Talk:Medieval art

message: I recently added the outline of the 9 main movements, the regional art, the art genres, the art types. The source for this was the Index of the Dictionary of the Middle Ages (1989), the 13 volume encyclopedia of the Middle Ages (ed. Joseph Strayer). Each of the links corosponds roughly to an article in the Encyclopedia. It is one way professional medievalists break down the topic of "medieval art". There are many more lesser topics not touched on but these are the major "fault lines". 
:Well I'm not an art historian of course, but aren't some of these a little too specific? I mean, Comnenan and Palaeologan art, for example, could just be covered under "Byzantine art" in general, couldn't they? And I still think it's just called "Crusader art" rather than "Crusader states art", but oh well. Adam Bishop 06:18, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps, it's a work in progress, I wanted to get it all down and then see how it evolves. If nothing else these links would be redirects because they are all terms that are in common use (at least among art specialists). There are two: Crusade art, and Crusader state art. One deals with art related to the Crusades, which appeared all over western europe, as a genre. The other deals with the art produces in the crusader states, as a regional art. Stbalbach 15:44, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I went back and looked at the Crusade art more closely, you are right, it is just Crusader art .. the index has it separated but its basically the same material. Stbalbach 16:09, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Medieval art Classifications 

message: I have reverted this because although it might be true that Byzantine art is the "high art" of the middle ages, it is to put it mildly debatable, especially when the term is defined, as here, to include Islamic art. The assertion does not appear in the article (I think), nor is there an article discussing "High art".  A picture caption is not the place for all this, so I have substituted my more neutral version.
I will leave the nonsensical Celtic art references, although even the Celtic art article rightly places the major works (Books of Kells, Lindisfarne etc) in the "Hiberno-Saxon" style, or Insular art as most art historians actually call it (at least among themselves) Johnbod 02:53, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK - I've seen it called High Art in a number of places but it's idiomatic, just a beautiful phrase. Celtic art is more general which includes Hiberno-Saxon and Insular. -- Stbalbach 15:56, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: well I'd say it's more of a technical term (one some would call elitist & old fashioned), implying art integrated with a coherent & conscious aesthetic framework, and produced within a large-scale milieu of training, sourcing materials and financing work, all so that the artist is able, as near as possible, to realize his creative potential with as few as possible practical and technical constraints. So Byzantine art at its best met these criteria, but so did some periods of Islamic art, & also of European medieval art (Gothic period especially).   Johnbod 16:25, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I see. A High art article would be interesting, with a list of the art periods and historiography and etymology. Looking at "What links here" for the current high art article (a movie), it needs it. -- Stbalbach 17:12, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree;I could bang down a stub, but the historiography is not really my area - I imagine it's a German C18/19 concept originally, related to high culture, on which I see we have a rather dodgy-looking article (maybe the Catholic Enclopedia can help!!  Johnbod 17:55, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've completely Genghis-ed the existing High culture article & put in a short piece, which also slides rather uncomfortably to include High art - but I think it's still an improvement. Have a look - it certainly needs expanding Johnbod 20:52, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice work, Johnbod. -- Stbalbach 15:02, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hagia Sophia caption 

message: "Medieval folklore" redirects here (I clicked over from the list of legendary creatures), which doesn't seem right to me! 64.126.112.80 (talk) 20:15, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No, indeed! I can't see a precise article, so will redirect to folklore. Johnbod (talk) 20:25, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: "medieval folklore"

message: As far as I am aware, and I'll have to come back later with sources—though I suspect the facts are easily retrieved on GoogleBooks—the original pejorative for Gothic architecture, used by Vasari and others, was maniera tedesca ("German manner"), in reference to the influence of late German styles on increasingly classicised Italian architecture. The term "Gothic" was not used in by the Italians but arose later as a synonym for tedesca (at a time before English had settled on the word "German[ic]"), and is not intended to attack either medieval styles in general or to borrow the reputation of the Goths but rather to attack the "foreign" transalpine style. A quick GoogleBook search reveals that Erwin Panofsky says something like this. Srnec (talk) 06:49, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Not according to this and other hits in this search. Johnbod (talk) 22:14, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: A charming theory but alas pure fiction. I can't speak Italian so can't watch the video - but I note that the speaker is an expert on video games, not a historian. The first documented use of the term 'Gothic' in relation to art is in a famous and lengthy letter on aesthetic theory sent to Pope Leo X in 1519 by the artist Raphael (possibly written with the help of Baldassare Castiglione). The letter criticises 'degenerate' and 'foreign' (i.e. northern) influences in architecture, which Raphael claimed were distracting architects and patrons from the 'true inheritance' of Roman architecture. He claimed that northern medieval art was threatening the development of Renaissance architecture just as the early Germanic tribes had supposedly destroyed Classical culture in the 4th-5th centuries. Hence the association with the 'Goths'. (Pope Leo X was of course the son of Lorenzo 'Il Magnifico' da Medici and a major patron of the arts - so Raphael's letter was in part an attempt to ensure a steady stream of commissions!) Vasari's widely discussed reference to Gothic art was simply picking up on the use of the term by Raphael, of whom he was a great admirer. If anyone's interested, there's an excellent French edition of Raphael's letter; La Lettre à Léon X, trans  Michel Paoli, Paris, 2005.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by StuartLondon (talk • contribs) 08:35, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  the term "Gothic" 

message: "The Middle Ages saw a decrease in prosperity, stability and population in the first centuries of the period—to about 800, and then a fairly steady and general increase until the massive setback of the Black Death around 1350, which is estimated to have killed about half of the overall population in Europe, with generally higher rates in the south and lower in the north. Many regions did not regain their former population levels until the 17th century. The population of Europe is estimated to have reached a low point of about 18 million in 650, doubling by 1000, and reaching over 70 million in 1340, just before the Black Death. In 1450 it was still only 50 million. To these figures, Northern Europe, especially Britain, contributed a lower proportion than today, and Southern Europe, including France, a higher one.[2] The increase in prosperity, for those who survived, was much less affected by the Black Death. Until about the 11th century most of Europe was short of agricultural labour, with large amounts of unused land, and the Medieval Warm Period benefited agriculture until about 1315."
Sure, but the average reader is going to be wondering when the word "Art" is going to make its first appearance. PiCo (talk) 12:17, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It has already appeared many times in the lead. Johnbod (talk) 22:14, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Medieval demographics 

message: I shall replace this strangely-titled section with the old one, and the old picture, which shows art not architecture, and does not innclude a 2nd image of the building already in the lead. If there are specific concenrns with the section please raise them here, otherwise please continue your campaign elsewhere. Johnbod (talk) 21:17, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, there are. Half of the section is beyond WP:Scope, since it deals not with the influences of Islamic on European art, but with unrelated developments in "art of Muslim countries in the Near East, Islamic Spain, and Northern Africa". Since you still do not provide reasons for keeping this, we take it from the new version. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 22:07, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Look, obviously what is meant is that the Islamic Middle East, Spain, and Northern Africa are assumed to be part of the European Middle Ages. We all appreciate your efforts, I'm sure, but I think you might be making too much of this issue. Why exactly is this beyond the article's scope? Adam Bishop (talk) 23:49, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Whoever made that premise in the article, it is unsubstantiated. So the question is why are the Middle East, Northern Africa and (debatable) Al-Andalus are assumed to be part of medieval Europe?  Gun Powder Ma (talk) 23:58, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Presumably because they share the same Greco-Roman heritage. Adam Bishop (talk) 00:00, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

text: No. It gives context without attempting coverage, and also mentions areas of contact. There is a longer contextual passage on Late Roman art. But your monomania on this issue is well-known. Johnbod (talk) 00:54, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The exchange is clearly apparent and the mention is valid. I see no reason for its exclusion. The cultural and aesthetic dynamic in Christian art clearly expands after interaction with Islam, and the section is adequate and should be kept...Modernist (talk) 13:10, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd rather say your observation is clearly counterfactual. If it is "apparent", you will certainly have no problem in pointing to the exchange in the quoted section above, because all it tells is about Islamic art as such and its exchanges with Near Eastern Christian art. Where does medieval European art feature? As a side-note, this giving a little helping hand among you fellow contributors is a bit lame, try arguments instead... Gun Powder Ma (talk) 16:39, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: We're not even arguing about the same thing; it looks like we're just using a broader definition of "medieval Europe" than you. Until we can agree on the boundaries obviously we are not going to have a constructive discussion. Adam Bishop (talk) 18:11, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: No assertion is made that "the Near East, ... and Northern Africa" are part of Europe, though "Islamic Spain" certainly is, as were the other parts of Europe under Muslim rule detailed in the following paragraph.  By my count 18 member-nations of the present day Council of Europe were in whole or part under Muslim rule during the Middle Ages, so a brief paragraph on Islamic art seems highly relevant.  Johnbod (talk) 19:55, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see a problem with a section like this. I do think the "influences" are somewhat embedded in other information and "influence" is what should be clearly highlighted. Perhaps, a  little reorganization would fix that. As well, the opening sentence seems  somewhat editorial in nature. If the section and information is important, no need to say so just launch into the material, or alternately, explain why there is  "need" for the content and source the statement. (olive (talk) 18:27, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The next para, which appears not to be contested, covers some specific influences. Johnbod (talk) 18:59, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Medieval contact zone" 

message: I've protected the page. Please study Wikipedia:Edit warring: to-and-fro reversions are blockable conduct. When a consensus is achieved, the page can be uprotected. Consider an article WP:RFC if there is a deadlock. Ty 13:43, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Page protection

message: In the section Romanesque art please disambiguate vault (displayed as vaulted) to vault (architecture). Thanks.
ShelfSkewed Talk 21:09, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Ronhjones  (Talk) 00:45, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request from ShelfSkewed, 12 April 2010 

message: Could we look at some reliable sources instead of edit warring ? Maybe we could all read Calligraphy in Islamic Art ? --Anneyh (talk) 17:11, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: This comment is overruled by the request for comment below. --Anneyh (talk) 06:38, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Importance of calligraphy, ornament and the decorative arts in islamic art 

message: Instead of edit warring work out which nations were wealthy here...Modernist (talk) 17:28, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: That was also the idea behind my previous remark, but in my books I could not find that being richer (or not) made calligraphy more important or influential in Islamic art. --Anneyh (talk) 18:59, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed the part for lack of a reliable source per WP:Verifiability. I have already provided a link to Maddison's work, one of the most notable macro-economists, from showing that such an inferences cannot be drawn from his material. So where does this unreferenced claim come from? WP:Burden is clearly on those who wish to maintain that medieval Islamic countries were generally wealthier than Christian ones. Don't restore this contentious material again without an adequate source to back it up. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 20:34, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Who is rich

message: I've added now the views of several economic historians, the research and calculations of each of them weighing a hundred times more than the unreflected, off-hand and unsupported comment of an art historian. Please don't try to remove this additional research on the grounds that the section now becomes too off-topic. It absolutely does, but this is the fault of those who want to keep the contentious statement by citing such a non-expert shabby source as Hollingsworth. My proposal is to remove all such references to living standards and not to embarrass knowledgeable readers which such sweeping and simplistic views on historical living standards again. We should talk about art here, not economy which is neither necessary nor doesn't seem the strong point of the main editors here. QED Gun Powder Ma (talk) 21:06, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Before reading this, I had already indeed removed: According to the art historian Mary Hollingsworth the Christian Byzantine Empire and the "courts of the Islamic world both achieved standards of wealth and luxury unknown in Europe" around the year 1000, although she cites no empirical evidence for this view.Hollingsworth, Mary; Art in World History, Armonk, N.Y. : Sharpe Reference, c2004,  p.159. However, according to calculations by the macro-economist Angus Maddison the GDP per capita of Western Europe was as high as that of Islamic North Africa, both estimated at around 430 1990 International Dollars.Maddison, Angus (2007): "Contours of the World Economy, 1–2030 AD. Essays in Macro-Economic History", Oxford University Press, , p. 185, table 4.2. Egypt alone enjoyed a higher per capita wealth (550), although still substantially lower than that of the Christian Byzantine Empire (680–770).Milanovic, Branko (2006): "An Estimate of Average Income and Inequality in Byzantium around Year 1000", Review of Income and Wealth, Vol. 52, No. 3, pp. 449–470 (468) It should be mentioned that recent research into the conversion rate renders any notion of "Islamic states" anachronistic, with the Christian faith dominant west of Iran until 900-1000 AD, while Egypt may have retained a predominantly Christian population well past that date.M. Brett: "Population and Conversion to Islam in Egypt in the Medieaval Period", in: Egypt and Syria in the Fatimid, Ayyubid and Mamluk eras IV: proceedings of the 9th and 10th international colloquium organized at the Katholieke Universiteit Leuven in May 2000 and May 2001, Peeters Publishers, 2005, , pp. 14f.. Finally, according to the ancient economist Walter Scheidel, real incomes of unskilled laborers in the Islamic-ruled states of Egypt and Mesopotomia of the time were as low as in other Afroeurasian societies.Walter Scheidel: "Real Wages in Early Economies: Evidence for Living Standards from 1800 BCE to 1300 CE", Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient, Vol. 53 (2010), pp. 425-462 (427 & 453)
- as it is indeed way off-topic. You are also using only sources for specific dates & regions, nothing overall. I have read Brett, and how you can maintain the position you do after doing so is a bit of a mystery to me. The proportion of the population that were Muslims does not affect whether a country was "Islamic" or not in normal terminology. All this should go into the article on Medieval economy we badly need. "Islamic countries" should indeed be changed & I would have done so earlier if not edit-conflicted at evey step. I note you now ignore Maddison's figure for Spain in the year 1000, and strangely ignore Scheidel's conclusion that "real wages in medieval Cairo were higher than in most of the earlier economies reviewed above" - which include Middle Byzantine Constantinople and Bagdhad c. 760 (and see his note 82 also). But as Scheidel's paper does not deal with ANY medieval European areas, he is of course hardly relevant here. He deals with nothing in Europe after 301 AD! Equally Maddison only appears to deal with Spain and North Africa in the Islamic world, & resolutely ignores the core Islamic area of the Middle East, except for Egypt, where he does indeed conclude with high figures, as he does with Spain.  Johnbod (talk) 21:46, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

