Talk:Trompe-l'œil

message: Throughout history trompe l'oeil paintings have been more of an
artistic intellectual game then a decoration.
And deception is the object of this game.
Although art styles, like the rules of the game have changed through the centuries, the name of the game has remained the same...
trompe l'oeil.
Trompe L'Oeil, to fool or trick the eye, is an artistic
and visual trick. In trompe l'oeil the viewer must only be deceived or tricked for a moment, but they must realize they have been tricked or the purpose of the trompe l'oeil is lost.  
The Trick makes it a Trompe!
The instant the deception or trick is realized, and the viewer stands back in astonishment, the artist can consider their mission accomplished and the game won. 
--4.247.120.119 03:03, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Game of Trompe L'Oeil 

message: The result was merge Quadratura and Sotto in su into Illusionistic ceiling painting. -- Stomme (talk) 14:21, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I can see the sense in that, & would be happy to go with it. Trompe-l'œil is the only one of the terms to be widely used outside art history, and is always going to have the body-painting and the rest, which is fair enough I think. Johnbod (talk) 21:15, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

text: Okay, I now suggest leaving trompe l'oeil as is and Sotto in su and Quadratura should be properly merged with Illusionistic ceiling painting (the content is more or less there now). --Stomme (talk) 00:47, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: yes - looks good. Johnbod (talk) 02:13, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

text: Hi Johnbod and anyone else watching. I think it's time to make redirects from both Sotto in su and Quadratura to Illusionistic ceiling painting. If, at some time, somebody wants to really expand either (for instance, the full meaning of quadratura, they can still do so). But for now, I think the new combined page gives most people the information they were looking for (and more!) without all of the repeating. I'll wait a bit, and am happy to do the dirty work if no one objects (or you can just revert me if you do). --Stomme (talk) 12:58, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks good to me; nice work. Johnbod (talk) 14:22, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

text: Done! --Stomme (talk) 15:46, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Merger proposal

message: * A & B, as nom - or Stomme's alternative below. Johnbod (talk) 18:05, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Support

message: * Alternatively, I propose merging Sotto in su, Quadratura and Illusionistic painting into Illusionistic ceiling painting. It is a well-enough established tradition in Renaissance to Rococo painting for its own article. On their own, they can be, but are not always, examples of Trompe-l'œil. Likewise, Illusionistic painting (with the first part of its current lead) should actually be Illusionism (art), and generally cover Trompe-l'œil, Op art, Illusionistic ceiling painting, and so forth. It could be nothing more than a glorified disamb page as far as I'm concerned, but allow for more options than should be squeezed into trompe-l'œil. In fact, I actually think the current Trompe-l'œil page is on the verge of applying the term to more artistic forms than it strictly should, even if I'm basically happy with it. --Stomme (talk) 20:33, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I can see the sense in that, & would be happy to go with it. Trompe-l'œil is the only one of the terms to be widely used outside art history, and is always going to have the body-painting and the rest, which is fair enough I think. Johnbod (talk) 21:15, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

text: Okay, I now suggest leaving trompe l'oeil as is and Sotto in su and Quadratura should be properly merged with Illusionistic ceiling painting (the content is more or less there now). --Stomme (talk) 00:47, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: yes - looks good. Johnbod (talk) 02:13, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

text: Hi Johnbod and anyone else watching. I think it's time to make redirects from both Sotto in su and Quadratura to Illusionistic ceiling painting. If, at some time, somebody wants to really expand either (for instance, the full meaning of quadratura, they can still do so). But for now, I think the new combined page gives most people the information they were looking for (and more!) without all of the repeating. I'll wait a bit, and am happy to do the dirty work if no one objects (or you can just revert me if you do). --Stomme (talk) 12:58, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks good to me; nice work. Johnbod (talk) 14:22, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

text: Done! --Stomme (talk) 15:46, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion

message: In my observation, trompe l'oeil is typically written without a hyphen -- I checked several dictionaries, but see also, for example, the name of the French museum, wrongly hyphenated in this article's link (follow the link and see).  Nandt1 (talk) 00:40, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Pardon me if I'm being thick, but your note seems to say that you checked several dictionaries and they wrongly hyphenated "trompe-l'œil" as we have, even though it is more typical to write it without the hyphen in your observation. Is that what you intended to write? Oxford dictionaries are not consistent, but the The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Art and Artists (ed. Ian Chilvers. Oxford University Press, 1996. Oxford Reference Online. Oxford University Press. [accessed 17 May 2008]) seems happy enough with our current spelling (hyphen included). Are you suggesting that we write it without the hyphen?  If your comment is about Trompe-l'Oeil museum in France, then you only looked at the splash page. In the text itself there is always the hyphen. Otherwise,  I don't see the link to which you are referring (the only red link is your user name). I only have a the Grand dictionnaire terminologique of Canadian French right on-hand, but it does hyphenate the term. I've always hyphenated it in French, and I usually see it hyphenated in art literature in English (with exceptions, however). I quickly looked at the links (some of which should probably be removed) and the French sites seemed to include the hyphen and the English ones were mixed.--Stomme (talk) 01:19, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Nonetheless, I've added that it can be without in English, ref'd to the NGA, who don't use it. Johnbod (talk) 01:27, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

text: That's fair.--Stomme (talk) 01:36, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

text: A quick look at several English dictionaries (American, British and Canadian) shows that most, but not all, indeed dispense not only with the hyphen, but with the œ as well. Dictionaries largely follow usage, which tends, generally, towards simplification. Whether it is written "trompe-l'œil", "trompe-l'oeil", "trompe l'œil", or "trompe l'oeil", doesn't matter much to me, as long as one manner is consistently used throughout this article. It certainly doesn't matter enough to me to anything further about it—proactively or reactively. --Stomme (talk) 08:45, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Why does the name of this article include a hyphen?

message: From the article: "Zeuxis produced a still life painting so convincing, that birds flew down from the sky to peck at the painted grapes. He was then asked by his rival, Parrhasius, to pull back a pair of very tattered curtains in order to see the painting behind them. Parrhasius won the contest, as his painting was the curtains themselves." (emphasis added) 
This needs clarification - was Parrhasius trying to trick Zeuxis by pretending that the curtains were real? (So Zeuxis goes to pull back the curtains like Parrhasius asked him to, realizes they're a painting, and then they both had a good chuckle, acknowledging Parrhasius as the winner.) Or is the "by" a typo? (Zeuxis is trying to examine Parrhasius's painting, but assumes it is blocked by the curtains, so in frustration, asks Parrhasius to pull back the curtains to reveal his (Parrhasius's) painting, not realizing that the curtains were the painting.) The wording should be clearer. -- 99.154.0.107 (talk) 03:23, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The wording is entirely clear, but gives a different account from our article on the painters. Which, if either, Pliny actually gave, 400 years after the supposed events, I don't know. Johnbod (talk) 12:02, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Zeuxis and Parrhasius 

message: I removed the following people from the list of contemporary artists: Pascal Amblard, William Cochran, Pierre Ducordeau, Michael Fitts,  Pierre Gilou, Eric Grohe, Jean Malice, Dom Ramos,  Daniel Solnon, and Slade Wheeler. None seem to be "notable" as per wikipedia standards. Feel free to re-add them if they can be shown to be significant participants in shaping this genre.  --Stomme (talk) 21:38, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed; regular pruning needed here. Johnbod (talk) 21:41, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

text: Sidewalk art is frequently trompe-l'œil and Julian Beever, Edgar Mueller and Kurt Wenner are noteworthy enough to have wikipedia articles. I am adding a sentence or maybe two to the article's section "In Other Art Forms". 173.174.85.204 (talk) 16:35, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contemporary artists 

message: The image of Jeylina Ever's painting represented a work of such quality that is rarely seen in times like these. It is a shame that it was deleted for the mere reason that it was added by the painter. Perhaps we are so used to seeing junk that we have lost our sense and taste for fine works.Lestrade (talk) 18:56, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It's hard to make distinctions between self-promotion that's "good enough quality" and self-promotion that just isn't. --Wetman (talk) 21:04, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Jeylina Ever

