Talk:Ghent Altarpiece

message: Since the altarpiece figures so prominently in the movie Monuments_Men_(film), I suggest that a section on Ghent Altarpiece in Literature and Film would show its influence on modern times.71.230.201.203 (talk) 16:34, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggested Additional Section

message: Where is it exactly now?  Maybe that is important to be in the article?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.57.23.82 (talk) 01:36, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Where is it??

message: Not I think so known in English (only the thing in the male throat is so called, nowadays anyway). Do you know the botantic/English name for the species?  Johnbod 20:08, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Most sources say that the depicted fruit is an etrog rather than a bumpy lemon. In this connection it is worth recalling that Jan van Eyck was sent by his patron, the Duke of Burgundy, on missions to the Levant and would have been familiar with the fruit. Also in this connection note that the vegetation depicted in some of the landscapes is Mediterranean. Everybody got to be somewhere! (talk) 22:57, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adam's apple 

message: The text says "The painting was stored in a museum in Pau for the duration of the war" but this is contradicted later when we learn it was moved to Germany on Hitler's orders.
89.100.251.145 (talk) 17:15, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Whereabouts during World War Two 

message: Some of the images, in particular the central figures, have a foggy quality on my computer monitor although others reproduce O.K. Can anybody improve the images? Xxanthippe (talk) 11:24, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've replaced three central images with clearer and more colorful examples. The problem is the inconsistency of images available in the commons; some 'foggy', which is to say dull in color, and others more chromatic. I suspect the latter are not only more pleasing but truer to the paintings. In the article a patchwork of gray and colorful images is not the best solution, but neither is a series of images unified by dinginess. Perhaps someone versed in the business of downloading images can offer improvements to what we've got. JNW (talk) 03:19, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Image Quality

message: Re this edit by TK . Agree with this, find the current organisation, with so many sections unwieldy, I'd at least merge the outer panel bits, I think long blocks of text without 20 fourth level headers is fine. There was a similar problem with The Garden of Earthly Delights, I think the solution worked out there would do here. Might comment out some of the images for now as we work through, they can be restored later when there is enough text to accomidate. Maybe a third level heading for each register (ie 2 and 3).Ceoil (talk) 22:47, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The "History" and "Theft" can be combined imo. I'd go with as few levels as possible and then restructure as it grows. Not sure the "Description" level two is necessary because it shoves everything down a level. I'd  start with having the main divisions as upper panels, lower panels, exterior panels - or something like that. Obviously it will change a lot, but the problem will be to keep from going to 4th level headings. Truthkeeper (talk) 23:19, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Fine, we'll assume this for now and see as we go on what best suits. Ceoil (talk) 23:28, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: TK we should carve up bits least we duplicate effort, I'll work on Adam and Eve and the "Style and technique" section next. Ceoil (talk) 01:10, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm starting at the bottom - that section is a mess and since I only had to move about two feet to reach the book, it suits my current state of laziness. And it's an interesting story. Truthkeeper (talk) 01:25, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Hehe. I have all the books and prints of Riggr's pdf's within arms reach. I dont even have to turn. Laziness rules. Re that section, any book with the words "the true story of" in the title, gotta go. Ceoil (talk) 01:27, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: It's the subtitle - but if you're serious will drop it and then go searching for pdfs, etc. Truthkeeper (talk) 01:51, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Na, should have added a knowing smiley face after that. It seems fine to use, unless we come across something better. Have you found an online copy? Ceoil (talk) 02:02, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

text: Also we have The Just Judges. Ceoil (talk) 01:38, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: So we have. Thanks. Truthkeeper (talk) 01:49, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: nl Just Judges, but its uncited. I havent run it through the translator yet. The German and Catalan articles are on the altarpiece are both FA. The German version seems to be a translation and weak, the Catalan good enough in areas, but not so in others. Its structured as this one was, and has superflious sections, and though covers a lot of bases, doesnt mine or go into dept when need. What I mean is it has a balance issue, in my view. Ceoil (talk) 02:28, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, I'll look at them. Can probably make out the NL version, definitely the German version. I've read about the panel, I think in Pacht, and somewhere else too. I've done a quick fix there for now and will work on it more tomorrow. Looks like it was a big story so can probably pull something out of google news archives. Or at least try. Truthkeeper (talk) 02:42, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Looked at them all. Thinking. I don't like to follow structures from other pages, at least hasn't helped me much in the past. I think we can build on the diptych - only about times ten! What you added tonight is very nice and necessary. Truthkeeper (talk) 03:10, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Um, have gone to third level. Not seeing anyway around it, if the page is to be coheriant and nagavationable. Ceoil (talk) 00:19, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Structure