text: Oh what an exercise in selective reading from you. Scheidel writes: A survey of daily wages expressed in terms of wheat in different Afroeurasian societies from 1800 BCE to 1300 CE yields similar results: with a few exceptions, the real incomes of unskilled laborers tended to be very low. (p. 425) This is the central thesis which you have removed, not the Cairo part. Your assertion of 2islamic countries" is POV, so, hmm, what's left of your argument? Nothing, although you can give me Maddison's number of Spain. It is not in table 4.2. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 22:30, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: But none of those "different Afroeurasian societies from 1800 BCE to 1300 CE" are in fact from anywhere in Europe after 301AD. What a joke! Maddison's figure for Spain is from the WP article using his figures you yourself introduced to the argument. Johnbod (talk) 22:33, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

text: Economy is important because of patronage, among other things. Much too much weight is given here now, imo. I've started digging on this topic, and in fact one source I found directly contradicts what's now in the page re Egypt, so I don't think this is settled. At all. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 21:22, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Fine. Patronage is important. But why should Christian patronage compared with Islamic patronage? Why are needless comparisons like "Islamic countries were generally wealthier than Christian ones" introduced? What can the reader learn from this comparison in an art article other than that the editor who introduced this claim believes that 'my daddy is stronger than yours'? Subject – Totally missed. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 21:40, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: That they were a wealthier society largely explains why their products in most areas of the so-called decorative arts were of higher quality than the European equivalent (until near the end of the period), and why they had a very healthy trade exporting luxury textiles, metalwork, glass & pottery etc etc to Europe, so sometimes influencing European art (see Mack). Johnbod (talk) 21:50, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: You are edit-warring, Johnbod. You have reverted now four times the edits by other users (including four top-notch references by international authorities on ancient economies), creating strongly the impression that you indeed suffer from WP:Own here. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 22:16, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

text: You are as well, as has been pointed out to you...Modernist (talk) 22:18, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: You have been too edit-warring, Modernist, as been pointed out to you, too. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 22:23, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

text: 2 reverts ain't edit warring yet...Modernist (talk) 22:25, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Counting does not seem to be your strong point. It's been now three reverts from you and the sad thing is you still haven't contributed anything worthwhile to the discussion. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 22:31, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: 3 reverts ain't edit warring either, and we have a very different opinion about this discussion...Modernist (talk) 22:37, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

text: Hi Gun Powder Ma. First of all, I disagree with your contention that an art historian's view is of no importance in an article about art history. You say yourself that "We should talk about art here, not economy which is neither necessary nor doesn't seem the strong point of the main editors here." (can't deny that I'm no expert at economics ;)). I'm not sure precisely how you conclude that Hollingsworth's statement is "unreflected, off-hand and unsupported". I agree that the book is a survey work, and perhaps aimed more towards a popular audience than an academic one, but that hardly means it was written thoughtlessly or without research. Finally, I must disagree with your unfounded characterisation of Hollingsworth as a "non-expert shabby source": she has written five books and numerous articles on Medieval art and patronage and was a well-respected lecturer at the University of East Anglia. I can certainly try to find a reference from someone with a more prestigious résumé, since you find hers insufficient. I believe you may be confusing her with a popular Christian author of the same name. Kafka Liz (talk) 23:50, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I totally agree that art historian views are key to this article. I would suggest that we pay even more attention to art. So the edit war started with a statement on "calligraphy, ornament and the decorative arts" and now we have a new sentence on "luxury goods, notably silk textiles and carpets", that's fine textile trade is key. Do we really need to tell something about relative wealth in this sentence? If sources from art history about comparative wealth between Islamic and Medieval Christendom are difficult to find couldn't we just consider it is not the most important for this section? My own books are mostly in French so I cannot really share. --Anneyh (talk) 06:30, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually much of the best quantitative work on medieval Islamic wages & prices is only in French. The problem was never the "calligraphy, ornament and the decorative arts" bit, but only the "wealthier", and the luxury trade sentence was also there before, it's just now had the "wealthier" claim added to it, as that is more relevant to the point.  I think it is highly relevant, and I would especially object to removing it as part of a much wider POV campaign.  Contrary to what Stuart London says above, GPM & I are generally on the same side on "Islamic" issues, but he goes way too far in trying to remove all and any positive references to Islam. Johnbod (talk) 12:22, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

text: Well, I think Johnbod makes a fair point here , and his rewording  softens the "'my daddy is stronger than yours'" tone objected to by Gun Powder Ma. I'm not sure why this is considered such a contentious statement. Kafka Liz (talk) 10:46, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm still not convinced about this mention of wealth because I went back reading my books (including the paper version that resulted from the Qantara project that is available online) and I could not find claims on comparative wealth. I may have missed them though. This very general article is a bit intimidating to me, so I'll direct my efforts toward Islamic influences on Christian art. --Anneyh (talk) 20:48, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  View of economic historians 

message: The figures GPM quotes from above in Maddison's book ("Maddison, Angus (2007): "Contours of the World Economy, 1–2030 AD. Essays in Macro-Economic History", Oxford University Press, , p. 185, table 4.2" there) are sourced in the book to the tables on his own website http://www.ggdc.net/Maddison/ .  The latest full versions are on this page at "historical statistics".  He gives figures for various dates, starting with the years, 1, 1000 and 1500.  So only the 1000 figures are medieval.  The only Islamic countries (then) given figures are as follows: Iran 650, Iraq 650 - these are the highest figures anywhere in the world at this date - Egypt 500, Morocco 430, Spain 450, Portugal 425. Many more Western European figures are given, of which the highest are Italy and Spain at 450, and the average 427.  So of the 6 Islamic areas given, ALL are above the European average, except Portugal by a whisker.  Presumably a "Christian Europe" figure would produce a slightly lower average figure without most of Spain.  In fact similar figures for Islamic countries are given in table 4.3 of the original book GPM cites, plus a 600 for "Arabia" that seems to have disappeared from Maddison's latest figures on the website.  The summary of Maddison's results at List of regions by past GDP (PPP) per capita, heavily edited by GPM, mysteriously omits all these high Islamic figures, and includes no countries that have remained broadly Islamic; I wonder why that is?  Yet another source brought forward by GPM turns out to say the opposite of what he asserts.  Yet he goes on edit-warring. Johnbod (talk) 22:37, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I would also like to see GPM's comment on this quote from Maddison's lecture Growth and Interaction in the World Economy (pdf link on same website page as the stats, page 2) "Eleventh century income levels were lower in the West than the Rest". Johnbod (talk) 02:50, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

text: My opinion of many of the sources being used is that they are not reliable. I say that because I'm pretty sure most experts on the middle ages would be offended by such rounded simple figures asserted as if they were pure facts. The authors in question may be economic historians, but they probably vastly underestimate the difficulties of gathering and evaluating data from such eras. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 16:30, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course! Maddison's figure show the "UK" and Australia in the year 1000 as both having per capita GDP of 400 (US$ at 1990 values), which is the minimum "subsistence" level you get for just turning up (ie not starving to death), like the 50% in American exams.  This just at the time when the Anglo-Saxon elite were launching a splurge of conspicuous consumption and donations of imported Eastern textiles and gold-plated statues.  But he does seem very widely respected among his tribe, and this is the ground on which GPM has chosen to fight - see many remarks above.  Maddison is rather fond of potted history which often reads rather like a WP article.  Brett's paper, summarizing other research, shows the wild swings in data that detailed researchers produce, and the few datasets they have.  That is why I prefer Braudel's approach, which uses statistics, but also other sources. But they both draw the same general conclusions here.   Btw, a look at List of regions by past GDP (PPP) per capita shows that GPM has been using Maddison's data for some time, which makes it all the more sinister that he misrepresents it so blatently.  I had never heard of Maddison before that I can remember, though I have had the Braudels for decades. At least Scheidel stops every few sentences to say, in effect, "of course this all could well be nonsense".  To be fair, both Braudel and Maddison are very aware of the provisional nature of their conclusions, which is why it is important to use the updated and freely available figures on Maddison's website, as he intended.  And they are all very well aware of "the difficulties of gathering and evaluating data from such eras", but are to varying extents prepared to just go ahead and stick a number down anyway, ignoring the curled lips on the other side of the common room.   Johnbod (talk) 16:55, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Let me be more blunt. Experts on medieval history (good ones anyway) would simply laugh at those presentations. They're trash. But welcome to Wikipedia Johnbod. I remember you telling me a wee while ago how ideologues were no big deal in art history articles, and I began looking at my Pictish art book very thoughtfully. ;) I'd waste time arguing the case for you, but I'm sure I'd be insulted, WP:OR would be cited, and so on. Best advice is to take the hit to the article and move on. Eventually you may get it sorted, but it won't be worth the effort. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 17:23, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: See the bottom of the section above. This has to be understood as a test case, or I wouldn't devote so much time to it. But Medieval Islamic economy may yet emerge. Usually you are sheltered from storms in art history, especially Early Medieval art history, so long as you avoid Croatian?-born artists who worked in Italy, images of the Prophet Muhammad, and a few other things.  Johnbod (talk) 19:02, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Glad you agree about the test case. The discussion is still underway, so I'll now restore the tag for a final time. If it is removed again, by you or some wingman, I'll take the matter to the noticeboard where it then belongs, but I'd rather do without this. So now back to the discussion. You may be surprised but, unlike you it seems, I couldn't care less about whose daddy was richer in 1000. But I do care a lot about verifiability and balancing diverging views. So add material which supports the view that the Islamic countries were richer than Europe in 1000. And I add material which does not support this view. The normal procedure on three million WP pages. But as long as you add material which supports your view, but at the same time remove and disregard material which contradicts your view, this discussion will go on. Because you are clearly wrong in doing that, and you are clearly acting against fundamental principles of Wikipedia. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 00:58, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Why on earth do you think I care "about whose daddy was richer in 1000"? I write on both Islamic and Christian medieval subjects (mainly the latter), unlike you, whose main "contributions" are removing any and all material that makes any claim to things outside Europe being earlier or better than those in Europe, or influencing Europe in any way. You have nothing but contempt for "balancing diverging views", as you surely must know.  You have not produced any material that supports your view, as everything you have produced, when examined, turns out to support my views very clearly, or be irrelevant. Johnbod (talk) 01:54, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: More on Maddison

message: There have been five questions raised in the course of the discussion:
#Is this claim relevant at all to a discussion of medieval art? 
#Do we need a whole section on the influence of Islamic art, particularly in view of the existing Islamic influences on Christian art?
#Can North Africa and the Near East be easily called "Islamic world" in 1000 AD? Why aren't they called what they are, namely North Africa and the Near East? Brett shows that the conversion rate renders any notion of "Islamic states" rather anachronistic, with the Christian faith dominant west of Iran until 900-1000 AD, while Egypt may have retained a predominantly Christian population well past that date.M. Brett: "Population and Conversion to Islam in Egypt in the Medieaval Period", in: Egypt and Syria in the Fatimid, Ayyubid and Mamluk eras IV: proceedings of the 9th and 10th international colloquium organized at the Katholieke Universiteit Leuven in May 2000 and May 2001, Peeters Publishers, 2005, , pp. 14f.
#Is this claim of being "wealthier" verified by the sources it cites? As amply demonstrated above, Hollingsworth, who speaks of "courts" and an equally rich Christian Byzantine Empire, is totally misrepresented and, therefore, needs to be removed.
#Are there sources which run contrary to this view or even outrright contradict it? Yes, there are many such sources, as even a cursory search reveals, but they have been edit-warred away: 
:*The ancient economist Walter Scheidel shows that real incomes of unskilled laborers in the Islamic-ruled states of Egypt and Mesopotomia of the time were as low as in other Afroeurasian societies.Walter Scheidel: "Real Wages in Early Economies: Evidence for Living Standards from 1800 BCE to 1300 CE", Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient, Vol. 53 (2010), pp. 425-462 (427 & 453) This is a very relevant finding as it rubbishes much of the false pride talk of rampant prosperity in Golden Ages. Rather, according to this strand of research, the situation for the poor 'working class' in pre-modern societies seems to be everywhere quite similar, irrespective of the tag the period they lived in has received retrospectively (Lo Cascio shows something similar for Europe btw). 
:*GDP per capita in 1990 International Dollars in 1000 AD:
:**Christian Western Europe: 425Maddison, Angus (2007): "Contours of the World Economy, 1–2030 AD. Essays in Macro-Economic History", Oxford University Press, , p. 382, table A.7. = 100%
:**Christian Byzantine Empire: 680–770Milanovic, Branko (2006): "An Estimate of Average Income and Inequality in Byzantium around Year 1000", Review of Income and Wealth, Vol. 52, No. 3, pp. 449–470 (468) = 160–180%
:**'Islamic' Egypt: 550Maddison, Angus (2007): "Contours of the World Economy, 1–2030 AD. Essays in Macro-Economic History", Oxford University Press, , p. 185, table 4.2: = 130%
:**'Islamic' other N. Africa: 430 = 100%
:**Islamic-ruled Spain: 450 = 105%
:**Islamic-ruled Portugal: 425 = 100%
   
Conclusion: These numbers show that, in contrast to the stereotype conveyed by Johnbod of poor medieval Christian and wealthy Islamic lands, the reality – or, rather, the present scholarly findings – is quite a different one: The divide runs not along religious lines, but rather a geographical east–west–axis! The rich countries (Byzantium, Egypt, also Mesopotamia) all lie east of the Nile, while North Africa, Iberian peninsula and Western Europe form another group of lower, but very even matched wealth. 
I have absolutely no problem if the article (barring no.1 and 2 above) reflects these stats for whatever it is worth, but I wonder by what mission Johnbod is driven to steadfastly refuse to acknowledge that the east-west divide is in fact much more pronounced as any postulated Christian/Muslim dichotomy. So, John, are you prepared to change your view? Gun Powder Ma (talk) 00:58, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Material and arguments contra the claim of a "generally wealthier Islamic world" 

message: Hello nice people! Many, many people think that romanesque style originated from France, while it's pretty clear that it's a style that appeared at the same time in Italy and France, if not in southern Europe as a whole. The error has been caused by Charles de Gerville, an archeologist that in a 1818 letter to Arcisse de Caumont created the term "art roman". But the theory is now almost completely outdated: for instance, as french art historicist Henri Focillon pointed out, we can find in Ravenna and in Forlì (both cities in Italy) many examples of romanesque "pieve" (or country church)with every structural element of a mature romanesque style in High Middle Ages (800 a.D.), and according to Focillon that would be the prove that those architectures influenced Octonian Style in following years, but the characteristics in nuce are already present in ninth century northern Italy, as modern studies seems to suggest. An example wold be San Pietro in Trento pieve in Ravenna (link: http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pieve_di_San_Pietro_in_Trento) built in tenth century. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tommolo (talk • contribs) 21:29, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: That was quick for reading Dodwell! Obviously the transition from pre-Romanesque to a fully Romanesque style is not a sudden one, and occured gradually in its different aspects in several places. Nonetheless I still think it is reasonable to give France as the place where it all first came together.  Personally if I was adding anywhere else it would be parts of the Empire north of the Alps before Italy.  Dodwell has a paragraph on the Galliano paintings at pp 181-182, where he stresses the Byzantine influence (also Ottonian).  Again remember we are not talking about architecture here, but the other visual arts. Romanesque  architecture has its own article.  An article has just been added on Sant'Angelo in Formis by the way - it would be good if you could add to that. Johnbod (talk) 13:32, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Origin of Romanesque art in France: an outdated theory?  

