Talk:Pieter Bruegel the Elder

message: The museums here could use jinks, many have articles. -- Jmabel 00:24, Sep 23, 2004 (UTC)
:Agreed. It can get a little heavy to link every occurance in a list, but it would be worth linking the first time a museum appears, ad possibly a few more. -- Solipsist 06:26, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Replaced Little Tower of Babel, with a better version of the other Tower Babel from Commons. -- Solipsist 09:57, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Images 

message: How complete is the list of works? Is there a figure for the number of surviving works by the artist? Rmhermen 22:29, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Found my own answer -45 paintings. I expanded our list to 44 so apparently we are missing one painting. Rmhermen 00:02, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: List of works

message: Why isn't the temptation of Saint Anthony on his list of works? Giamgiam 16:53, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It may be the missing one from the list of 45, but it looks like this painting is often attributed to a 'follower of Pieter Bruegel the Elder'. For example here at the National Gallery of Art, Washington where it is currently held. -- Solipsist 19:00, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Temptation of Saint Anthony? 

message: What about this "third version" of Tower of Babel from commons ? Badly attributed or desired 45th painting? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jklamo (talk • contribs) 16:51, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Third version of Tower Babel ? 

message: Brueghel is not the common spelling for Pieter the Elder.  All major museums and monographs about the artist have the "Bruegel" spelling.  The "Brueghel" spelling should link to "Bruegel" and not visa versa, which is currently the case.  If you need verification that "Bruegel" is the preferred spelling look at the Detroit, NY, Vienna, etc. and you will see this to be the case.  Please correct this as soon as possible. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bruegelpie (talk • contribs) 17:42, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I second this action. It's also mentioned in just about every modern study of the artist (in contrast to his sons who have the "h", and Google even seems to support it (about 70,000 hits for "Pieter Bruegel the Elder" vs. about 25,000 for "Pieter Brueghel the Elder"). --Stomme 07:28, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Change Spelling to Most Common Use Which is "Bruegel" 

message: This term is not very clear. As a Netherlander, I automatically read it to mean Dutch, as I'm sure many others would. Although it may be technically correct in an historical context, "Dutch or Flemish" is much clearer for the general reader; or instead the slightly more general term "Northern Renaissance." --Theranos 17:32, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: BTW The Dutch and French-language wikipedias both describe him as Flemish. --Theranos 17:40, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

text: As the article says, no one knows which modern area he was born in. Johnbod 00:03, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Johnbod is right here, and while it may sound odd to some or come with built-in perceptions for many, the term Netherlandish is the common historical way to discuss art of the Low Countries before 1588 (or chose your favorite date). It is used when deciding on Dutch or Flemish (which come with even stronger national ties) is not completely satisfactory. Therefore, most current art historical literature (and recent exhibitions) are siding with "Natherlandish". The tendency to call everything "Flemish" (going back centuries when every northerner was a "flammingo" in Italy) is slightly out-dated and I don't see any reason to perpetuate it further. --Stomme 00:28, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Someone should create a proper page for the term "Netherlandish" then. The (redirected) link provides no clear definition. For the general reader like myself the meaning is not obvious. Or alternatively a footnote should be included with a definition of  Netherlandish, especially if it is to be included in the opening line. Remember these articles are meant to be aimed at a general readership.  --Theranos 13:10, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: True. We have Early Netherlandish painting but a short quasi-disam article on the adjective itself would be useful. Johnbod 14:13, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

text:  Hi all. Even though the Netherlands (terminology) page seems to have some in-fighting, it does have some information in its subsections Low Countries and Netherlandish. I usually link to the main Low Countries page when talking about the historical notion of the Netherlands (and its adjectives), so we at least have some of the information out there already. --Stomme 15:38, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Speaking of which, I just saw that Theranos did exactly what I mentioned above in this article, in linking to Low Countries. That's been my preference too.--Stomme 15:44, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have included the two words in the single link. It makes it more apparent at a glance that this is specific piece of terminology rather than just an ad-hoc adjective plus noun. --Theranos 15:52, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes, I think that works well. It's a fairly peaceable page compared to some, no? and the subject of, erm, Netherlandish nomenclature is certainly complex and confusing. Johnbod 15:54, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it would also be useful to synchronise the introduction sentences of all the Brueghel pages in line with this one. At the moment all the others read "Flemish painter," which for the casual browser seems to contrast with "Netherlandish Renaissance painter." Perhaps a useful change would be to expand the opening line of the other biographies with something like "Flemish painter of the Netherlandish Renaissance." P.S. Yes some of the other wiki pages do get pretty heated!! --Theranos 09:00, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good idea. Johnbod 14:18, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

