User talk:StuartLondon

Welcome!

Hello, StuartLondon, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 03:03, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gothic architecture[edit]

Hello, I am a student of physics from Israel that finds a great interest in Gothic architecture, which I consider, along with Gothic Revival as the finest and most beutiful style of architecture. I pretty much wrote almost all the material on Gothic architecture on the Hebrew Wikipedia based on the English Wikipedia, a book in Hebrew by Nurith Kenaan Kedar (a professor of Gothic art in Tel Aviv University) and the book "The Gothic Cathedral" by Christopher Wilson, which I am currently reading. I discovered your contribution to Rayonnant after I expanded the coresponding Hebrew article he:סגנון גותי קורן and then I saw your userpage and found out you are Academic PhD on Gothic. Since there aren't many good sources in Gothic architecture in Hebrew or at Google can you recommend me about good books (or good websites) on Gothic architecture? Thank and Welcome to Wikipedia! MathKnight Gothic Israeli Jew 19:52, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the welcome and for your words of encouragement. As for books, the two which are always at the top of my recommended reading lists are the Christopher Wilson volume that you're already getting your teeth into, plus the wonderful Paul Frankl/Paul Crossley book "Gothic Architecture", published by Yale. Frankl wrote his text some time ago - it's very good but a little dated. However, the book was re-issued in 2001 after an extensive rewrite by Paul Crossley, who corrected a few of Frankl's wilder theories and added a brilliant introduction and a vast section of end-notes, packed with all the latest views on chronology etc, plus references to everything important that's been published since Frankl. Of course I'm a little biased since Paul Crossley is my PhD supervisor - but I think you'll find this book to be the best there is on gothic architecture. Regarding websites I'm afraid it's difficult to recommend many - there are loads out there dedicated to Gothic art but most are full of crackpot new-age theories, recycled 19th century romanticism and generally unsubstantiated nonsense. Alison Stones' section of the Pittsburgh MedArt website dedicated top Chartres is exemplary for its descriptions, though the photography is not so hot; http://images.library.pitt.edu/cgi-bin/i/image/image-idx?c=chartres&page=index

Conversely, my website has some good pictures of Gothic stained glass but I've not had time to add text commentaries yet! (www.medievalart.org.uk). Finally, if you have access to JSTOR via your faculty, three places which are full of good articles are the 'Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians', the 'Journal of the Warburg and Courtuald Institutes', and 'Gesta'. First two particularly good for architecture, Gesta better for 'social history' of art. If you browse the back issues of those you'll find plenty of great articles. Hope that helps. StuartLondon (talk) 08:14, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the recommendations. After I'll finish reading Wilson I'll try to get the book of Frankl. Does it focus on French Gothic or English Gothic, does it include pictures and diagrams and how long is it? Thanks. MathKnight Gothic Israeli Jew 18:45, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

English Gothic[edit]

Hi Stuart! The only problem with the addition of Draper's book to the bibliography of the English Cathedrals page is that I wrote the entire article, and didn't use that book. I think we need a section called Further reading to which we add the Draper book and any other recommendations that you have. Amandajm (talk) 07:14, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed the above.
I noticed your comment about the antiquarian nature of the sources. Yes. I am aware of it. A problem with some of these authors is that personal prejudices (and preferences) are sometimes very strongly expressed. When utilising the matterial for an encyclopedic purpose, these prejudices need to be recognised as what they are, rather than simply accepted as true statements about the quality of the object being described.

Alec Clifton-Taylor, for example, expresses a loathing of all things Victorian and describes 19th century stained glass with adjectives that range from "indifferent" to "excrable". Opinions on this have changed considerably.

Amandajm (talk) 07:42, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Further to this...[edit]

I just took a look at your home page. I must introduce myself as probably the main ego that you have to deal with here, apart from William Michael Rossetti, who shows up on these pages most persistently, because very large chunks of Britannica 1911 have been used wherever and whenever an article was needed on an art subject. Aaaargh! He writes, with scorn, that some people (fools!) actually like the insipid paintings of Fra Angelico! At least you no longer have to worry about offending him.

Anyway, back to me. I defend the articles that I have written quite ferociously againt vandalism, prejudice, simple-mindedness, bloody-mindedness, sheer stupidity, and well-intention bumbles. I do not defend them against real scholarship, or the actions of a number of reliable, knowledgeable individuals who are not simply pushing barrows. I notice Johnbod has already done some tidying up around one of your articles.

I would greatly value some learned input. I was just about to totally rehash Cathedral architecture of Western Europe.

What it needs is to have Banister Fletcher's formula written out of it for exactly the reason that you have identified- it presents an antiquated way of looking at architecture. Secondly, it needs to extend to Eastern Europe, now that more info is available. My proposal is to rename it something like Architecture of European cathedrals of the Western tradition. It can then be followed up by Architecture of cathedrals of the Eastern Orthodox tradition (or some such) and Architecture of cathedrals of Africa, Asia, Australasia and the Americas.

Would you be in on this?

If you are going to edit on Wikipedia, this is what you have to be prepared for:

People memorise the Style Manual. For example, there is a Wiki Style Manual rule that says that all words like "beautiful", "magnificent", and "famous" are out. OK! You can deal with that! You find a quotation that says that Chartres looks superb as you approach it over the poppy fields, and you drop that in, properly cited.

What is more difficult is when the rules are applied with unquestioning inflexibility. It took many paragraphs and several editors to get around an objection to describing Leonardo da Vinci as "famous", even in a section which was talking specifically about his "fame". It was hard to make the individual comprehend that "fame" is an attribute of Leonardo to such an unusual degree that it needed to be discussed within the article. (said editor then went off on a different tack and created a most useful List of Leonardo's paintings, all beautifully formatted in a way which I would never have had the know-how or patience to achieve.)

competitiveness- My local cathedral is more important than your cathedral, or any other cathedral. So it gets shoved in randomly where it doesn't fit. For example, a statement that cites six representative examples might be followed by the insertion of a paragraph giving the entire history of a relativle obscure building, simply because it is also in the same style and in the editor's home town.
Likewise- Any photo that I took (or editted) is more important than any photo that anyone else took. Some editors habitually swap photos, without looking at the context in which what they are changing has been used. For example, a horizontal format might have been applied throughout the article because of space and formatting. Suddenly a large vertical photograph has appeared, displacing all the text below it. Or a picture has been selected to illustrate a most particular aspect of a building, and suddenly a different picture of the same building replaces it, which does not illustrate the text as well.
Very subtle and insidious vandalism. One editor recently ripped through a few articles and changed every possible reference in order to make it into a reference to Spain. Numerous long descriptions of Spanish buildings were included in inapppropriate places, so the the articles became overbalanced. At the same time, the editor deleted every possible reference to Italy. This sort of stuff can go unnoticed, because it appears to be actually adding info.
Corrections that are not corrections. The statement that St Peter's is not a cathedral has been argued many times.
Lastly, you have no status here. Your edits can be deleted by any school kid who comes along.
You are not supposed to use any unpublished personal research. However, there is nothing to stop you using your own published material as references. What constitutes Personal Research is questionable. I got into a discussion over this the other day when I provided an architectural description of a building simply by looking at the plan and photos. It was matter of "cruciform plan with entry through narthex; nave and aisles with arcade and clerestory; domed crossing with apsidal chancel and transepts" Did this constitute personal research? I persuaded them that it was merely a matter of knowing how to apply the terms correctly.

A note about formatting. We do not use title case for headings and sub-headings. Weee at Wikeee only capitalise the first word.

Welcome aboard! Amandajm (talk) 09:49, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Amanda,

Many thanks for that and lovely to hear from you. Copy editing is not my strong point so am most grateful for your cleaning up of the Beauneveu article (I fear my contributions on Tracery may need similar attention if you ever feel in the mood...)

I'm enormously relieved to hear of your plan to de-Fletcherise European Cathedrals. I'm as fond of BF as the next person but it is, as you say, a tad out of date. Unfortunately Mr Cruikshank's editorial interventions have tended to make things worse rather than better and it's now in the same category as Ruskin and V. le Duc (and to some extent Frankl) - i.e. fascinating texts by highly educated experts but which are now studied more for what they reveal about earlier attitudes to art history. I fear Pevsner is going the same way, though his talent for description (if not his ability to explain things in their historical context) remains unmatched.

Anyway, I shall be happy to assist with your rewrites in any way I can - I certainly have no wish to tread on your toes, since you clearly put a great deal of time and effort into this. I was planning to work my way through the various French cathedral articles since that's my main area of expertise and many of them need filling out or correcting. Obviously being an English art historian specialising in Gothic art I do know a little bit about English cathedrals too. Since my PhD is on narrative art across all media I also do a lot of work on architectural sculpture, stained glass, manuscript illuminations, ivories and Limoges enamels so may be able to help out in those areas too. Generally though I don't go much beyond the early-15th century!

Not sure how much time I'll be able to spend on WP since this is going to be a very busy academic year (rather too much lecturing to do, as well as the small matter of needing to get my PhD thesis finished and submitted by end of March) but I'll do what I can. Off to Chartres on monday for a week or so (poking around up the scaffolding in the choir) but will be around more after that.

All the best, Stuart

StuartLondon (talk) 11:08, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pevsner... his description of St Stephen's, Walbrook, made it all clear to me, all those years ago as a teenager. The building was designed on paper, a doodle almost, with all the traditional elements of nave, aisles and transepts somehow brilliantly combined with the vitruvian whatsit! My friend Leo would have loved it. Recently they have turned it into a "church in the round" which, of course, it lent itself to, admirably. But it ignores the subtlety of the building....

English Gothic architecture. Now, there is a little problem. I have started on it a couple of times and never seen it through.

I know more about English cathedrals than French ones, and am most inconveniently located, being in Wollongong. We have a have a Gothic Revival Pro-Cathedral in Wollongong. It is by one of the most accomplished Gothic Revival architects, Edmund Blacket. The Pro-Cathedral of St Michael and All Angels belongs to the Sydney Anglican. You may know what this implies. Then again, being ten thousand miles away, you might not. Anyway, Wollongong is more Sydney than Sydney. St Michael's is just big enough to swing the proverbial cat in (if your purpose is to break its neck against the wall).

Anyway, what I started out to say is that I have been working my way through the English cathedrals, with the assistance of the locals. I started with Bristol. That was OK. I was invited to Chester, but there was a horrible war going on in Chester at the time. I think that the Bell-ringers must have been locked out or something equally nasty, so I went further north to Carlise, where the Scots came over the Border and made some corrections. I got deflected by threats to the substance of St Warburge's, Preston, and ended up at St Chad's, Birmingham. I got back to Chester eventually. I haven't mentioned Canterbury here. As you may have noticed, I tried to do this in affabecklauder but it didn't work. Anyway, I looked at Canterbury, clutched my head, and retreated to Durham. Durham still hasn't come together, because Worcester got in the way. I know that seems improbable, but it did. So did Camperdown Cemetery. Anyway, when I've got the time, I'll take on Canterbury. I'd be interested to know what you think about the painting of the canopy over the Black Prince.

I envy you, up there, getting a close look at the wonders of Chartres. I'm getting so old and rheumaticky that I don't do scaffolding and scaling anymore.

I also do Renaissance painting.