message: The bodypainting example and photo does not have any TLO in it, and it reads like advertising blurb or promotion - I think it should be deleted. 92.15.3.53 (talk) 10:16, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I was about to ask the same thing! It seems to add no value to the article (",) 86.63.26.124 (talk) 19:12, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bodypainting example not Trompe-l'oeil - should be removed 

message: The definition says:
"Trompe-l'œil is an art technique involving extremely realistic imagery in order to create the optical illusion that the depicted objects appear in three dimensions."
In my opinion, trompe l'oeil does not necessarily put forward the goal of tricking viewers into believing in a 3D effect. 
For example, viewers will not be arguing over the 3D effect of "The seasons" by Giuseppe Arcimboldo.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Livensoar (talk • contribs) 15:40, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Definition 

message: I'm not sure how that carpet fountain is a trompe-l'oeil, is any realistic piece of sculpture one simply because it tricks the eye? Seems an absurdly broad classification. Any painting would qualify because one sees objects instead of paint on a canvas.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.70.242.116 (talk) 10:23, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with this. The actual examples included in this article do not seem to be restricted to the definition of Trompe-l'æil given at the beginning of the article. --2.105.139.62 (talk) 11:35, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statue 

message: I suggest mentioning Carel Fabritius's The Goldfinch in this article because as stated in the following quote, this painting is a special example of trompe-l'oeil (and is also a highly regarded masterpiece which happens to currently be on tour thus raising its contemporary profile and hence the number of Wikipedia users looking for more information on this painting and trompe-l'oeil).
As excerpted from Frederik J. Duparc, "Carel Fabritius (1622-1654) His Life and Work" in Carel Fabritius 1622-1654, Zwolle, 2004, pp. 58-60 on the Carel Fabritius page on the essentialvermeer.com site:
"Using relatively broad brushstrokes and occasionally bright colours, he produced a subtle rendering of a European goldfinch, caught in bright light. If one views the panel from a slight distance, the soft shadows cast by the little bird on both its feeding- box and the light wall, the shadows cast by the feeding-box on the wall, as well as the reflections of light on the two curved wooden rails, all help to create the convincing illusion that one is in fact observing a goldfinch perched by its feeding-box.
This seeming three-dimensionality places the small panel in the category of trompe-l'oeil depictions. Even so, it is in a class by itself, precisely because the illusions created by most other examples of this genre depend on an elaboration of detail carried almost to extremes."Penelope Gordon (talk) 18:34, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Carel Fabritius's "The Goldfinch" 

message: Trick of the Eye, is the best translation of trompe l'oeil. And it has that same phrase in English. Trick of the Eye.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Two Wrongs (talk • contribs) 23:14, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trick of the Eye 

message: Is this picture really a trompe-l'œil? I mean, the figures aren't photo-realistic, and the perspective isn't given a lifelike treatment, and I challenge anyone to say they might actually be fooled for a moment into thinking they were looking at a real scene. Nor do I think there is any intention that someone should; which kind of fails the test for this kind of illusion.
Nuttyskin (talk) 12:27, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Los Angeles Plaza Historic District: mural off Alameda Street 

message: Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that :File:Tromp-l'oeil Still-Life 1664 Hoogstraeten.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on January 6, 2017. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2017-01-06. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:37, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:File:Tromp-l'oeil Still-Life 1664 Hoogstraeten.jpg]] to appear as POTD soon 

message: Trompe l'oeil is a specific term for a distinctive type of illusionism in 2D art.
I'd vote to remove much of the section on "In other art forms" and some of the references to forced perspective in architecture. It's confuses & detracts from a clear definition of the term. 
Would anyone like to make a case for the relevance of keeping references to forced perspective in architecture, and the "In other art forms" section (set design, however, seems  relevant)? Iandaandi (talk) 22:11, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Definition gets murky with "In other art forms" section 

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 nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:57, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion