El Greco

I started the rewriting of this article about two months ago. The article has already gone through three peer-reviews: 2 thorough peer-reviews (here and here), and 1 peer-review by the WikiProject Biography (here). Users Yomangani and Eusebeus had the kindness to offer their own independent reviews in the talk page of the article (here and here). I'm most grateful to the following users who who were eager to copy-edit the text (or some of the sections): Plange, Celithemis, Ganymead, Yomangani, Gzkn, and Tom (who had initiated the previous withdrawn FAC of the article). I thought it was the right time for this nomination.--Yannismarou 21:57, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • The lead is a summary of the article. In the lead I will tell you that "El Greco has been characterized by modern scholars as an artist so individual that he belongs to no conventional school." But I won't tell you yet why. I will also tell you that "El Greco's dramatic and expressionistic style was met with puzzlement by his contemporaries but found appreciation in the 20th century", but I won't go into details. And I will tell you that "He is best known for tortuously elongated figures and often fantastic or phantasmagorical pigmentation, marrying Byzantine traditions with those of Western civilization", but I'll later analyze his style. I think that when I say that: 1) El Greco has an individual style and belongs to no conventional school (one of the very few artists in the history of mankind!), 2) he puzzled his contemporaries but impressed our contemporaries, 3)he married the Byzantine and the Western traditions, 4) he is a "prominent" painter, sculptor and architect of the Spanish Renaissance, I do give the idea that El Greco is a great and extraordinary painter. I could have explicitely said that "El Greco is an extraordinary painter bla bla bla" or that "the X scholar says that El Greco is a unique genius (Wethey actually said that)", but this is not my purpose. My purpose is to let the reader realize that he is great by reading the whole article. The lead gives him a general idea; by reading the whole article he will understand all the details of El Greco's greatness. I thank you very much for praising the level of the research and for saying that you "see much greater potential in this than in most of Wikipedia". But I do not want you to judge this article as superb or not; I want you to judge it as FA or not. In any case, I will check the lead, and see what additions are needed.--Yannismarou 12:15, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The lead section serves a purpose, it should provide a context for the article, and be able to stand on its own. Your lead section, as you freely admit, does not and is not even intended to stand on its own. See Wikipedia:Lead section. I'm going to go ahead and judge each article on its own merits within the criteria of a FA. Wikipedia can and will, eventually, attain something greater than what it is now. When I see the potential for excellence, I am going to ask for more. It's not that I'm asking for something extra from this article, it's that I personally think I have to lower my standards for excellence in Wikipedia articles in other articles. Your 4 points say better what you are trying to say than the prose in the article does. The introduction is flat, lifeless. KP Botany 20:13, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nope! It stands on its own per WP:LEAD, but it is not supposed to offer all the details. Anyway, I did some tweaks there. But I'll check it again for further improvements.--Yannismarou 21:28, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Lead expanded a bit and re-worked.--Yannismarou 23:06, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So what? This just sounds awkward, what are you saying?
I'm saying that El Greco felt pressed by the artistic heritage these great masters and desperately wanted to make his own mark with his own style in Italy. And this has a lot to do with the rest of the paragraph. I will try to make that clear in the text.--Yannismarou 12:23, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You say it much better here than in the sentence quoted from the article. You don't say, in the article, what about their example was overwhelming, their work ethic? the quantity of their work? the quality? Why not use these words in the article, richer, more specific?
Is it any better now?--Yannismarou 12:48, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No. Your above text is better, "When El Greco arrived in Rome, although Michelangelo and Raphael were dead, he felt pressed by the artistic heritage of these great masters and wanted to make his own mark with his own style in Italy." I think it can be said better than this. It's simply not clear the amount of pressure an artist would be under arriving in Italy in the aftermath of Michelangelo and Raphael, making this clear will eventually put El Greco in the proper historical context.