message: Ceoil, you wrote at the beginning of the musicians section: “The two "musical angels" wings are positioned within the overall framework of the altarpiece as attendants to the King of Kings, that is, to God the father as presented in the center-most panel of the upper register. This is a turn on a motif popular in the hagiography of the early 15th century.” Surely, panels 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, and 7 of the inner upper register are all oriented towards the center-most panel No 4. This can be seen from the orientation of the heads in all of the six flanking panels. But does this mean that all persons in these six panels are positioned as attendants to God? Adam and Eve would be very indirect attendants then. Perhaps we should also consider the differences in localities. While the three center-most panels may show one locality, the four wing panels show different ones. So, clearly, the musicians and God are not in the same room. Would it then seem correct to say that the musicians images are in the artistic tradition of angels attending God? What do you think? Agric (talk) 16:49, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Agric Im a bit distracted at th moment, but will check this. Ceoil (talk) 20:04, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm *slowly* reading through, but found this on the Met website "Adam and Eve, at left and right, stand as the originators of sin in the world.". So not attendants. Need to clarify that. Ceoil (talk) 21:30, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Jumping in quickly - I simply don't think there's a rush. There's too much to read, and people have lives and things to do. I too have info about the perspective but seriously doubt I can be back here for many weeks. Truthkeeper (talk) 21:35, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: This is one thing Agric you might have to be patient with, the page is undergoing a major rewrite by us lot, and the litratature is *huge*. Have mercy! Ceoil (talk) 00:19, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Position of the two musicians wings within the framework of the altarpiece 

message: As the attached contemporary painting of St Catherine by Rogier van der Weyden shows, the faces and the hair style of the female musician precisely mirror the common image of beautiful women of those days. They do not mirror the image of angels, prostitutes, or anything sexless. Please bear in mind that in the Cathoic Church saints are no angels. They are historic persons that were made saints by the Pope of Rome due to alleged heroic deeds for their religion. We can be sure that van Eyck painted young female musicians in about the same shape and behavior as they were common at the court of Philip the Good, where Jan van Eyck had his main professional position when he was working on the altar piece. It is known that in choirs outside of the church female singers had equal importance and fame as male singers. The fact that van Eyck presented a secular female choir in church clothing surely must have had a reason. Perhaps it should be taken up in the context of the views of Tilman Seebass, as refrenced above. Agric (talk) 20:23, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Agric, I'll have a look at this when I have a chance. I did manage to spend a bit of time sorting through my sources on the Ghent last night, and I know that once we really dig in there will have to be a section about the naturalism/ realism, so hopefully it can cover as much as possible. There's still a lot of work to be done here and I'm essentially out for the next some weeks although I see that Ceoil has been working hard. Truthkeeper (talk) 20:23, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, Agric is right in what he is saying from my sources, and this will be a fairly sundstantial part of the planned analysis and interpration section. Thanks for the source Agric. Ceoil (talk) 23:01, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: This is getting interesting, I see Boorman refers to the musicians as 'he'. Ceoil (talk) 13:45, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: A lot of angels are men. The archangel Michael obviously is, but still shown with flowing tresses in the diptych. That's why those pics keep showing up my page - I'm mildly fascinated by them, and I think Agric has brought to us something we really need to consider. I've found a ref re angels & renaissance art - haven't had time to read it and evaluate. Will send on to everyone if it's something we might want to use. Truthkeeper (talk) 14:32, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: No, all angels are genderless, and beautiful. They don't reproduce, so have no need for reproductive organs. Ditto eating and excretion. That's basic theology, reflected in art until about the 19th century, when some angels do start growing breasts. Obviously some fulfil more butch functions than others, and are costumed appropriately. Johnbod (talk) 16:38, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

