Talk:Byzantine art

message: Yes, bring on the iconoclasts.  Their inluence on byzantine aesthetics is much underestimated. AlainV 01:51, 2004 May 12 (UTC)
This article is under construction. All will be dealt with in time. Adam 04:25, 12 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: iconoclasts

message: Globus Crucige belongs to medieval iconography. But, we don't have a Wikipedia article on the subject as of yet, so Byzantine art works for now. Stbalbach 02:03, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No doubt you are correct. But if you follow the original link for Globus cruciger  you will discover that it was voted by a body of our peers that it be placed in this article, and the original article deleted. Since removing this from the aricle is effectivly removing it from Wikipedia entirely (since our peers decided that it did not deserve an article of its own), I would suggest an altnerative solution. Stbalbach 03:12, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text: I have little background in that area, just enough to know where this topic belongs, it is a response to the VfD decision linked to above, I find it curious people VfD on topics they seemingly know little about. Stbalbach 03:19, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text: I've created a new article Globus cruciger. Stbalbach 04:59, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text: Im not that up on it by any means and you may know more than I, but there are entire dictionaries and encyclopedias on iconography, its like learning a new language. Here are some . It depends how much one wants to get into it in Wikipedia. Most medieval paintings and art are full of iconographic messages, you have to know the visual language to decode what they all mean. Stbalbach 07:22, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Globus crucige 

message: "The work is said to reflect the Italian influence being felt in the Byzantine world at this time." -- does this sentence sound slightly odd to anybody else? I can't quite tell what exactly..... 
By the way, this is one of my favourite article. I find myself reading it again and again every now and then. --Menchi 02:06, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  "...said to reflect the ...being felt in" 

message: Should we merge Byzantine architecture with Byzantine art? Brandmeister 13:39, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No. Medieval art is a separate tree from Medieval architecture. -- Stbalbach 15:26, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merging 

message: I've made and added Template:Byzantine culture. Please let me know if you think it's useful. Tom Harrison Talk 01:15, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Info box 

message: "In architecture they achieved masterpieces such as Hagia Sophia, a building of superior scale and magnificence to anything in the ancient world." IMO this is POV--Greece666 20:39, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A question 

message: Considering it's importance in all manner's of Byzantine Art, shouldn't ivory be given a sub-heading?
You'll also have to find a PD image, which that one is not. Adam 16:30, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Give Ivory it's own sub-heading 

message: Does anybody else think it would be nice to give headers to the periods section such that Justinian Age, Macedonian Renaissance, Comnenian Restoration, and Palaeologan Age are their own subsections? Srnec 21:21, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Sectioning

message: what are specific characteristics of byzantine mosiacs?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.15.21.172 (talk) 18:31, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  characteristics? 

message: Scusate l’italiano, ma il mio inglese è troppo rudimentale: ho letto la voce molto ben scritta ma ho dei dubbi sul passaggio che menziona Santa Sabina e Santa Maria Maggiore (due chiese di Roma, la mia città) come esempio di chiese  paleo-bizantine. Io direi che entrambe c’entrano poco con l’arte bizantina: ai tempi della loro fondazione a mio giudizio l’influenza bizantina in Italia non si è ancora dispiegata e Roma d’altronde è ancora un centro culturale (e in definitiva, ora più ora meno, lo sarà sempre) in grado di esprimere valori culturali ed artistici autonomi. --195.110.149.155 (talk) 09:18, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Santa Sabina e Santa Maria Maggiore 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Byzantine art. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20100127181132/http://www.constantinopleguide.com:80/Byzantine_Churches.html to http://www.constantinopleguide.com/Byzantine_Churches.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 14:16, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: IP user 2a06… recently added new sources (found 5 so far: Michelis, Weitzmann, Ainalov, Stylianou et al., Hanfmann) and also changed the page’s source-citation style. I respect Johnbod’s position that the changes are radical, but they’re kinda useful if you think about it. In fact, go and check the page before 2a06…’s edits, and you'll discover info gaps in the listed notes like no publishing house info, no isbn info and no Google links for easy search access. So deleting 2a06...'s edits, plus the extra sources s/he added, hurts the page way more than it helps. Holler-Holland (talk) 01:59, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: My position is not that the changes to citation style are "radical", but that they are in total breach of WP:CITEVAR, and unnecessary. It would be easy enough to add what has been added (and really anyone interested can find "publishing house info" and isbns in seconds). All the google links I've checked are the useless and deprecated type to the main book page, not useful ones to previews for the page cited - another reason for reversing this cite-banditry. The brutal cite convention used has also removed useful note material - eg from the old note 1. The current reference 3 ("Cyril"!!!) is now completely mangled, with nothing at the bottom, and some new material introduced (Ainalov, nearly 60 years old now) is contradicted by other sources. A citation needed tag has been removed, with no other changes made, and the only text, except the dubious Ainalov point, that has been added is a single rather cryptic quote by Weitzmann.  So, no, I've thought about it, and they're not "kinda useful", other than the added refs. Johnbod (talk) 02:17, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edits by 2a06... 

message: — Assignment last updated by Hellokitty6688 (talk) 16:43, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: ENGLI-1102-089 Research, Writing, and the Production of Knowledge