I rephrased. This is the new phrasing of the first half of the paragraph:"When El Greco arrived in Rome, Michelangelo and Raphael had been dead, but their example continued to be paramount and left little room for different approaches. The artistic heritage of these great masters was overwhelming for young painters, but El Greco was determined to make his own mark in Rome defending his personal artistic views, ideas and style.[7] He singled out Correggio and Parmigianino for particular praise,[8] but he did not hesitate to dismiss Michelangelo's Last Judgment in the Sistine Chapel". How is it now?--Yannismarou 21:20, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Lost me. Who wished to mirror the the Incarnation? Why? This might be a non sequitor if I could follow it.
El Greco wished. The subject in all these three sentences is the same: El Greco (El Greco - he - he). Syntactically I don't see anything wrong and any reason of confusion. Why he wished to mirror the Incarnation in a different way? But it is answered: 1) He wished to mirror the Incarnation by spiritualizing nature, 2) He wished to mirror the Incarnation in accord with the new and stricter Catholic thinking.--Yannismarou 10:37, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not really following this. What exactly did he intend to do to mirror the Incarnation? He intended to sell himself as Christ? He wanted to make nature come to life in the flesh of painting? This is really unclear, maybe someone else can explain to me what you mean. To me, reflecting the Incarnation of Christ implies something beyond painting, and seems to have no meaning in this context. Without using Incarnation, or mirror, can you explain this? Can you quote the entire passage?
Bfffff... You are right afterall! This Incarnation thing is indeed confusing. I rephrased focusing on the Last Judgment: "He singled out Correggio and Parmigianino for particular praise,[8] but he did not hesitate to dismiss Michelangelo's Last Judgment in the Sistine Chapel;[f] he extended an offer to Pope Pius V to paint over the whole work in accord with the new and stricter Catholic thinking.[9]"--Yannismarou 21:52, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if this just needs developed more, it seems less sophisticated than the rest of the writing, what's the point?
I honestly don't think it is less sophisticated. The whole paragraphs treats this issue (and there is also a related note). I believe that further analysis in this article is against the encyclopedic principles of Wikipedia - in a sub-article (like Art of El Greco), yes. After all, I think that the point is clear here. From one side El Greco critisizes and even rejects Michelangelo's technique, but, on the other side, he shows huge respect in his writings for him, and integrates him in his paintings in order to honor him. The main points of this paradox are covered for me. And don't wait for a clear answer to this problem; not even the most prominent scholars can give it, because they are confused with El Greco's attitude towards Michelangelo!--Yannismarou 11:04, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Again, you say it much clearer here than in the article: " From one side El Greco critisizes and even rejects Michelangelo's technique, but, on the other side, he shows huge respect in his writings for him, and integrates him in his paintings in order to honor him." I don't get this sense at all from the cryptic quote.
I rrephrased the "cryptic quote": "And thus we are confronted by a paradox: El Greco is said to have reacted most strongly or even condemned Michelangelo, but he had found it impossible to withstand his influence." Is it clearer? I believe that the next sentences elaborate its meaning.--Yannismarou 22:25, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Integrated them or their techniques?
Them, of course! If I wanted to speak about their techniques I would have said ""By integrating Michelangelo's, Titian's, Clovio's and, presumably, Raphael's techniques" or something like that. Let's not doubt about what is clear in the text. I am open to prose improvements, but not where the prose is crystall clear!--Yannismarou 11:03, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but he didn't exactly make them part of the whole, he just added their portraits to one corner of the picture. It sounds awkward in English, it implies something different from "he painted portraits of Michelangelo, Titian and Clovio in The Purification of the Temple."
I rephrased: "By painting portraits of Michelangelo, Titian, Clovio and, presumably, Raphael in one of his works (The Purification of the Temple), El Greco not only expressed his gratitude but advanced the claim to rival these masters." Is this clear now to close this bullet?--Yannismarou 20:36, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why? Contradicts above.
I know it contradicts above! This is the problem here! And I present it! When all the scholars of the world cannot give an answer to this contradiction, how do you expect me to do it? El Greco's personality was contradictory, and, yes, he presents in his own writings Michelangelo as a model to emulate. ANd, yes, he integrates him in one of his paintings in order to honor him. And, yes, he had rejected his work, when he was in Rome. And, yes, he had said that Michelangelo is "a good man but not a good painter". But I cannot give an answer to these contradictions. Nobody has managed to! I can make assuptions, but is this the prpose of an encyclopedic article? I do not think so.--Yannismarou 11:14, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You can point out, in the text, that this contradiction is a matter of scholarly debate. Again, you added information here that you don't include in the article.
Nope, this is not what I said! And I do not add here information not mentioned in the article. It is not a matter of scholarly debate. Most scholars agree on what I said: El Greco criticizes and even rejects Michelangelo, but, at the same time, he is influenced by him and presents him as a model to emulate. Most scholars (at least those I read) agree on this assessment and try to figure out an explanation (without much success). So, if I say that there is a scholarly debate I won't be accurate.--Yannismarou 20:36, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What beliefs and personality acquired his enemies?
The criticism of Michelangelo mainly. The fact that he wanted to promote his own unique style, giving the impression that he scorns the great masters of the past. His (Greek!) temperament which made his quarrel with Farnese; but this is described in the text. I did some rephrasing. I think it is better now.--Yannismarou 12:55, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that works.
Huh? Which great painter consecrated him?
You are probably right. "Consecration" seems the wrong word, although it is used in my English-written source. I rephrased.--Yannismarou 13:39, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it's a good word, but better without, not left hanging.
But he wasn't esteemed in his life? This is kinda a throw-away comment, need to be put in introduction.
Yes, he was esteemed in his lifetime, but not after his death and for many centuries. That is why, I felt the need to emphasize on this here. And I felt the need to emphasize on this issue for one even more important reason: because nowadays almost no sculptures of El Greco survive (with one-two disputed exceptions); so nowadays we know him just as a paintor, and not as a sculptor or an architect. Most people ignore even the fact that he was also sculptor and architect. Therefore, I do not think this is a "throw-away comment". It introduces the reader in a proper way to a part of the artistic work of El Greco he, most probably, ignores. In the lead I say he was a prominent architect and sculptor. Per WP:LEAD, I think this is OK.--Yannismarou 11:14, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't remember you mentioning, thought, that almost none of his sculptures survive. I believe there is contemporaneous evidence of his sculptures, though. This should probably be detailed in the article.
It is in both this section and in "Debates on Attribution".--Yannismarou 08:47, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Elaborate, seems out of context.
It is not out of context, because the context is Romanticism. And Romanticism was in search for the "strange" and the "extreme". And El Greco was regarded as a "strange", "extreme" and "mad" painter. I did elaborated per your suggestion, but do not forget that note j offers further analysis on Gautier's views.--Yannismarou 11:58, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Better.
Art critic? French? Century? What type of scholar? Nationality?
When was Romanticism? Do I have to say all the time "art critic", "art critic", "art critic"? I rewrote the paragraph per your suggestion: "With the arrival of Romantic sentiments in late 18th century, El Greco's works were examined anew ... The French art critics Zacharie Astruc and Paul Lefort helped to promote a widespread revival of interest in his painting. In the 1890s, Spanish painters living in Paris adopted him as their guide and mentor."--Yannismarou 11:42, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it's clearer. A reader should be able to read without footnotes, without clicking on links. And Romanticism isn't confined to one 10 year blip on the map, early, late, anything that further places it may help the reader see the development of the appreciation of El Greco through the Romantic movement, and a scholar who was not an art critic could very well have contributed to part of the dicussion of the greatness of an earlier painter--this was part of the times, part of Romanticism.
I think his Spanish legacy is greatly understated in this article. Isn't he rather important?
Understated? Let's see:
  • "Late 17th and early 18th century Spanish commentators praised his skill but criticized his antinaturalistic style and his complex iconography. Some of these commentators, such as Acislo Antonio Palomino de Castro y Velasco and Juan Agustín Ceán Bermúdez described his mature work as "contemptible", "ridiculous" and "worthy of scorn".[68] The views of Palomino and Bermúdez were frequently repeated in Spanish historiography, adorned with terms such as "strange", "queer", "original", "eccentric" and "odd".[69] The phrase "sunk in eccentricity", often encountered in such texts, in time developed into "madness"." Almost a whole paragraph analysis here.
