Talk:American Renaissance

message: I closed what looked like a messed up quote with a quotation mark. I also changed the words The magazine and foundation were founded to The magazine and foundation were created, because the repetition of "found" sounded bad to me. --ESP 04:06, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Richard Morris Hunt. See  -- Adams refers to "Richard Hunt" elsewhere in the chapter. -- Rbellin|Talk 17:48, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: The term "American Renaissance" in literary history -- as opposed to the history of art and architecture, which the article currently covers -- refers to the mid-19th-century, or specifically to 1850-1855 (the period discussed in F.O. Matthiessen's book of the same name). The article needs to give both uses; I've added an initial note; there's more to do later. -- Rbellin|Talk 17:48, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Literary-historical use

message: I see a problem in the first paragraph with this sentence: "It [American Nationalism] found its cultural outlets in both Prairie School houses and in Beaux-Arts architecture and sculpture, in the "City Beautiful" movement, and [in] high-minded American interference in the internal affairs of other states."
High-minded American interference isn't a cultural outlet on a par with architecture and sculpture. Perhaps it is, however, a cultural trait in the broadest sense of the word culture. There is a negative implication that should have a reference, so to keep neutrality. I didn't try to re-phrase the sentence because I didn't want to risk mis-interpretation.John Sinclair (talk) 08:03, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe that I'll take that chance. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 15:43, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I am further inclined to remove the reference to "Prairie School houses" - - not really seeing the connection.  Everything that happened beteween 1876 and 1917 does not automatically fall under the Renaissance heading.  Does it?  Carptrash (talk) 16:01, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is there an evident POV? 

message: I believe American Renaissance should be left as a disambiguation.  Or, if any article needs to sit at this title, it should be American Renaissance (literature). I don't see how A.R. in architecture is more important than A.R. in literature. At least, Britannica's entry on A.R. doesn't mention architecture at all. --Ghirla -трёп- 19:15, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move? 

message: I see that there is a catalogue entitled A.R. But does that mean that the term is wide spread in the hsitory of archtiecture circles. I am sort of sceptical. It is a handy term (and makes good PR for an exhibition) perhaps, but is it a standard term? Brosi 19:03, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "American Renaissance" is not an architectural style but a broad cultural movement: though much of the architecture of the American Renaissance is Beaux-Arts in vocabulary, it ranges from the neo-Renaissancxe of the Boston Public Library-- with a program of uplifting allegorical murals that are also characteristic of the movement-- to the "White city" eclecticism of the 1893 World's Columbian Exposition. Local public libraries are a typical American Renaissance project, but in New York, Andrew Carnegie's branch libraries are housed like English clubs, whereas a series of Richardsonian Romanesque public libraries were built throughout New England. --Wetman 19:18, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good, but I a few more references would be nice to prove it, since MOST scholars when they hear 'American Renaissance' think of US Romantic era. So the question is, Is this a sort of colloqualism among art and architectural historians or a real designation of a cultural movement used by cultural historians? I could also imagine that there are some scholars who would not think of this period as a Renaissance at all. It seems to be more of a 'naissance.' I am also highly perplexed at the following  The exhibition American Renaissance: 1876 - 1917 at the Brooklyn Museum, 1979, encouraged the revival of interest in this movement. This is a real stretch and as I still suspect little more than PR for the museum. I can site hundreds of articles and papers on this time period. To coin a new period is certainly possible, but to discount that it overlaps with many other designations is a bit too much.Brosi 22:42, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A.R. in architecture?? 

message: When this article refers to Henry Adams, who is it referring to?  The current link leads to a disambiguation page of about 10 names. (anon.)
:The Henry Adams is this context is Henry Brooks Adams. Perhaps you'll fix the redirect. --Wetman (talk) 17:13, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Henry Adams 

message: The link at the bottom of the page is broken.  Where is it supposed to go?-- Davidbessler (talk) 20:15, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Broken Link 

message: User:RudalsMusic, without writing anything on the talk page, unilaterally changed "1876–1917" to "1835-1880" in his/her "Revision as of 22:30, 25 September 2011". That was obviously false, and perhaps this user was thinking of the American Renaissance (literature), which at least took place within that period. User:RudalsMusic also changed the dates on the cited book, meaning that instead of ignorance, it must have been foul play. Of course, everything in this article refers to the period from 1876-1917.
Also, the link at the top of the page to American Renaissance (literature) wasn't working, and only a broken link to (literature) was there in its place.  I corrected that, too.
--Riction (talk) 16:50, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Explanation of the 1/27/2012 revision made