Talk:Relief

message: Could somebody who has considerable expertise in sculpting or in the history of sculpture add the basic explanation of why reliefs are done? My belief/guess/understanding is that the greater the depth of a relief, the more expensive, but that all are cheaper than a free-standing sculpture. But I suspect there are issues related to making a relief fit in a larger context, of style, and of ... I don't know. Resistance to vandalism?? Being unobtrusive? Not stressing the strength of available material?
67.169.127.166 (talk) 20:32, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: A relief is a one-sided sculpture, and usually forms part of a building or some similar bulky object like the base of a statue, or even a piece of furniture. Yes, higher relief takes more work, and is more expensive. Hope that helps. Johnbod (talk) 20:38, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Expert opinion on utility of each type of relief requested 

message: * Support as nom I think all four short stubs should be merged, not least because the division drawn between the two main sub-types, high and low, varies considerably. If not merged, alto-rilievo should be renamed high-relief. Johnbod (talk) 15:06, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed now. Ceoil (talk) 23:47, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merges from [[bas-relief]], [[alto-rilievo]] and [[Sunken-relief]]

message: Although they generally avoid anything approaching full sculpture, some icons of the eastern church (or their coverings) have a very detailed low relief covering, often made of silver. Mention? -- 92.226.93.64 (talk) 19:32, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: This type of relief is not distinctively Orthodox, & it would be a bit WP:UNDUE while the article remains a short summary of the different types. Of course Byzantine relief, in ivory etc, is often pretty high. That's my view anyway. Johnbod (talk) 01:56, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Low relief in eastern orthodox icons 

message: The following sentence is an opinion, not a fact:  "The technique involves considerable chiselling away of the background, which is a time-consuming exercise with little artistic effect if the lowered background is left plain, as is often the case." Therefore, it should be edited.Amadeus webern (talk) 18:51, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Artistic effect

message: I've reduced over-large image sizes and chopped the galleries a bit. Commons is over yonder... Vsmith (talk) 13:18, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: And I've reverted all of it. The subject is complicated and important and the images actually carefully chosen. You clearly don't edit visual art subjects much. Johnbod (talk) 13:36, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah - "clearly don't..." and you like to insult with your snobbery ... sorry 'bout that. The excess size and "carefully chosen" number of images is quite absurd and a problem for those with slow connections. Gah ... Vsmith (talk) 14:16, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Vsmit, I also think the current image sizes are appropriate, given the intricacies and subtleties or the works depicted. Employing larger image sizes is standard practice on wiki when describing what are often highly detailed smaller works; its not about snobbery, its about utility and common sense, IMO. I would agree with your position re image size if this were most other articles, but not on this particular one. Ceoil (talk) 19:05, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, so for some unknown reason oversize images are needed here - seems the norm be: "click the image and view the detail on the image file" hmm... Vsmith (talk) 22:52, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

text: The reason is not unknown; it has been spelled out for you a few times now! Ceoil (talk) 23:01, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

text: Oh and also - bolding synonyms or redirects target to the parent article is common practice. PS, you do good work here, don't want to fall out over this. Ceoil (talk) 19:14, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Eh ... nah seems WP:OWN be at play here. Sorry 'bout that. Vsmith (talk) 22:52, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Nah, you're doing WIERD STUFF like reducing galleries below the default size (which frankly ought not to be possible, as there's never a good reason) and debolding redirects, which just isn't helpful. Pointing objectors (and you clearly anticipated some) to the 50 million images on Commons, and the several thousand in the Category:Reliefs is exceptionally unhelpful to readers - I haven't seen that crap argument used for years. Johnbod (talk) 23:10, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

text: Indeed, and are verging on the point of edit warring by now. Ceoil (talk) 23:40, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably wise, absent a semblance of counter arguments. Ceoil (talk) 23:58, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

text: Some editors who know about visual arts, yes. I see we covered all the issues 2 years ago. Johnbod (talk) 21:42, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Excess trimmed 

message: The current section on "low reliefs" state that the current English terminology is outdated. If so, should this be merged to another section? It seems odd to point out that this termonology is rare at the beginning of the section, though this is not my field and I don't know if it might be impacted by other factors! --Marx01 Tell me about it 09:06, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: evidently needs rephrasing, but it says"A low relief or bas-relief ("low relief", French pronunciation: ​[baʁəljɛf], from the Italian basso rilievo; this is now a rather old-fashioned term in English) ...". That is, basso rilievo is now a rather old-fashioned term in English, as in fact bas-relief is becoming. Johnbod (talk) 16:05, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Low relief in English