  • "In 1908, Spanish art historian Manuel Bartolomé Cossío published the first comprehensive catalogue of El Greco's works; in this book El Greco was presented as the founder of the Spanish School." Sentence rewritten by me in order to emphasize on the role of El Greco for the Spanish art. This book of Cossio is even nowadays regarded as monumental for the history of the Spanish art and the re-evaluation of El Greco.
  • "In the 1890s, Spanish painters living in Paris adopted him as their guide and mentor." The sentence you mentioned.
  • "Michael Kimmelman, a reviewer for The New York Times, stated that "to Greeks [El Greco] became the quintessential Greek painter; to the Spanish, the quintessential Spaniard".
  • The symbolists, and Pablo Picasso during his blue period, drew on the cold tonality of El Greco, utilizing the anatomy of his ascetic figures. While Picasso was working on Les Demoiselles d'Avignon, he visited his friend Ignacio Zuloaga in his studio in Paris and studied El Greco's Opening of the Fifth Seal (owned by Zuloaga since 1897).[82] The relation between Les Demoiselles d'Avignon and the Opening of the Fifth Seal was pinpointed in the early 1980s, when the stylistic similarities and the relationship between the motifs of both works were analysed.[83]
  • "In any case, only the execution counts. From this point of view, it is correct to say that Cubism has a Spanish origin and that I invented Cubism. We must look for the Spanish influence in Cézanne. Things themselves necessitate it, the influence of El Greco, a Venetian painter, on him. But his structure is Cubist."
  • Picasso speaking of "Les Demoiselles d'Avignon" to Dor de la Souchère in Antibes.[84]
  • The early cubist explorations of Picasso were to uncover other aspects in the work of El Greco: structural analysis of his compositions, multi-faced refraction of form, interweaving of form and space, and special effects of highlights. Several traits of cubism, such as distortions and the materialistic rendering of time, have their analogies in El Greco's work. According to Picasso, El Greco's structure is cubist.[85] On February 22, 1950, Picasso began his series of "paraphrases" of other painters' works with The Portrait of a Painter after El Greco.[86] Foundoulaki asserts that Picasso "completed ... the process for the activation of the painterly values of El Greco which had been started by Manet and carried on by Cézanne". Picasso and Zuloaga were Spanish.
I think this analysis is more than enough, and his Spanish legacy is clear to the reader. But don't imagine that all the Spanish artists after him were influenced by El Greco. No! Velasquez's legacy was more important for the Spanish art of the next centuries. El Greco was presented by the Spanish art historians as a "starting point", a "landmark" for the beginning of the "Spanish School". The major influences to Spanish artists (Picasso and Zuloaga who owned works of El Greco) are mentioned. Further analysis is offeres in the sub-article Posthumous fame of El Greco. But I think that the analysis of the main article covers the main issues.--Yannismarou 11:33, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's not really clear at all from the article, it is just a list of minor points about the painter. I realize I am not expressing myself clearly in this, but I think the biggest thing lacking in this article is a grand feel for the overwhelming legacy of El Greco in Western art.
In "Legacy" I treat his influence on Delacroix, Impressionists, the Blaue Riter Group, Pollock, Picasso, Cezanne, Manet, post-modern painters etc. Isn't this "grand feel" obvious by all the analysis?--Yannismarou 22:02, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
See also the lead as it stands now.--Yannismarou 08:27, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for all your comments. I hope I gave you (at least some!) satisfactory answers!--Yannismarou 11:58, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Many books are indeed accessible in Google Book and almost all the articles in Google Scholar. For those not accessible there I offer ISBNs. The catalogues are usually easily accessible. There is indeed a problem of accessibility with some more "ancient" books. This is true. But in most case I provide in parallel another online or accessible source.--Yannismarou 13:04, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
More