Nouveau redirects to Modernisme, modern style as well. For local variation they have ca:Modernisme_català to avoid the confusion. That is what I would like to see here: a division among global Art Nouveau comprising different local styles, and local (here: French and Belgian) Art Nouveau.
If you pay more attention to articles in different languages, you will see that it is not the only example. In German the article is called de:Jugendstil, Art Nouveau also redirects there (though no local separate article); in Hungarian - hu:Szecesszió (here the separate article for local variation exists). The list goes on and on. And in every article Modernisme considered a part of the same global movement having different names in different languages.
I proposed it several times before but now I see that you just don't make the distinction and thus my words were uncomprehendable. Hope these examples would contribute to making the thought and the bias of your native language more clear (it is not the only one in the world, although we use it here). The fact that in English a French name is borrowed doesn't mean that other variations are not a part of it. Improver 03 04 (talk) 15:01, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
Oh, I lost more obvious example: fr:Art nouveau has the link to fr:Art nouveau en France (though that article is a stub) and fr:Art nouveau en Belgique (that one is much better). And to Catalan Modernisme as well. Improver 03 04 (talk) 15:44, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
By the way, maybe it is still not clear from the comment above: this article is about global Art Nouveau movement, not a local (French and Belgian) one. That is why I proposed to create a separate article for the local one (as it is done in other languages). Improver 03 04 (talk) 15:13, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
Another example that might help to clarify the issue is the word "allah". While in western languages it refers to Islamic God, in Islamic countries it sometimes is the only word meaning "God". Thus e.g. in Malaysia catholics use the word "allah" in pray. Muslim protest against it but can't do anything with that as there is no alternative word in the language. So please, don't follow Muslims' example. Improver 03 04 (talk) 03:05, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Villa Fallet of Charles-Édouard Jeannere

Villa Fallet was deleted from the article with no sources for the decision and a comment Corbusier was not, by any description, an Art Nouveau architect.

I agree that Le Corbusier was not an Art Nouveau architect. The irony is that he was not Le Corbusier that time. He took this name in 1920, 15 years after that, reflecting his belief that anyone could reinvent themselves.[1][2]

That is why among 17 his building that are in UNESCO World Heritage List noone is built before 1920. That period is not the heritage of Le Corbusier as we understand it now.

In 1905 he was only 18 and just helped his architecture teachers in the construction.


Now back to Villa Fallet. There are lots of professional sources citing that this is the Art Nouveau (or its local variation, Style Sapin) monument: [3][4][5][6][7] Among them there is Foundation Le Corbusier directly saying the pupils of Charles L'Eplattenier, who were seeking a regionalist style in Art Nouveau spirit : one that was later to be called the "Style sapin".

I even went futher than usual and here is the book to confirm that fact! [8] You can check a part of its content here: [[9]].

With that said, I insist on bringing counterarguments with valid sources that Villa Fallet is not Art Nouveau. Otherwise the edit should be reverted. Improver 03 04 (talk) 14:38, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Is Villa Fallet an important monument of Art Nouveau? What did it contribute to the style? Do you consider that Corbusier is a notable figure in Art Nouveau? SiefkinDR (talk) 14:32, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
1. Is Villa Fallet an important monument of Art Nouveau? Villa Fallet is a monument of style sapin and the only one that has its own page in English Wikipedia.
2. What did it contribute to the style? As you do not take arguments from non-authoritative sources seriously, find the answer at the sources I brought.
3. The reason of deletion was that Villa Fallet is not an Art Nouveau monument at all. Prominence was not the issue. If you have no arguments behind the claim, it has to be reverted.
4. Do you consider that Corbusier is a notable figure in Art Nouveau? You didn't admit your mistake, didn't bring any arguments behind your claim and calmly try to change the subject of the discussion from was not, by any description to a notable figure in Art Nouveau or not. That's called disrespect.
Did you read the initial comment of the section? Le Corbusier was not Art Nouveau architect, Charles-Édouard Jeannere was. The discussion about Charles-Édouard Jeannere is secondary, we discuss Villa Fallet and its architects are to be mentioned automatically if the building is in the article and have their own pages. But anyway, he is one of two architects of syle sapin having their own page in English Wikipedia.