message: The main article for Migration Period Art concerns Germanic peoples. I removed a vague reference to "Eastern European" peoples (Slavic? Magyar? Khazars?) and rearranged some sentences so the single sentence mentioned Norse art is not lumped at the end of an unrelated paragraph. There should be at least a brief summary of the characteristics of Norse art and the info about Celtic art (again, not Germanic) should have its own section unless it concerns relevant syncretic cultures like the Norse-Gaels. Goodpoints (talk) 00:51, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: From the lead of Migration Period "This period was marked by profound changes both within the Roman Empire and beyond. The first people movements were Germanic tribes such as the Goths, Vandals, Angles, Saxons, Lombards, Suebi, Frisii, Jutes and Franks; they were later pushed westwards by the Huns, Avars, Slavs, Bulgars and Alans.[5]" If the full range is not covered by Migration Period Art (I think mainly a translation from the German) that is no reason for removing all mention here. Johnbod (talk) 16:46, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Migration Period 

message: Hi again, . You reverted my removal of this section saying it was 'unjustified'. I can see why a brief mention of the Black Death might be useful in this article, but I took this paragraph out because it doesn't say how the plague affected the development of medieval art. Perhaps it needs a rewrite? --Hillbillyholiday talk 16:35, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Possibly, but not removal. The economic relevance is I think fairly clear; you removed all of that. Johnbod (talk) 16:40, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the prompt reply. It may be clear to those who know their medieval history, but to the average reader, it isn't immediately obvious (nor does the para explain), just why the Black Death is relevant. I'll have a look for sources that tie it all together and attempt a rewrite soon if someone else doesn't do it first. --Hillbillyholiday talk 16:46, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

text: Not really. We already have "The trauma of the Black Death in the mid-14th century was at least partly responsible for the popularity of themes such as the Dance of Death and Memento mori" in the appropriate section, and better stuff on hyper-realistic religious art, and commissions (which are much more related to general prosperity than the Black Death). The Gero Cross of several centuuries earlier has a much better claim to be the start of "realistic depictions of the crucifixion".  This is the start of the overview section, giving the general economic and demographic background, as many RS do. Your sources are pretty non-specialized general works.  Johnbod (talk) 18:54, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah bugger, I thought it was odd there was no mention of the Danse Macabre. My fault for not reading through. Apologies for wasting your time! --Hillbillyholiday talk 19:02, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plague 

message: Note that 2 refs - currently 46 & 49 are not set up correctly. Both to Strickland I think. Johnbod (talk) 17:23, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Malformed refs 

message: I think that there should possibly be an additional section added to the page specifically about the depictions of Jews in art. I think that there should be more references made to Saracens, Demons, and Jews by Debra Higgs Strickland so that you can give more specific examples of why Jews were targeted in medieval art. I think that it would give more context and allow for a better understanding of why Jews were villainized rather than just discussing that they were displayed negatively. 
If anyone wants to comment on these changes, please let me know on this Talk Page or on my Talk Page
Hannahmaemorris (talk) 05:51, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: There already is a large section on this fashionable topic, that is arguably already too long per WP:UNDUE. Perhaps you didn't read that far. Though it is (with women's issues) what mainly seems to interest undergraduate students these days, this was not actually a very important aspect of medieval art, & in a hugely summarized article does not need much coverage. What we could do with is a more detailed stand-alone article on the subject - it would be better to write that. See 2 sections up also. Johnbod (talk) 16:53, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible Addition to the Prejudice 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 . —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:08, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion