Talk:Robert Campin

message: In the introduction there is a link to the 'Revolt of the Brotherhoods', but that page indicates that this revolt took place more than 60 years after his death.  So either Robert Campin wasn't involved in any such revolt, or it was another revolt than the one being linked to.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.246.45.6 (talk) 10:46, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: This article is incredibly problematic, because it's identifying without reserves Robert Campin to the Master of Flémalle, when in reality this is controversial. See for instance RKD's entry of Robert Campin. 213.124.174.59 (talk) 12:13, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: you mean this? But yes, the paintings could be better separated. Ceoil (talk) 13:00, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

text: Nonsense - the 2nd sentence is "Campin's identity and the attribution of the paintings in both the "Campin" and "Master of Flémalle" groupings have been a matter of controversy for decades". I think the controversy is in fact rather dying down. Johnbod (talk) 14:27, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Well yes, as RKD link above assumes they are one and the same person. The debate is mostly (now over-)covered in the lead, suggest we move this to its one section, and mention for each painting which grouping it comes from. As an aside, as with a lot of Netherlandish articles, the Catalonian article is very strong (although individual painting articles place too much emphasis and space on re-hashing his bio and the period's historical context), and have been thinking for years to doing some translating - or at least mining the sources. Mañana, though this one could be improved by re-jigging re cut and paste. Ceoil (talk) 22:15, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: One thing though. When it says "Campin's identity and the attribution of the paintings in both the "Campin" and "Master of Flémalle" groupings have been a matter of controversy for decades...", I don't think it's quite "Campin's identity" that is at issue. The historical Campin is pretty well-attested for his date; it's what he painted that is uncertain. I don't think any of the surviving paintings are signed or documented to him, are they?  Johnbod (talk) 22:35, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

text: The jug in the Mérode Altarpiece has what's though to be a signature, but is in classical Greek, is damaged and has (like van Eyek's attempts at Greek) errors. I think thats about it. Ceoil (talk) 22:48, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Right - I'll have a go at restating the lead. Johnbod (talk) 02:58, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: How could he be the first if he studied under Jan van Eyck? OldAndTired (talk) 16:02, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Possible I suppose (tempera to oil etc), but I don't think he is now usually thought to have studied under JvE. Ceoil? Johnbod (talk) 16:27, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Claim removed, as would be speculation (by whomever) anyway. Ceoil (talk) 22:40, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Re first "Thoughts, Old and New, on the Sources of Early Netherlandish Painting", 1986  say's "the school's so-called founders, Robert Campin and Hubert and Jan van Eyck", which is probably better. Ceoil (talk) 22:46, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Very problematic article