text:  One caveat: I think by the time we are talking about his sons Pieter II and Jan, they fit comfortably in with the historical Flemish label, and are also no longer Renaissance. While Pieter II, to a degree, can still keep the label northern (or Netherlandish) Renaissance since his output was largely slavish copies of his father's, I prefer to think of this as a case of seventeenth-century taste and maintaining traditions. Jan, on the other hand, most definitely bridges the gap between mannerism and the Flemish Baroque of Rubens, with whom he frequently worked. Jan's still-lifes and flora are Baroque by (most) any criteria, while his early landscapes (Christ Preaching on the Harbour, for instance) belong to a solid "universal landscape" mannerist trend. Once we pass 1568 or 1582 or 1609 or whatever date seems reasonable I am less concerned with the whole Dutch/Flemish issue, but there are many times when giving the facts is a nice substitute for trying to put a label on someone. My introduction to Otto van Veen is an example of deliberately avoiding such labels: Born in Leiden, active in the Spanish Netherlands (in Brussels and Antwerp), but also painted political histories for the young Dutch Republlic. Much of his tradition is still Netherlandish, rather than Dutch or Flemish. Despite all of this, I appreciate that we're trying to get something organised. There have been some good essays recently on the "Flemish issue" in art and I highly recommend Hans Vlieghe's "Flemish Art, Does It Really Exist?" (Simiolus: Netherlands Quarterly for the History of Art, vol. 26, no. 3, 1998, pp. 187-200) (which he wrote after completing his survey Flemish Art and Architecture, 1585-1700).--Stomme 15:49, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I took "all the Brueghel pages" to mean his paintings, not his family. I agree with your points (without knowing too much about the other B's). Johnbod 15:55, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Then I whole-heartedly agree :) . But my misunderstanding gave me some enjoyable rant-time, which is always fun! --Stomme 16:22, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Netherlandish" 

message: According to my McGraw-Hill textbook, Pieter Bruegel the Elder was Flemish, and that is the commonly-accepted term (I looked his name up in an encyclopedia, and he is listed as being Flemish).
Unless someone can provide explicit proof that Pieter Bruegel the Elder was Dutch ("Netherlandish", as you have seemed to call it), then I am going to go ahead and change the article to say he was Flemish.
Whether or not we know completely for sure what region he was from, the convention seems to be that he was Flemish, and I think it would be a shame to mislead readers of Wikipedia by instilling in them unconfirmed/untrue data.
--Scottytheking (talk) 21:07, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Has the hidden note "<-- Please see talk page discussion before altering this description.-->" in the lede really been there since 2007? There seem to be some recent moves to change the description. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:02, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

text: I disagree. Calling someone a Dutch painter is rather akin to calling someone a Belgian one - it is a term attached to a modern polity. I know that Dutch used to be used to talk about the entire Low Countries but that is not what the average (or even non-average) reader would reasonably suspect. Would "netherlandish" be a good compromise? To my mind, Flemish is still the best option though. —Brigade Piron (talk) 08:08, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

text: I must agree to user "Brigade Piron". People would interprete "Dutch" in its modern meaning: "from the Netherlands". "Netherlandish" is a possibility to indicate the entire Low Countries, although this term -unfortunately- doesn't exist and may be misunderstood as well. I agree to the previous respondent that "Flemish" is ambiguous as well, since it historically refers to the county of Flanders, whereas Bruegel indeed never worked nor lived there. The best adjective imo would be Belgian, since we only know that he lived in Antwerp and Brussels, both situated in modern-day Belgium. Regarding his place of birth, it is not at all clear whether he was born in the present-day Netherlands (Breda or Breugel) or in present-day Belgium (Bree or Grote-Brogel). You could say that "Belgian" perfectly covers all we know (for sure) about Bruegel's where-abouts and that it is the only option that cannot be misunderstood by readers with limited historical background on this region. 84.195.205.159 (talk) 11:21, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Flemish 

message: Michael Frayn's novel Headlong describes the history of The Months and the possible discovery of the missing sixth painting.
:I've reverted this passage from the 'See also' section--it seems out of place and too specific. If an article is written devoted to an overview of The Months, it might be relevant under a Legacy or Influence heading. Possibly the book is notable enough to merit its own article. JNW (talk) 15:37, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Passage reverted

message: up until 1559, Bruegel signed his paintings with "h," spelling Brueghel. he started signing Brugel in 1559. apparently his 2 sons retained the "h." could someone put that up? it'll probably look like vandelizm if I do it. --71.58.160.80 (talk) 02:00, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It's in the intro. JNW (talk) 02:10, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: wow owned, didn't see that before, thanks haha--71.58.160.80 (talk) 02:17, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Brueg"h"el

message: This article says "about 45". Would anybody have a source for that? Over on this page there are ninety-nine paintings attributed to Pieter Bruegel the Elder. Could somebody clarify the situation? Thanks. 86.44.18.83 (talk) 20:43, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not that many - his son & others did loads of copies, and there was great over-attribution in the past. He designed, but did not execute himself, perhaps a hundred or more  prints - is this what you mean by "book plates"? - and there are a few drawings. Johnbod (talk) 21:35, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  How many authenticated paintings?

message: Underneath his assumed self-portrait is written :
died: 9 September 1569(1569-09-09) (age 44)
Brussels, Habsburg Netherlands (now the Netherlands)
I find this rather confusing as I seem to recall that Brussels is the capital of Belgium and is not situated in the Netherlands anymore.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.243.30.80 (talk) 22:22, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Brussels, "now the Netherlands" 

message: I'm not an expert in IPA, but it seems to indicate that his name is pronuced witha hard G as one does in the north (where I'm from).
Hoever, he is from the south, where they tend to use a soft G.
Which is correct? 201.202.72.74 (talk) 15:40, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pronunciation of the name 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Pieter Bruegel the Elder. 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 https://web.archive.org/20090227151054/http://www.vrtnieuws.net:80/cm/vrtnieuws.net/cultuurmedia/kunsten/071017Icarus_nietauthentiek to http://www.vrtnieuws.net/cm/vrtnieuws.net/cultuurmedia/kunsten/071017Icarus_nietauthentiek
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 18:58, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: He belongs to Northern Netherlandish tradition (I call it: 'Batavian' / 'pro-naturalism' / 'pro-Republican'), along with i.e. Bosch-Rembrandt-Van Gogh, rather than Southern Netherlandish tradition (I call it: 'Rubensian' / 'pro-Monarchy'). Until 1585, neither Dutch nor Flemish concept existed. Until so call Belgian Revolution, Flemish was never known as a nationality/ethnic group. 
Zingvin (talk, 21:11, 25 February 2017‎
::That might be true in the Dutch language, but it is not true in English.  Or at least Flemish was used for the Dutch-speaking people of the southern Netherlands, and Flanders for their country, though whether that amounted to "a nationality/ethnic group" is a moot point.  Johnbod (talk) 04:26, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: For someone like Pieter Bruegel the Elder, cultural tradition/identity is more important than place of birth (Netherlands/Belgium)

message: The article just mentions one poem by Williams, but Williams wrote Pictures from Brueghel containing many poems about Brueghel. I don't know how relevant you might consider this or how you might integrate it into the article, but it seems to deserve at least as much space as Auden.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.224.220.1 (talk) 16:24, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  William Carlos Williams has many poems about Brueghel 

message: Before I start, I think it's quite ridiculous that I have to start a discussion on the talk page even though someone recently deleted the possibility of Bruegel as his birthplace (which makes one wonder: why didn't he have to go to the talk page?). So my question is, why is only Breda considered and not (the more likely option) Bruegel? Nico Gombert (talk) 19:05, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: See the actual article text, & the two lengthy sections above here. Johnbod (talk) 01:06, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I saw it, but I'm in disagreement with it completely. You and Ewulp are (again) objectively wrong. Read this (from the article): "but van Mander specified that Bruegel was born in a village (dorp) near Breda called "Brueghel"". So again, why is only Breda mentioned and not Bruegel? Nico Gombert (talk) 08:03, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: As the article says, most experts consider the village you want not close enough to Breda to fit van Mander's description. We follow WP:RS here, not your opinions (or ours - though personally I don't care, and I doubt Ewulp does much). Infoboxes are not good at uncertainty & nuance, & the matter is very fully discussed in the text. Johnbod (talk) 12:26, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Most experts? Have you counted them? Where are you basing your sources upon? Reliable sources? You have supplied two in the main text and two of them were used in the article, until it was removed a couple of weeks/months ago, without any form of discussion. Why? Nico Gombert (talk) 16:32, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why is Karel van Mander's source excluded 

message: What an odd coincidence that we have two very argumentative editors here whose user-names are also those of Renaissance composers - Carlo Gesualdo (contibs: blocked in 2018) and as of this month Nicolas Gombert! Johnbod (talk) 13:23, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a very strange coincidence. Just as strange as Johnbod following me everywhere around and reverting my edits. Nico Gombert (talk) 16:30, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Strange coincidence 

message: Should the Infobox of the artist include the fact that the town Bruegel in Brabant is a possibility - as one of the two sources of the text is claiming - where Pieter Bruegel was born? Nico Gombert (talk) 16:35, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: No - there are many possibilities (see the endless discussions higher up the page), and the infobox is not the place to go into that. The current wording "probably Breda" represents a succinct summary of scholarly thought, but many other places have been floated. Johnbod (talk) 03:51, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  RfC about the city of Bruegel as his birthplace