Talk:Celtic art

message: Maybe there should be a section on Hallstatt and La Tène art?
:The term "Celt" was not developed in the 17th century; it is classical. Julius Caesar refers to the "Gauls, who in their own language call themselves Celts". It was a familiar term to Greek geographers long before then. What's new (17th/18th century) was the extension of the term to the peoples of the British Isles (and their Breton descendents), since in classical times Celtic was synonymous with Gaulish and referred only to peoples on the Continent. I suppose I'll try to tinker with that sentence, but it's really trying to do two things at once: describe a linguistic/demographic/archaelogical evolution that did actually happen, and describe the separate history of the term Celtic (which like any term can be historicized or problematized). QuartierLatin 1968 19:49, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes indeed there should be info on iron age in continental Europe - Hallstatt and La Tène art, and I have a useful book here, but people keep wanting me to do more janitorial duties, so haven't yet filled in stubs i left. Will try to get round to it, but welcome anyone who can do it earlier. Regarding the origins, the tinkering looks fine to me, ...dave souza 01:08, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Hallstatt and La Tène art?

message: Why was I directed to Celtic art from Celtic culture? I doubt very much the only contribution the Celts ever made at all was art and that their culture is summed up in art alone.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cloigeann (talk • contribs) 14:53, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Celtic Culture 

message: This page mentions that the proper name for Celtic fonts is "Gaelic"; however, Gaelic only properly refers to the Celtic language of Scotland (and is sometimes used to refer to the language of Ireland, which is referred to by linguists as "Irish" and not "Gaelic). However, the main point here is that the Celtic languages of The Isle of Man, Cornwall, Wales and Brittany are certainly not properly called "Gaelic."  For example, the Cambria font is based on Welsh writing, not Gaelic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Crafanc (talk • contribs) 23:01, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: "Celtic" vs. "Gaelic"

message: The image :File:Ricemarch Psalter, Psalm 1.JPG is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here.  In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page.  Please check
:* That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
:* That this article is linked to from the image description page.
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --12:37, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Image copyright problem with File:Ricemarch Psalter, Psalm 1.JPG

message: For ease of reading, the article needs to lump together the history. I mean when you open a page and you can only see a screen at a time, it's hard to read if you're in the Wales subset of middle ages/ stonework middle ages/ ireland stonework subset. If there was some pattern or order with consistent header fonts, it would be easier to read. Thank you. PS. I really like Bain's book. For the serious art student he shows you how to make the knotwork. Kristinwt (talk) 20:54, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Chronology

message: I'm wondering why this article has a section on stone age influence on Celtic art, since it doesn't seem to mention what that influence might have been. As far as I know, there are no standing stones or dolmens in insular or iron age art. Arguably there could be an influence from passage tombs like gravinis or knowth, but only in so far as they both liked to use spirals, but very different types of spirals at that. Thefuguestate (talk) 21:49, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Stone Age?

message: It would be possible, with a certain messiness at the late antique join, to split this into 2-3 articles. But it is noticeable that most sources for a general readership treat the same extended subject as this article, eg (by leading specialists): Laing, Lloyd and Jenifer. Art of the Celts, Thames and Hudson, London 1992; Megaw, Ruth and Vincent (2001). Celtic Art. 
; "Megaws": Megaw, Ruth and Vincent, "Celtic Art", Oxford Art Online (only treat Iron Age art here but need to explain why this is); Green, Miranda, Celtic Art, Reading the Messages, 1996, The Everyman Art Library, . "Celtic" is, outside linguistics, an unhappy and largely unhelpful concept, as I have often said on WP (often to howls of outrage), but "Celtic art" is a term has enormous currency and if only for this reason art history, museums etc have found it impossible to just replace or dump it. At any rate that is the case in English-language usage, not unaffected by politico-cultural issues. It may be different in German, where perhaps those influences pull the other way.  So I would oppose a split, unless the article gets a lot longer. On the other hand :Category:Celtic art could usefully be split into sub-cats for Ancient Celtic art and Early Medieval Celtic art, with a little overlap & the Revival left over. Johnbod (talk) 21:24, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Splitting