Improver 03 04 (talk) 15:25, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

I support inclusion of early Corbusier work. It is interesting example that illustrates the name of style sapin, plus it is Corbusier. Such a high profile architect will intrigue reader in exploring more, and will without a doubt raise profile of that particular style and topic of the article in general. Aocdnw (talk) 18:34, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
  1. ^ Corbusier, Le; Jenger, Jean (1 January 2002). Le Corbusier: choix de lettres. Springer Science & Business Media. ISBN 9783764364557 – via Google Books.
  2. ^ Repères biographiques, Fondation Le Corbusier. Fondationlecorbusier.asso.fr. Retrieved on 27 February 2018.
  3. ^ "The "Coup de Fouet" magazine, vol. 10 (2010), pp. 2–10" (PDF).
  4. ^ [1] La Chaux-de-Fonds - Art Nouveau European Route
  5. ^ [2] La Chaux-de-Fonds - Réseau Art Nouveau Network
  6. ^ http://www.fondationlecorbusier.fr/corbuweb/morpheus.aspx?sysId=13&IrisObjectId=5422&sysLanguage=en-en&itemPos=68&itemCount=78&sysParentId=64
  7. ^ [3] Ecole d'art et Style sapin - La Chaux-de-Fonds
  8. ^ A Study of the Decorative Art Movement in Germany. Vitra Design Museum. 2008. p. 9. ISBN 978-3-9319-3629-7.

Spacing

This is IMPORTANT because it gets on my nerves: when editing sections of the text, please don't hit the space bar more than once at a time! It looks bad and is annoying to correct: [10],[11]. Thank you! --Edelseider (talk) 15:32, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Deleted more than a hundred of them. Improver 03 04 (talk) 13:43, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
Good job! --Edelseider (talk) 15:07, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
Oh, I just reverted that - double spaces after a full stop is a characteristic of British English, which this article uses. There should only be two though. Johnbod (talk) 15:11, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
I've gone through & (re-?)removed some - nb in particular that "<ref>" should always follow a punctuation mark, with no space. Johnbod (talk) 16:04, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

The section 4 Characteristics

I have looked through this newly rebuilt section and could not characterize this work as good for these reasons:

  • Narrow coverage: Among local variations, only 3 are covered: Art Nouveau, Tiffany Style and Vienna Secession. lasgow Style and Jugenstil had similar charachterictics to Vienna Seccesion, but they are not mentioned. Catalan modernisme neither, let alone less prominent but anyway unique and distinctive Hungarian Szecesszió or Style Sapin. "Nature is the greatest builder and nature makes nothing that is parallel and nothing that is symmetrical" could be a quote not only of Hector Guimard but also of Antoni Gaudi who started emplying these principles before Guimard. Seems it relates to the problem we discuss at Talk:Art_Nouveau#Art_Nouveau_and_Modernisme
  • The logic and writing style: 3 of 6 paragraphs start from 3 words "Early Art Nouveau" or "Earlier Art Nouveau" while presenting no reference to the division. E.g. style of Hector Guimard still was the same in 1900s and even 1910s, and the style of Vienna Secession artists was the same before 1900. Seems the logic is broken: it is not timing but location that was crucial. And when it comes to seemingly single Belgian Art Nouveau, a distinction between floral and geometric Art Nouveau exist there, but it was not timing-based (again) but personality-based, both directions were present before and after 1900, for more reference look at French Wikipedia: fr:Art_nouveau_en_Belgique#Architecture
  • Inattentiveness to details
    • In just one section, "Whiplash" by Hermann Obrist is attributed to 1894 at one place and to 1895 at another one.
    • If a phrase like "Geometric lines the Vienna Secession" can be described as a minor absence of preposition, "Another characteristic of Art Deco architecture was the use of light" can't. The article is about Art Nouveau rather than Art Deco, do you remember it? Please be more careful when editing!

I would rather suggest quite full rewriting of the section but as its author is notorius for edits based on his own tastes rather that references I would like to see what other people think about this first, and to get at least a bit of public support on it. Improver 03 04 (talk) 13:50, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

If the last paragraph related only to architecture then it should be moved there. Thus the whole section could serve as a lead to "Genres" section with a tiny lead right now. This logic seems to be better for me. It implies that overall characteristics are in the lead of the section, local practices concerning a certain genre - in its respective subsection. Improver 03 04 (talk) 12:31, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
There is consensus that Vienna Secession entered second, more original phase after 1900. Some even describe it as early Art Deco, but is that case for rest of the movement? Questionable, also Characteristic section does leave a lot to be desired. Aocdnw (talk) 14:11, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

The lead

I propose to join the discussion of the lead (that happened earlier in different sections of this page) here at its own section.

