Talk:Flammarion engraving

message: In my opinion this woodcut does not depict an astronomer peering through the Earth's atmosphere to see the universe, but a man piercing the "veil" and seeing beyond the physical plane into the astral plane and beyond. Such is clearly evident by the intangible nature of the world he beholds beyond the veil. -wanderingOne
:He's looking backstage. You can tell because they're keeping all the rigs and pulleys back there, and old props like Ezekiel's wheel.
¶  This image has something to do with the ancient (or supposedly medieval) notion of a flat earth and a dome of limited thickness of the visible stars, beyond which were the angelic heavens.  I am, in any case, very gratified that someone has gone to what must be considerable trouble of researching and assembling information on this picture, which is enormously famous and much reprinted, with so very little generally known of its history. Sussmanbern (talk) 21:15, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Astral plane

message: I challenge the removal of . This article is about an artwork, and thus a colorized version is hardly redundant. Had it been an article that referenced the piece, then sure. --HantaVirus 13:33, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But why this particular colorization, and not any of the myriad others in circulation?  The image you bring up is not even one of the better known colorizations (see, e.g., the cover illustration to Boorstin's The Discoverers).  (And, incidentally, what's with the peculiar "Urbi et Orbi" caption?)  I personally think that the original woodcut more than suffices to illustrate this article.  -- Eb.hoop 15:39, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I totally agree with you. The article is about the woodcut. Not about the colorized versions people have made. The colorized version does nothing for the article. Everything is illustrated by the original woodcut. Nlm1515 22:38, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

text: This "Urbi et Orbi" colorization is a commercial product, the album cover for Urbi Et Orbi (EP).  I think that it has been repeatedly introduced into Wikipedia articles because its artist, or a fan of the artist, is interested in promoting his work. However, regardless of motive, it amounts to Wikipedia endorsing a commercial product, and should, I think, be avoided. RandomCritic (talk) 14:20, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

text: THere seem to be at least five or six other colourings http://images.google.co.uk/images?as_q=&um=1&hl=en&newwindow=1&btnG=Google+Search&as_epq=flammarion+woodcut&as_oq=&as_eq=&imgtype=&imgsz=&as_filetype=&imgc=color&as_sitesearch=&safe=off&as_st=y 80.2.192.102 (talk) 13:37, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Both the color and B&W versions were made to parody the medieval worldview, not by someone who sincerely thought the world might be flat. So I think the quest for an "original" or "authentic" version of the image is misguided. I put the colorized version on the top for aesthetic reasons. Kauffner (talk) 13:19, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's unacceptable to give precedence to the colorized version over Flammarion's original.  For starters, Flammarion's version is a Wikipedia Featured Picture, and it's completely illogical to demote it to a tiny thumbnail in the article about it.  Second, Flammarion's version is, as far as we can ascertain, the original engraving.  The colorized version is just one of maybe hundreds of colorizations in circulation, and does not even correspond to one of the published versions.  Also, it carries an extraneous "Urbi et Orbi" caption, whose purpose is completely obscure to me.  Finally, I personally find the colorized version to be aesthetically much inferior to the original (though the original is improved by removing the surrounding border).  I suspect that the original's status as a Featured Picture is an indication that I'm not alone in this appreciation.  So please don't reintroduce the colorized version without further discussion.  -- Eb.hoop (talk) 00:39, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  B&W vs Color

message: How many of you have actually read the article???? as in:
 "is an anonymous wood engraving" 
The article is primarily about the fact that this is not a medieval woodcut but a much later wood engraving. Seems to me that people should read first and comment later.  To forestall the inevitable: miaow.Freiherrin (talk) 19:40, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Woodcut

message: I've removed "The ending of the film The Truman Show may have been inspired by the Flammarion woodcut." from the article, which was all of the Trivia section, as there is no evidence for it. Cite a source saying that it was, and it can go back into the article. I've also removed the external link, as it doesn't work. Mike Peel 09:44, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed trivia + external link 

message: "the depiction of a spherical heavenly vault separating the earth from an outer realm is similar to an illustration in Sebastian Münster's Cosmographia of 1544" says the article. It would be nice to have a link or picture of this other illustration for comparison purposes. The woodcut on the Sebastian Munster page does not look similar. Also more about when the illustration may have been created or not. 80.2.192.102 (talk) 13:31, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  A similar illustration? 

message: This article fails to state the role that the woodcut plays in Flammarion's book, the relevant text that it illustrates, and the history of this idea in Flammarion's thought and that of its precursors.  I will make a stab at supplying some of the deficiencies, but there's a good deal to be said.RandomCritic (talk) 19:21, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Needs improvement

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Flammarion engraving. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100714013023/http://hsci.ou.edu/exhibits/exhibit.php?exbgrp=-999&exbid=45&exbpg=22 to http://hsci.ou.edu/exhibits/exhibit.php?exbgrp=-999&exbid=45&exbpg=22
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:17, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Just some reminding with Hexameron by Hildegard of Bingen 
82.126.28.18 (talk) 15:14, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Similarities 

message: What's the difference between a woodcut and a wood engraving? The grain of the wood. A wood cut is a relief printed image cut into a plank of wood so that you can sometimes see the grain in the lines of the image. A wood engraving is also a relief printed image cut into the end-grain of wood; you can't see the grain. In both cases, the cuts into the wood make the white spaces in the image and the dark lines in the image are from the wood that is left type-high and inked to print on the paper.
Neither process was used in this image, even though it is made to look like a wood engraving. You can see that the white spaces are extremely varied but the line widths are even, which would be difficult to do with any wood cutting instrument (burin or otherwise). There are lines that cross in the image, which is also hard to do. Overall, the image is most consistent with a pen and ink drawing simulating a wood engraving to make it look older than it is.
Agreed? Can I change the article? ZoneAlarm5 (talk) 22:19, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: By what printing process would a "pen-and-ink drawing" have been mass-reproduced in 1888? AnonMoos (talk) 22:42, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Woodcut or Wood Engraving? No, it's a pen and ink drawing