Talk:Russian Revival architecture

message: 1. Statement of "Tatar architecture" needs some explanation - what it is, what exactly was borrowed etc. Those familiar with current Qazan will shake their heads in disbelief... 
2. Statement of "Official Style...", for post-1881 period, again, needs evidence and clarification. Look closely at what was built at this time - R.R. is definitely a minority. 
3. The authors completely missed the economical aspect of Byzantine or R.R. spread after 1881. It's in the bottomline and less dependence on skilled workers and rare finishes. Red brick vs. marble. 
4. The authors completely missed post-1905 developments. NVO 14:45, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I wouldn't disagree that the article needs developing. As its erstwhile translator all it's errors of translation are , of course, mine, and they may well be many. There is however no ambiguity about tartarskoy, but on the russian page it is a red link and the authors don't elaborate further. Candidly I don't know what they were refering to. As for offical style it should be noted that stil' modern evolved at this time but was not, I believe, patronised by the church or state only the psuedorussian style was - but I agree this needs clarifing. Points 3 & 4 - fair enough, there is however a bigger deficit. Like Greek and Gothic revival, Russian revival had its origins in architectural scholarship and archaeology, this history needs to be explained and the names of André Durand, AA Martynov, IM Snegirev, VV Suslov, Igor Grabar and the Moscow Archaeological Society be recorded. There is a useful chapter in GH Hamilton's Art and Architecture of Russia and a slightly less useful section in the Grove dictionary of art, I would like to rewrite this article myself but I'm engaged in other things right now. Twospoonfuls 15:57, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I added some tidbits on Gornostaev (so far, only two of the three) NVO 21:44, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I do hope you're not thinking of replacing the page completely with something of your own. That would be rather annoying. Why can't you just add to it as it is? Twospoonfuls 18:43, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, it does make sense - current page is too broadly defined (or not defined at all). But certain revivalist movements will, most likely, fall out of scope of any single text, and then go figure how to integrate them back under the same umbrella? NVO 19:14, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, go on then. Twospoonfuls 14:55, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Cathedral of Christ the Saviour is definitely not Russian Revival. It is regarded as Neo-Byzantine style.--Dojarca (talk) 17:56, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cathedral of Christ the Saviour 

message: Saint Basil's Cathedral is mistakenly listed in 'Neo-Russian style examples' card, it was built in XVI century.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.37.229.29 (talk) 12:53, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Saint Basil's Cathedral 

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 . —Community Tech bot (talk) 08:54, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion