Talk:Giorgio de Chirico

message: De Chirico was simply born on Greek territory, but he had nothing of Greek. I removed this reference in sall the paintings articles. --Attilios 09:10, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: According to the book "De Chirico: The Metaphysical Period 1888-1919" by Paolo Baldacci, he was definitely part Greek and lied about it, inventing his own biography, as he was fanatically pro-Italian. Foday 15:17, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Greek nationality

message: I found some Italian websites stating that De Chirico family was originally from Dubrovnik, in Dalmatia (a.k.a Ragusa in Italian, even though the city is in modern Croatia). The family moved to Constantinople in the first half of the 18th century) and De Chirico's father, Evaristo, seems to be born in this city, even though there is no clear eveidence of this last piece of information. Evaristo married Gemma Cervetto, who, according to these sources, was born in İzmir (Smirne in Italian) from an Italian bourgeois family (most likely of Genoese origin). The websites I am quoting are mainly http://www.dechiricoafirenze.it/allegati/cartella_stampa_dechirico_100224053522.pdf, http://www.dechiricoafirenze.it/Sezione.jsp?idSezione=46 and http://www.exibart.com/profilo/eventiV2.asp/idelemento/31086. Now what about these sources....?? I guess someone should add all this info on De Chirico's article here on wikipedia (these websites contains much more info about De Chirico family than the ones I reported..), maybe it would be proper to add a whole paragraph about "De Chirico family and their ancestry".  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.54.168.158 (talk) 15:39, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: De Chirico family and their ancestry

message: There are simply too many fair use images on this page. We need to trim it down to three or so paintings. We can link to articles for the other pieces. Does anyone have any suggestions about which images to keep ? — otherwise I'll use my own judgement. Megapixie 00:55, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The only picture that has to stay is The Disquieting Muses (1916), which is -I think- the most famous work of this artist. I agree: even now the quantity of pictures are excessive to illustrate the article. If you don't want problems with De chirico's heirs, some of them should be removed.--Joanenglish 21:39, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I took the gallery out, which should resolve the issue, so I removed the flag as well. The best stuff was outside the gallery anyways. --JaGa (talk) 06:17, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Note that a number of these paintings (those first published before 1923) are not fair use but rather public domain in the United States. Dcoetzee 16:26, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Too many fair use images on this page

message: by who? i've never seen it before and the only references google shows are this article.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.125.110.223 (talk) 21:33, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  also known as Népo 

message: I've uploaded a new self-portrait of Giorgio de Chirico (right), c.1922, believed to be public domain in the United States. Feel free to use if useful. Dcoetzee 16:27, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  New self-portrait 

message: 1. Surrealist?
De Chirico was never a pre-Surrealist neither a Surrealist painter. I can't see any basis for such a statement. As a founder of Metaphysical painting, he did influence surrealism, but being a predecessor of some current does NOT make you an early exponent of it!
«Although the Metaphysical School was short-lived, its ramifications were felt in subsequent art movements, such as Dada and Surrealism.»
«The "early" de Chirico, still a painter of simple and magical dreamlike pictures, as exemplified by "Ariadne," became one of the acknowledged predecessors of the Surrealists»– Source of the quotes: http://www.metmuseum.org/Collections/search-the-collections/210006955
So I believe it's right to state that de Chirico inspired surrealists, but he should be listed as a «metaphysical artist».
2. Artist, not painter.
De Chirico was also a sculptor and designer of theatrical costumes and stages. As well as Picasso is credited for works other than painting, I suggest we change "painter" with "artist" and add "sculpture, drawing, costume and stage design" to his art fields.
Note: English is not my mother tongue so I'm sorry in case I used clumsy expressions.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.36.115.24 (talk) 12:25, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: These are good suggestions and I have made some changes. Ewulp (talk) 07:35, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  1.Surrealist and 2.Painter 

message: The collaboration with Fuschini in the last stage of De Chirico's life is of fundamental importance, correlated with the last artistic activity of De Chirico, with his accepted at the Academie and with the start of his illness.
De Chirico's wife Ilsa dedicated two exhibitions ten years after his death, one of which with just work of Fuschini and De Chirico. The Fondazione did not exists in its present form and De Chirico just started to obtain recognition in Italy.
--Jpvandijk (talk) 09:31, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Collaboration with Fuschini

message: I removed the "Greek-born" unsourced denomination from the lead per WP:OPENPARA, since De Chirico reached notability while in Italy. Moreover, being son of two italian parents, he was Italian citizen and ethnically Italian since his birth. "Greek-born" means born as Greek, not born in Greece. Alex2006 (talk) 06:27, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Greek-born 

message: As far as I know, there is no scuola metafisica, at least not as a recognized art form or period in art history. The Italian term, the only country where it took place, is pittura metafisica, and this is, again as far as I know, the current international designation. Metaphysical art could be a correct translation when more than one art forms are included, such as music, theater or poetry.--Hansung02 (talk) 20:17, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scuola metafisica 

message: "After 1919, he became a critic of modern art, studied traditional painting techniques, and worked in a neoclassical or neo-Baroque style" this is an interesting discovery about de Chirico, for me anyway as I'm no de Chirico expert, but is there a reference to that statement? I'm guessing yes, but should it not appear in the first time it gets mentioned in the article? I can outvin the reference if needed.MAureliusAugustus (talk) 16:32, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: The claims are mentioned and sourced lower in the article. But he did not adopt the neo-Baroque style until 1939, so I have added the word "later" into that sentence. The lead section doesn't need references as per WP:LEADCITE. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:54, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: de Chirico's criticism of modern art