Cheers! Amandajm (talk) 12:42, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chasse (casket)[edit]

Any thoughts on this new article? A precise definition seems hard to pin down. Also the new Royal Gold Cup - any comments welcome. Johnbod (talk) 14:53, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cathedral of Notre-Dame, Reims[edit]

You wrote "On July 6th 2010 the cathedral was damaged by fire and reconstruction started shortly after, begining at the eastern end". I think this date is a mistake. --Khips (talk) 04:01, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oops! Well spotted - many thanks.StuartLondon (talk) 07:17, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chartres[edit]

Hi Stuart, I'm grateful for your improvements to Chartres Cathedral, an article I did a major copyedit on long ago but which has had various ongoing problems. One caveat: your most recent edit removed a sentence—

From a distance it seems to hover in mid-air above waving fields of wheat, and it is only when the visitor draws closer that the city comes into view, clustering around the hill on which the cathedral stands

—which I think is highly beneficial to the article. In a few short words, it conveys a sense of the visual uniqueness of the cathedral in a way that any amount of dry, analytical language cannot. It also is refreshingly vivid writing, which is often in short supply around here. What would you think about restoring the sentence? Rivertorch (talk) 17:13, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rivertorch, Thanks for the feedback. There are several reasons why I took out that paragraph, which sounds very much like Henry Adams' description of how it looked at end of the 19th century (and the opening paragraphs of countless tourist brochures printed in the years since!) Firstly it isn't really true of Chartres any more. Nowadays, approaching the city from almost any direction by road means driving through ever-expanding suburbs or the new industrial estates, rather than waving wheat fields. Even arriving by train one sees the city suburbs before one sees the cathedral. Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, there are other french towns and cathedrals to which that description actually applies far better - none more so than Laon. The visual uniqueness of the exterior of Chartres is, I think, rather overstated. If you do want to restore that paragraph I won't stand in your way though - once I've finished my little rewrite I have no intention of being over-protective of it! StuartLondon (talk) 08:44, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. Well, I definitely am keeping hands off until you finish your rewrite. In the meantime, can you lay your hands on a relevant quote from Henry Adams? Even if it's only of historical interest, it might enhance the article. (I poked around in Google Books a little, but I'm burdened with a very slow Internet connection right now.) Rivertorch (talk) 16:33, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Will see what i can do. Adams is generally less well known in Europe and the mention of his name tends to make some art historians wince (his book reinforced many of the popular myths about Chartres and Mont St Michel) - but he certainly played an important role in popularising French Gothic amongst American readers, much as Ruskin did here. So i think a brief attributed quote in the lead might be good? a bit busy right now but I'll see what I can dig up when I get a moment.

I agree an attributed quote is the way to go - and perhaps a comment (WP:OR if necessary) that this is now less or not at all the case, since tourist publicity continues to push this line. Johnbod (talk) 08:49, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Islamic influences on Christian art[edit]

I was wondering if you would help me with this article ? I need support because I'm not a native speaker and furthermore I did not study art (I'm still ashamed about my attempt on wp:fr fr:Représentation des animaux dans l'art médiéval occidental, maybe the subject was not the easier one). --Anneyh (talk) 17:26, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Anneyh. I'm not sure I can be of very much help as my time on WP is rather limited at the moment but I'll try to assist in any way I can. Might be able to take a closer look over the weekend (4 month-old son permitting!) If you can get hold of a copy, do take a look at Deborah Howard's excellent book "Venice and the East". Debbie is professor of architectural history at Cambridge and very highly respected for her work on Islamic influences in the Veneto. Her earlier essay in "Architectural History", Vol. 34, 1991 on "Venice and Islam in the Middle Ages" is also worth a look. I seem to remember Christian Heck (Lille) mentioning a book on Christian/Islamic art influences some years ago but I'm not sure what came of that. Fwiw, your earlier article on animals in western art is nothing to be ashamed of. You might want to add the pelican though as that's a very common Christological motif in medieval art - see for example the New Alliance window at Bourges, [[1]]. Meanwhile... bon courage avec les écuries d'Augias!

Hi Stuart, I had noted Deborah Howard's book on the Heidelberg UB page of Bazaar to piazza... I should get my own copy early next week. From Christian Heck, I have the Moyen Âge: chrétienté et islam he directed. There is a section on the Islamic sources in Byzantium... and a lot more to read. wp is my excuse to buy new books... (actually I use my user pages to store my books and notes User:Anneyh/Art...). I was never satisfied with the outline of my article on animals, but I plan to return there once I gained enough experience with wp.

And don't worry, I'm very slow too on wp, I know about 4 month-old (sounds ages ago) and I need some time for reading. --Anneyh (talk) 17:50, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I started with some clean-up and extensions. I'm now wondering about the outline... One solution would be chronological, but that does not appeals too much to me, another one would be by media (Architecture, Calligraphy, luxury objects, carpets...). I would tend to go for a classification by type of exchange : Styles (Mudéjar and Sicily), Techniques (Pointed Arch [2], Glazed Ceramic), Motives (e.g. pseudo-Kufic, hunting scenes), Trade and diplomacy (treasury like the Ewer of Saint-Denis, textiles), representation of Islamic world and items (Carpets and costumes). I would welcome your opinion and complements on must-topics. --Anneyh (talk) 20:47, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Anneyh - apologies for the delayed (and brief) response - everything a bit hectic at the moment. I think if I were putting together a lecture on this I'd probably start with a chronological overview and then switch to thematic. So... a background section briefly setting out the major phases in the development of Islamic culture (Origins/Umayyads; Abassid Caliphate in Baghdad; Western Umayyad diaspora, etc) and the nature of the interaction with the Christian world during that period, then switch to a series of thematic sections - pointed arch and other architectural motifs; trade in luxury goods; assimilation of stlyes/motifs Vs use as symbols of 'otherness', etc. Point is that the mechanisms (and meanings) of the interactions change through the period in question, so it's important not to generalise too much without first exploring those mechanisms. Whether that structure would work for WP is a matter you're probably better able than I to judge. As an aside I was delighted to see your choice of article for the pointed arch question. Peter Draper was my mentor when I was an undergrad at Birkbeck College and it was he who first kindled my interest in medieval architecture. I had the pleasure of spending a week with Peter in Old Cairo, clambering around myriad dusty old mosques and mausolea while he was still preparing that paper - so reading it again brought back some happy memories! StuartLondon (talk) 14:32, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My Deborah Howard's copy came today. I only leafed through and it's a very nice book indeed. I'm looking into dates,... and I read some articles from Oleg Grabar, but I need some time for assimilation. I also have the impression of tomber de Charybde en Scylla when I start looking at Mudéjar articles... --Anneyh (talk) 20:22, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Religious buildings completed in 1144[edit]

Yea, reading these articles to extract information is frustrating. I think everyone would be better served if the 'completed' field in {{Infobox church}} was set to 'unknown' for these. I did notice that the Basilica of St Denis does not even use the template. Also using the architecture category directly is problematic since apparently the meaning is different based on the local usage. Placing articles directly into those ambiguous categories is problematic. Is the date when design started, or finished or is it when construction started or when construction finished? For a design which started a movement, I have not idea how you class that in some years. The best solution in my mind is to leave it in the architecture style categories. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:20, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings from Downunder![edit]

Glad to see you working on the Abbey of St Denis.

Regarding the posting immediately above this, there is some ridiculous notion that all the churches on earth can be shoved into little dated boxes. The exact name of the boxes has changed several times and is currently "Churches completed in....." which is ridiculous. Likewise there is a category for "Cathedral architects..." or some such, which is equally foolish as it must by definition exclude the architects of St Peter's. The muddle at Wikimedia Commons is even greater. It is increasingly difficult to find anything as the sections become more and more refined. I'm still reading up on parish churches. I don't think I'm very popular right now! Toodle-oo! Amandajm (talk) 02:37, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rose window[edit]

Thanks for your message. I understood that to be the case, but I wanted to double check. Amandajm (talk) 11:25, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to see/ Middle Ages[edit]

Hi! Glad to see you are still around. A comment on the content (which certainly doesn't have to be a long list of language points a la everyone else) at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Middle Ages/archive1 would be very welcome. Johnbod (talk) 09:37, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:08, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:11, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]