text: teah, I know that, but these ones looked like birds to me. Re source; when you return tk, and not before. Ceoil (talk) 14:52, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Social status of the musicians 

message: Angels can be depicted as sexless, but in the case of the musicians in the Ghent altarpiece van Eyck vehemently rejected this option. Skilled artists such as van Eyck have a full command of all the facial and behavioral attributes of a person that denote the sex of the person. Because of this skill and knowledge it is easy for them to paint a sex-ambiguous person. For example, look at the detail of Caravaggio’s painting on the left. This angel can be regarded with equal probability as male or female.
The musicians of van Eyck, however, are depicted as female as can be. Anatomy of the faces, inclination of the heads, and way of looking are archetypically female and – taken together – definitely exclude any possibility that the musicians could be sex-ambiguous or sexless. The strong emphasis with which van Eyck opts in favor of naturalistic female attributes should perhaps also be taken as an indication of the artist’s intentions. Agric (talk) 16:23, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Van Eyck vehemently rejected the option of musicians as sexless angels 

message: I've tidied the article up as best as I can without access to the sources. Anyone who does might want to check whether I've taken too many liberties. I've tried to regularise the use of "inner" and "outer" and "interior" and "exterior" as much as possible. "Wings" should, surely, only be used for the folding parts, not for individual panels. 
I've no idea what a "timer swivel" is. Timber?
A couple of remainig problems: The article says the central figure is Christ, and then says he hasn't been identified, and then says he's God the father. Also the angels are said to have "cherub" faces, while cherubs are  traditionally portrayed as having the faces of children.
:I've been on break but have access to most of the sources and intend to swing through here in the next few days or so. Thanks for the tidying; I've noticed it. The sources are inconsistent about the central figure and my feeling is that the various viewpoints should be presented and attributed, but there's still quite a lot of work to be done here. Truthkeeper (talk) 15:24, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Adding - thanks for your post. Wings / shutters should be differentiated from the interior panels that don't move; inner should refer to inside (interior) and outer to outside (exterior). I can see this getting tricky and thanks for the copyedits. Truthkeeper (talk) 18:56, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: An edit

message: About the work Altar (2014) by Kris Martin and its connection to the Ghent Altarpiece at the High Line (New York City):
*"The Most Frequently Stolen Artwork in History Is…On the High Line?" by Noah Charney, The New York Observer, 30 September 2015.
Worth mentioning? -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 16:44, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Could be. Reading and thinking about how best to incorporate this. Thanks for the heads up. Kafka Liz (talk) 18:28, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: NYC High Line

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Ghent Altarpiece. 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 http://web.archive.org/web/20151017051128/http://www.aiwaz.net/ghent-altarpiece/c28 to http://www.aiwaz.net/ghent-altarpiece/c28
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:59, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: :
Slight repetition here. A rough stab at rewording it:
:The lamb stands on an altar, facing the viewer and is surrounded by 14 angels arranged in a circle. The lamb has a wound on its breast from which blood gushes into a golden chalice, yet it shows no outward expression of pain, a reference to Christ's sacrifice. The angels have multicolored wings, some of them hold instruments of Christ's passion including the cross and the crown of thorns, while two swing censers.
No doubt this could be further improved, but with one of the "passions" cut it does flow a bit better. --Hillbillyholiday talk 03:19, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: instruments of the Passion (aka Arma Christi) should be linked (and renamed if you ask me), especially as there are so many other "instruments" in the article - 8 uses in total. Johnbod (talk) 03:27, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Talk about the passion 

message: Is there a translation of the 3 lines of greek above  Mary, Father, and John the baptist? Including the symbols? 
Why isn't the Cane and Able Sacrifice and Murder labels for the sculptures above adam and eve?
The bottom right panel labeled Pegrini, Isn't that Jesus leading in new followers? Since he's over-sized like the angels Mary and Gabriel? He's even pointing "this way". Too speculative?
I'm curious why their are so many variations of the swastika, some left facing, some right facing, some with shorter horizontal lines, some are very small? Or maybe some suggested reading regarding the possibilities? 
First timer, sorry if I'm not following protocol. These questions are bugging me. 
MookJong (talk) 08:59, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  4 Questions 

message: The four original panels still in the hands of St Bavo's Cathedral at the outbreak of WWI were carefully hidden by Canon Van den Gheyn. Nobody apart from him and his four helpers knew where the panels were kept. This makes me think that the assertion that panels were pilfered by the Germans during the war is inaccurate and based on legend rather than fact. The panels in the Altes Museum in Berlin and acquired from Solly were the panels that were the subject (along with a work by Dirk Boudts) of the restitution mandated by the Treaty of Versailles. This explains the bitterness of the Germans, who had acquired the Van Eyck panels perfectly legitimately almost a hundred years before. Everybody got to be somewhere! (talk) 22:46, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  The First World War 

message: While I do not have the time to edit the article, note that unlike what could be concluded from some newspaper articles, the restoration is global and not focused on one element (see recent edit by an anonymous user). Ref: https://www.vrt.be/vrtnws/nl/2019/12/17/lam-gods-gerestaureerd-en-klaar-voor-terugkeer/   
Regards, Voorlandt (talk) 18:47, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Restoration 

message: The reattribution of the Prado's Levensbron (Fountain of Life) creates a context you should examine. A clerical error made in the cataloguing of the work when it was entered into the Trinidade Collection in the secularisation of the Monasteries created a fictitious atelier of van Eyck's in 1454. That was the date it was first recorded in the Lebero de Bercel (Vellum Book, the asset register) of the Hieronimite Monastery of the Parral in Segovia, and implies "before 1454".
The general reattribution of all artworks in the 1990s, following decades of forgeries being discovered, saw a dendrochronological study of the boards it is painted on establish the tree was felled in 1420, and after ten years seasoning would have been used in the early 1430s, the time Jan van Eyck was there on a diplomatic mission to Spain.
The iconic identity with the Lamb is unmistakable, and so the two must be viewed as a pair.
They fit within a wider context, too, documented in Professor Bernard Guenée's biography of Cardinal Pierre d'Ailly, the Convenor of the Council of Constance 1414-18, in his Beyond Church and State. This documents the formation of the Devotio Moderna based on Jan van Ruusbroec's consolidation of the theology of the Eucharist, in his Spiritual Tabernacle. This thinking was taken up by Gerardus Groot in the creation of the Windesheim School (the two having spent a week in instruction at the very end of Ruusbroek's life), which was then adopted as the core of Renaissance theology. Professor Guenée's work stopped on d'Ailly's death, but the political drive behind it didn't, namely the Holy Roman Empire's attempts to gather support for a Crusade against the Ottoman threat to their Black Sea holdings.
Unfortunately, the Valous and Plantagenets were at each others' throat, although d'Ailly's letter of congratulations to Henry V for removing French influence after Agincourt (Gesta Henrici Quinti) shows a wider Burgundian (ie an HRE sockpuppet) alignment not recognised in English versions of the tale. Thus it was that d'Ailly's plans had carte blanche, inverting the power structure of the Concilium, restoring Rome - and then it came unstuck for the oddest of reasons. Having fired the three schismatic Popes, he placated the traditionalists with one of their own number, Martin V, a very sickly prelate not expected to live long. He didn't reckon on the Papal nuns, the sisters who care for his physical needs. They recognised lactose intolerance, and switched him to goat's milk. His health restored, he lived an inconveniently long time. On his death, the Venetian Gabriele Condulmer was annointed Eugenius IV, and hit the ground running.
d'Ailly's retinue at Constance included two young pages, Guillaume Dufay and Jan van Eyck. Dufay became a composer, and wrote the Papal Coronation Anthem Ecclesie Militate, Church Take Arms! The call was about to go out when bad news came the other way, La Pucelle had restarted the war, nobody was interested. Eugenius made the case d'Ailly had prepared, with Dufay's L'Homme Armé folk mass alongside van Eyck's two works (Yale's Professor Craig Wright's The Maze and the Warrior goes into great depth), forming an academic case conformant to the norms of the day, the quadrivium: Ruusbroec's theology, Dufay's arithmetical music, van Eyck's geometric cosmology in it's purest form, eschatology.
Till Holger Borchert agrees, and would welcome research into van Eyck's diplomatic career.
It's my personal opinion the Parral work was either a study or a copy, as it's a good fit for the altarpiece of a chapel Eugenius built in Brussels at the same time, destroyed in 1955: an exact copy had been built and is now the Chapel of the European Commission.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.68.80.209 (talk) 01:45, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Levensbron 

message: I can't produce a picture of my own computer monitor. But without limiting the top image box via the px method? The image box takes up well over 90% of the monitor's screen shot width. This distorts the written content, as a result. GoodDay (talk) 23:24, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: What monitor size are you using? Screehshots to the right of what I'm seeing (desktop 1024x1024). Ceoil (talk) 23:38, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Mine is an Acer, monitor. GoodDay (talk) 23:43, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, will look...it can often be baffeling how different set-ups render the same page so differently for individual users. One thing to say in favour of the larger size for this articel, is that it is made up of 12 very large and very detailed panels, and the lower sized image (on my screen) makes their detail almost illegible. Ceoil (talk) 23:47, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

text: Also, suggest that we leave this sit for a few days for others to input, given we both seem to be wanting the same result, but are seeing different things....there may be a technical solution [crosses fingers]. Ceoil (talk) 23:51, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: On my laptop using Vector 2010, text boosted to 125, images set to 220 px in preferences, it's perfect if the upright parameter = 1.8. Every browser is different. Every skin is different. Boosting text affects images, etc. I'm happy as it is now; it was too large & then too small. Victoria (tk) 00:23, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

text: Adding; the gutters on Vector 2022 are so absurdly large that the text only gets a teeny column & the image is overwhelming even at 1.8. Which is a problem b/c Vector 2022 is now default for logged out users I believe, so it might need more fiddling. I've not switched to a differenct browser. Victoria (tk) 00:26, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Much better. Even though it still takes over half the width of the page? there's now enough room for the text. GoodDay (talk) 00:28, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree. I've done another test; slightly increased the top (open) img, and reduced the lower (closed) view - so they are more proportional (in height at least).here Would like the proportion but GoodDay how does it look from your side? Ceoil (talk) 00:32, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: 's version works best. The test you did, had the image boxes covering over 90% of the page width again. Thus crushing the text up against the left side of the page. GoodDay (talk) 00:37, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok so, Victoriaearle's version it is :) Ceoil (talk) 00:48, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I put the bottom one down. Agree it should be smaller. Will check other browsers in a day or two & report back. What I saw on Vector 2022 on my laptop was astonishing so will look at some other articles too - a bit busy this evening for more. Victoria (tk) 00:52, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: No panic and thanks so much! I quite like vector 2022, except for the watchlist/my contribs etc being hard to find. Still, its in beta and onwards! Ceoil (talk) 01:01, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

text: What did your Vector 2022 show? Just curious. GoodDay (talk) 01:05, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

text: For me see new third image to right. Its much better than the earlier two. Ceoil (talk) 01:34, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: So, on Vector 2022 the first line breaks after the word "lamb", the second after the word "altarpiece" and so on. In other words the text is squished into a tiny column. It's very different than the image shown above. That's for 100% font size. My monitor is set at 1280 x 800. The highest setting is 1440 x 900 and renders everything teeny but will reset and report back in a moment. Victoria (tk) 03:00, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

text: Resetting the monitor to 1440 x 900, the first line breaks after "Altarpiece", the second after "complex". I don't keep my monitor at the setting for vision reasons and am happy w/ the images as they are now, but the differences in monitors, skins, browsers, etc. are interesting. Victoria (tk) 03:04, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text:  "interesting" is one word! A bit frustrating is another, but agree that what we have now is grand, and can live with it. Goes to show though, both myself and GoodDay wanted the same result, but the page was rendering in almost opposite ways for us. No wonder wiki is so tense. Ceoil (talk) 03:21, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: It's actually frustrating that what one person sees in completely different that the next person. It's frustrating that all the image markup has to be changed too - see my clumsy edits this evening. I have visitors so have to stop now but see that there's some work to be done! Victoria (tk) 03:42, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Not wanting to vent, but a que to why its so messed up is that we have to include |thumb| every time. I mean, is it not ever the case. In my day...(grumble, grumble). Ceoil (talk) 14:59, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  When Images take up over half of the page width