Talk:Rococo

message: sure, we can differentiate the two.
Article states Rococo comes from the Italian word "barocco", but it would seem to come from the Portuguese "barroco" – see English entry on Baroque.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.68.248.173 (talk) 10:01, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  rococo 

message: Meandering, disorganized, and very vague.  Writing needs to be worked over completly, and I suspect we may need new info too.  I tagged it for cleanup, almost did "cleanup-rewrite" instead but I'm new here. Lampros 04:10, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The German and French Wikipedia articles may give a re-editor some better ideas for making this vague article a more precise characterization of the rococo ideal. Fiske Kimball's book is available in paperback: excellent documentation, with the emphasis on Paris, needless to say. Nicolas Pineau needs a brief mention, you're probably already thinking— and an article all to himself as well. --Wetman 08:44, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  yang 

message: Rococo is the preferred English spelling (as opposed to Rococco).  See .
Raketenmensch 02:15, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  It would be good to have some background, as roccoco is the only spelling I'm familiar with. Somewhat didactically Google auto-corrects it to rococo, but when you fix that you can see the alternative spelling crops up in all dialects of English -  Google: roccoco -rococo.   Hakluyt bean (talk) 18:53, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Roccoco just is not the English-language spelling, however "familiar" it may be. OED does not list rococco or roccoco as alternatives. If this article did not state that "Late Baroque" was an alternative style designation, one would be tempted to read the second line of text.--Wetman (talk) 00:51, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spelling 

message: Any thoughts on removing the cleanup template?  I think the quality is pretty good now.  The bulk of this article has been rewritten since August and a lot of links have been added.  Do we want it to look very different than it is now?
Raketenmensch 08:11, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No, better keep the cleanup template: it's needed more than ever, as long as the article is packed with inanities: "some debate about the art historical significance of the style"..."rococo was surpassed by the Neoclassical style"..."some critics used the term to derogatively imply that the style was frivolous"..." etc etc etc. We're still told "Le Dejeuner by Francois Boucher, demonstrates elements of Rococo " but the analysis of Rococo elements in the illustration is gone. Discussion of the term "rococo' is carelessly dropped in the current mishmash. A very mediocre performance. Some basic reading on the subject might sharpen the article. Perhaps some other Wikipedians might assist. --Wetman 10:53, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of Cleanup Template? 

message: Is it worth adding a comment about  Rockingham, probably the most famous producer of English neo-Rococo porcelain in the 1820s and 30s?  BaseTurnComplete 20:56, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  English neo-Rococo 

message: I noticed a lot of text uses very flowery adjectives, such as this
"Here, on the Kentian mantel, the crowd of Chinese vases and mandarins are satirically rendered as hideous little monstrosities, and the Rococo wall clock is a jumble of leafy branches."
and this
""Courtly" would be pretentious in this upper bourgeois circle, yet the man's gesture is gallant. The stylish but cozy interior, the informal decorous intimacy of people's manners, the curious and delightful details everywhere one turns one's eye, the luxury of sipping chocolate: all are "galante.""
I do not have the time to go through the article to find every example, but I recall seeing lots of texts like these. This does not seem to be the traditional Wikipedia writing of giving a very objective, straightforward POV.
:Why do you think descriptions like those are not neutral?  They don't seem to be biased for or against the artworks or the movement.  Do you think there are competing interpretations of those pieces that aren't represented here?  They may not be bland, but shouldn't descriptions of visual works of art convey the detail, emotion, and social context of those works? 
:Raketenmensch 01:46, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutral POV? 

message: What is the proper pronunciation of "Rococo"?  Can someone versed in IPA add the appropriate notation to this article header? --DDG 15:10, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pronunciation? 

message: I would just like to question what "the dumb kind of art" is, as mentioned in this article. 
The Rococo style of art(the dumb kind or art) emerged in France.
...who wrote this, and what is the significance?
--24.57.192.146 06:31, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  dumb kind of art 

message: less commonly roccoco (!) Less commonly indeed! and much less commonly among people who can spell rococo. The mispelling made it to Wikipedia's front page today, thanks to this silliness.--Wetman (talk) 07:04, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Although I understand what you're saying, "roccoco" is not altogether incorrect but rather an archaic form and is often used in other languages as well: this 1884 German book spells it Roccoco. However, I'm wondering if it could be removed from the lede and an explanation on spelling conventions be added later on. freshacconci talktalk 12:28, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  roccoco [sic] 

message: Some of the example paintings in this section are slightly dubious examples of Rococo art. 
*Angelica Kauffmann is under no circumstances a Rococo painter. Her portrait of Garrick has none of Rococo portraiture’s characteristic lightness of colour and tone, the wooden chair Garrick is sitting on is about as un-rococo as its possible to get!
*Equally Jean-Baptiste-Siméon Chardin is not a Rococo painter; his style and choice of subject are radically different from Rococo tradition. I fail to see how the work displayed (Still Life with Glass Flask and Fruit) has any Rococo elements. 
*Joshua Reynolds was not a Rococo painter either. His portrait of Clive and family, sidelines nature, is dark and its figures look generally depressed. 
*Jean-Baptiste Greuze is similar to Chardin.
The argument for including such works and painters may surround the idea that they were "anti-Rococo" however the title of the gallery clearly says "Rococo" painting and so their inclusion is entirely inappropriate. Rococo is a specific artist movement not a blanket term for anything painted in the 18th century. You might as well stick Death of Marat in there.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dalisback1 (talk • contribs) 15:33, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Added the Rococo era as a gallery, works better than Anti-Rococo...Modernist (talk) 00:08, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Gallery of Rococo painting"

message: Tagged this article for copyright violation: this source has been used just copy-pasted. Please read wp:Wikipedia:Cv101, and act appropriately. --Napoletanamente (talk) 05:27, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Doh! That whole "book" is copied from wikipedia! Do check these things properly. Johnbod (talk) 05:35, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: You are right. Sorry about that. --Napoletanamente (talk) 18:31, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, no problem, but this very often happens now. Johnbod (talk) 19:45, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyvio 

message: I think the Rococo page could greatly benefit from adding in a section on the era's typography and graphic design, under "Rococo in different artistic modes." Any thoughts? I don't want to just add in a new section without consulting long-time contributors to the article. Sabinajm (talk) 22:16, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: new comments at the bottom is the way, or nobody sees them. Go ahead. Sadly there don't seem to be any long-time contributors to the article, just long-time complainers about how poor it is, like me. Johnbod (talk) 00:08, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: rococo graphic design

message: I don't know enough about this subject to change it, but this article's lead is way too long. The problem is made worse by the length of the paragraphs. The information seems to be of quality, though. Exercisephys (talk) 17:42, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead length 

message: I am ready to work! Morgan Snapp (talk) 19:34, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Art 1301 

message: There are a number of problems with the additions made to this section by Informed Analysis, including spelling, grammar, and confusing syntax.   This will require some editing and rewriting to bring it up to WP standards.  SiefkinDR (talk) 18:34, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problems with section on Southern Germany and Russia 

message: Shouldn't the first sentence say "the illusion of motion and drama" ? 2601:281:CC80:5AE0:A901:7E49:A51D:B5A9 (talk) 19:43, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Done - thanks Johnbod (talk) 15:46, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Word omitted in the very first sentence? 

message: You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Frederician Rococo § Merge Discussion.  Lexid523 (talk) 15:46, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion at [[:Talk:Frederician Rococo#Merge Discussion|Talk:Frederician Rococo §&nbsp;Merge Discussion]]

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:53, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: — Assignment last updated by ReadyMadeAl (talk) 17:05, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: The Free Internet