Here is an actual issue. User:Johnbod had proposed at Talk:Art_Nouveau#Other_points to restore an old lead partly because regional names of the style (whose articles redirect here) were bolded.

There also was a discussion of that a bit later at Talk:Art_Nouveau#Jugendstil. As a result, Jugendstil and Stile Liberty were bolded, but at the Section 1 Naming rather than at the lead. In the current version of the lead these names do not appear at all.

It seems to me that it relates to the discussion of the scope of this article "What are local variations: parts of the global movement that bears the name of its Franco-Belgian part - or distinctive movements closely related to Franco-Belgian Art Nouveau?" that is discussed at Talk:Art_Nouveau#Art_Nouveau_and_Modernisme. Thus the result of that discussion should affect the lead. Improver 03 04 (talk) 12:56, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

As at Talk:Art_Nouveau#Art_Nouveau_and_Modernisme there were no counterarguments to the fact that Modernisme and other local variations are the part of Art Nouveau rather than a separate related movement, I propose to add names of local variations to the lead, especially those that redirect to this article (i.e. Jugendstil and Stile Liberty). Improver 03 04 (talk) 09:51, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
As well as to move them to the first sentence and bold, as of WP:LEDE. Improver 03 04 (talk) 13:20, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

While I generally support the idea of [edit] I don't like the following aspects of realization:

  • The link to Valencian Art Nouveau should be moved to Catalan section as Valencian language is a part of Catalan language family,
  • Placing the link to Art Nouveau in Poland in the Art Nouveau in the rest of the world is confusing, as there was no such country at the time, and most cities presented in the article were part of either the German Empire with its Jugenstil or Cisleithania with its Secession. I would rather move it to overall See also at the end of the article,
  • I don't think the best place for the link to Art Nouveau temples (or Art Nouveau religious buildings after renaming) is the 'Architecture and ornamentation' subsection. Many examples from the article refer to buildings of other (or mixed) styles with Art Nouveau features and details. I would rather move it to the 'Glass art' because unlike architcture, when it comes to stained glass windows, all examples of that article refer to Art Nouveau, and there are lots of them.

Improver 03 04 (talk) 13:44, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

  • As for Art Nouveau in Brussels, this topic is covered in more detail at Origins of Art Nouveau – Brussels (1893–1898) rather than at Art Nouveau in Belgium and the Netherlands. I would agree that it is the problem of the article. But neverthless in the present condition of this article the former location suits better to the link to Art Nouveau in Brussels, and that short article doesn't add much to this large one. Improver 03 04 (talk) 14:36, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
Art Nouveau in Brussels in fact features only Horta, no Hankar, Van de Velde Cauchie or other architects. So it is actually misleading and rather deserves deleting. Improver 03 04 (talk) 14:04, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Duplication of Influences

There are two different sections having the same name and covering the same topic: 2.1. and 5. I propose to delete 5. Influences as it is smaller, consists mostly of duplications of what is presented in 2.1. and this information fits better as a subsection of History rather than as a separate section (especially considering the fact that it refers to incoming influences rather than outgiong). Improver 03 04 (talk) 09:15, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Agree. 2.1 gves more information and is more appropriately laced. Cordially SiefkinDR (talk) 16:40, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
I would also rename 2.1. to "Roots" as this word has no second meaning unlike "Influences". Improver 03 04 (talk) 08:43, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Adding link to revised Art Nouveau in Brussels article

I have restored the link to the Art Nouveau in Brussels article. The article has been considerably expanded to include other architects and genres. Cordially, SiefkinDR (talk) 13:15, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for improving the Art Nouveau in Brussels article, but why do you put a link to it not also in context but also in See also? Do you mean that all links earlier appeared in the article should be duplicated in See also, too? I would rather stay with the opposite: as this links were already presented, they shouldn't be duplicated at the bottom.
Otherwise lots of other links should be added there too, and the article would thus become even longer (for a reason that is in my opinion doubtful). Improver 03 04 (talk) 14:31, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
That makes sense. I will take out the link under See Also. Cordially SiefkinDR (talk) 19:58, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Structure of Secession subsections

The underlying reason for my renaming the subsection for Cisleithania seems to be not understood.

The current structure (having both 3.5 Vienna Secession in Austria and 3.7 Secession in Austria (Cisletihania)) leads to confusion and has contradiction in logic (as Vienna is the part of Austria then the subsection for Vienna should be inside the subsection for Austria, otherwise the latter subsection should be renamed).

If the point of the previous structure was unclear, I propose a new one as follows:

  • 3.5 Secession in Austria-Hungary
    • 3.5.1. Vienna Secession
    • 3.5.2. Hungarian Szecesszió
    • 3.5.3. Other variations

Improver 03 04 (talk) 14:18, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Support, per logic.(KIENGIR (talk) 15:35, 27 August 2019 (UTC))
Yes, much better.SiefkinDR (talk)

'Art Nouveau in Israel' subsection

The reasons behind my moving the content of this subsection into the 'Art Nouveau in the rest of the world':

  • The subsection contained very little information, incomparable to other separate subsections for local variations,
  • The Palestinian movement was founded by people who studied in major art centres and brought the style into the land to which they moved further, as it was the case for many other countries presented in the 'Art Nouveau in the rest of the world'.

I also deleted the world 'Israel' as that-day names of countries are used throughout the article (e.g. German Empire, Russian Empire, Austria-Hungary, etc.), Israel has not been founded yet. Improver 03 04 (talk) 13:48, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Art Nouveau clocks?

It hangs here

I just uploaded the photo of an Art Nouveau clockface from - you guessed it - Strasbourg. This makes me wonder why there is so little about Art Nouveau clock designs. Any image search for "Art Nouveau clocks" turns up many examples in different shapes. --Edelseider (talk) 08:31, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

This is the brilliant opportunity for you to enhance this article as well as Art Nouveau furniture. As the section for furniture is the largest now among alikes (while there is a main article for the subject) restructuring it is a long-waited enhancement. And yes, some more images from Strasbourg may occur here :) Improver 03 04 (talk) 13:51, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
Is there enough content, links and sources to have a whole section or article on Art Nouveau clocks? Is the topic comparable in iomportance to the other sections on architecture, graphic arts, furniture, and jewelry? A group of pictures of clocks without further content about the designers and explantation of their importance isn't very interesting. It could work if includes other practical household items, and has explanatory text, and links to articles on the designers, hopefully in English. Cordially, SiefkinDR (talk) 20:53, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Art Nouveau in Italy in 1920s

A recent edit to the lead says that, unlike the rest of the world, Art Nouveau was a major style in Italy well into the until the 1920s, ( "Notable exception was Italy, where the style lasted well into 1920s.") But this is contradicted by the section on Italy in the article, by the article on Liberty style, and by the Italian-language Wikipedia. The only evidence given is a reference to an article about single group of buildings in Rome by one architect, influenced by Gaudi, that was begun in 1913 but not finished until 1927. (and, as the article states, the architect committed suicide because of the hostile reaction of critics). Unless stronger evidence is given that Art Nouveau was the dominant style in Italy well into the 1920s. I think this sentence should be taken out. Cordially, SiefkinDR (talk) 16:11, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

It lasted into 1920s there is no claim on its dominance, and Stile Liberty article made by you supports that claim, with interior by Galileo Chini made in 1922. Sauvahge (talk) 16:52, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
Thanks, I see your point, though I'm not sure I entirely agree with you. I[m not sure I agree that 1922 is "well into the 1920s" and my impression is that, other than some of Chini's hotels, which were started earlier but not completed until the 1920s, Art Nouveau was finished in Italy by the beginning of the First world War, as it was in France and elsewhere in Europe. Cordially, SiefkinDR (talk) 20:46, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
I understand, it didn't end in Italy as early. Here is reliable source written by architect that says it actually extended into 1930s. http://www.bestofsicily.com/mag/art225.htm This is something to read if you are interested in architecture of the style in general,https://www.matec-conferences.org/articles/matecconf/pdf/2016/16/matecconf_spbwosce2016_02004.pdf, there is sentence that says Palermo became center of resistance to Futurism and avant-gard which might explain prolonged life of Stile Liberty in comparison to other European counterparts.Sauvahge (talk) 21:26, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
Very rude attempts to downplay Stile Liberty in Italy by adding few buildings were built and saying Palermo when source says Italy.Sauvahge (talk) 17:52, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
Dear Sauvahge, I apologize if I sounded rude, I didn't mean to, but I have some problems with this section, and particularly with the statement that Art Nouveau in Italy extended into the 1930s. I read the article in "Best of Sicily" magazine which is cited (which is promoting tourism to Sicily) and the author

says that, in 1922, the new Fascist government of Mussolini condemned the Liberty style. Thereafter all new buildings had to be constructed in the official style of Socialist Classicism. Its quite inconceivable that buildings in Italy in the 1930s could be built in anything but the official style.

As to the works of Galileo Cini, whose bathhouses could certainly be classified as Art Nouveau, they were begun in 1913, before Mussolini came into power, and were not finished until after the war in 1923, not in the 1930s. I can't find any evidence that Art Nouveau continued in Italy into the 1930s. By the 1920s, in Italy as in most of Europe, Art Nouveau had been already been replaced by Futurism and other movements like Art Deco. If you have another source that contradicts this, please let me know, but I haven't found any evidence Art Nouveau had any important presence in Italy after the 1920s. Cordially, SiefkinDR (talk) 20:23, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Can you please point me to a sentence or section that says Mussolini condemned Stile Liberty? I only this sentence with mention of 1922 About a decade would pass following the rise of Fascism (1922) before the new "Socialist Classicism" (typified by Palermo's courthouse and main post office, and EUR outside Rome) and Bauhaus architectural styles completely supplanted the Art Nouveau in Italy. Sauvahge (talk) 20:39, 28 February 2020 (UT

Mussolini condemned all architectural styles except the official Fascist ones, as did Hitler later. I guess the point I'm trying to make is that Art Nouveau was not of great importance in Italy after the First World War, except completing buildings already begun. They had already moved on to the new styles. The Italian Wikipedia article on Art Nouveau doesn't mention any buildings from the 1930s. This very late Art Nouveau from the 1920s or 1930s could be mentioned in the section on Italy, but I don't see that it's notable enough to mention in the lead of the article on the global movement of Art Nouveau. What source says that Italian Art Nouveau in he 1920s or 19030s was of major importance? Cordially, SiefkinDR (talk) 22:23, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Now you are moving the goalpost and arguments you are presenting are simply not convincing to me. We have source that says Stile Liberty lasted into the 1930s. Requirement that it has to be of major importance is the one you made up and your personal point of view, I am opposed to changes you want to make. I think we should have some request for comment from other editors. Sauvahge (talk) 08:44, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Request for comment on Stile Liberty in Italy

There is a preference against including the duration of Stile Liberty in Italy in the first paragraph of the introduction. − Pintoch (talk) 09:14, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

The following discussion 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.

Should we include how long Stile Liberty in Italy lasted in the lede? Sauvahge (talk) 08:48, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

No. It's disputed, and the appearance of some very late Italian Art Nouveau architecture in the 1920s or 1930s did not influence the style and does not merit a place in the lead. The lead should summarize the major points of the article. cordially, SiefkinDR (talk) 12:42, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Yes - It's not disputed, mr. Siefkin doesn't like it but that's neither here nor there. It's place in lede is not in influence part, it's in how long style lasted part and adds important distinction and caveat in contrast to other European counterparts. Sauvahge (talk) 12:47, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

The location of Stile Liberty lasting longer than other styles is well placed in the fifth paragraph of the introduction. It should not be moved to the first paragraph. Abzeronow (talk) 18:17, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Reputable sources such as the Victoria and Albert Museum and Metropolitan Museum say that the importance of Art Nouveau ended with the First World War. No major Art Nouveau landmarks were built after that. That a few buildings were completed in the 1920s in Italy is interesting, but of no particular importance to the history of Art Nouveau. What is the importance of the late buildings, other than that they were built after the style was out of fashion everywhere else? Why should that give them a place in the lead? It's hard to take n article seriously if says in the lead that Art Nouveau was of importance in the 1930s. It hurts the credibility of the whole article. SiefkinDR (talk) 20:13, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
It doesn't contradict those reputable sources to say that in Italy, a variant of Art Nouveau lasted into the 1930s. Italy is the exception that proves the rule that Art Nouveau was déclassé with the advent of World War 1. Abzeronow (talk) 21:11, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
The article gives no examples of Art Nouveau buildings begun in Italy in the 1930s. The latest Art Nouvea work I could find was interior decoration by Galileo Cini for an existing building, done in 1922. I think we should follow the Wikipedia Golden Rule: "If in doubt, leave it out." Cordially SiefkinDR (talk) 08:11, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
As stated above (and in the relevant literature exemplified by the vast number of reliable sources), SiefkinDR is correct. Art Nouveau, as a notable style, was in existence roughly between 1890 and 1910, after which it was superseded by Art Deco. Coldcreation (talk) 08:16, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes per Sauvahge Idealigic (talk) 20:07, 10 March 2020 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Art_Nouveau/Archive_1&oldid=1142752908"