Talk:Miraflores Altarpiece

A fact from Miraflores Altarpiece appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 28 October 2011 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that the Miraflores Altarpiece (center panel pictured) by Rogier van der Weyden was a chronological reading of the birth, death and resurrection of Jesus?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2011/October. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Miraflores Altarpiece.

Wikipedia

Arches[edit]

Surely gothic arches are pointed? And depending on where you are, half-round ones romanesque, norman, plein cintre, etc. not gothic? Awien (talk) 01:38, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

True (almost always) but the tracery under the arches and the bases for the "statues" are thoroughly Gothic in style, so I think the term is justified. Johnbod (talk) 01:39, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that both styles are present. But subject to correction from an architect, my understanding is that the difference between half-round and ogival is fundamental because it's structural, so that decoration is irrelevant. But given the mix of styles depicted, I think that refraining from characterising the arches as belonging to either style is the most appropriate solution, i.e. leave it the way it is now. (As an aside, the arches in the Altar of Saint John are in fact gothic). Awien (talk) 11:52, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A dubious distinction, imo. Pointed arches with no decorative features don't make a building Gothic. But whatever. Johnbod (talk) 12:47, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Awien the sources almost all use the term, can you bear with me and I'll get back to the page in a few days. Thanks for the other edits. Ceoil (talk) 22:36, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sure (and you're welcome). But since the arches are in any case fantastic rather than realistic, I would still suggest calling them simply arches anyway. Awien (talk) 23:00, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Johnbod: I apologise for my "tactfully" disingenuous question. I actually do know my gothic from my romanesque. So the interiors we see in the right and left-hand panels are gothic, the sculptures depicted on the voussures are gothic, but when we talk specifically about the arch that frames each panel, that is romanesque. The difference is fundamental, not a matter of style.

Ceoil: the term Gothic architecture links to the article of that name, which gives the first characteristic of Gothic architecture as being the pointed arch. That makes no sense when what we are talking about is a semi-circular arch, regardless any source that calls it gothic.

Anyone who is interested: here are more references, from Encyclopaedia Britannica, 1976 edition.

Visual Arts, Western, Macropaedia vol. 19: Romanesque . . . is Roman . . . . [F]rom about 1090 onward . . . a new type of ribbed groin-vaulted unit bay, using pointed arches to distribute thrust . . . in short, Gothic vaulting.

Romanesque art, Micropaedia vol. VIII, p. 648: Romanesque architecture is characterised by the extensive use of a semi-circular ("Roman") arch for windows, doors, and arcades.

Gothic art, Micropaedia vol. IV, p. 645: Gothic architecture is in general characterised by pointed ribbed vaults over all interior spaces that distribute the weight of a building to a skeletal structure of vertical shafts.

Other sources

The Concise Oxford Dictionary: Gothic: in the pointed-arch style . . .

WP: Romanesque architecture

WP: Gothic arch

Awien (talk) 14:41, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, to say that because an arch is semi-circular, it is romanesque, is a fundamental misunderstanding. You should remember the date of the painting. The use of round arches in late 14th & 15th century Northern Europe is actually rather complicated, & you won't find it in Britannica or the COD. Johnbod (talk) 14:54, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But do you have a good authority that says you can call a semi-circular arch gothic? Because we're talking about the arch, not the overall style of the painting. Awien (talk) 17:17, 30 October 2011 (UTC) I should also have repeated that I'm not proposing calling the arch romanesque, I'm proposing calling it an arch, plain and simple. Awien (talk) 18:21, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would put "a rounded-headed arch with Gothic decorations in open tracery below and in the spandrels ..." which draws attention to the anomalous style, which is similar to that of the Ghent Altarpiece and other works (another van der Weyden Madonna in the Prado for example). Early Netherlandish painters liked to do architectural experiments that differ from the buildings actually being put up. Johnbod (talk) 18:51, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can we agree on Johnbod's description above so. Ceoil (talk) 20:37, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely - can't quarrel with straight description. Awien (talk) 20:57, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, your phrase the arches are in any case fantastic rather than realistic, can you add that in, I was trying to say it but did not nail it. Ceoil (talk) 21:02, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gave that a try, substituting "fanciful" for "fantastic". See what you think. Awien (talk) 22:34, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fantastic is a better word than fanciful which has negative connotations, and the fantastic is practically a genre. Any chance? Ceoil (talk) 22:46, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. I was just afraid fantastic might be a bit too strong. Awien (talk) 23:03, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Considering its about numerous tiny painted reliefs in the archways of a triptych, its say its fine. Ceoil (talk) 23:11, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]