Review
(criteria) |
 Comment File:Façade de la cathédrale Saint-Pierre de Genève.jpg or File:Église de la Madeleine.jpg are better examples of this kind of architecture, IMO. Moreover, geotag is missing and needed. --Myrabella (talk) 22:52, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply] Info geotag added. --Ikar.us (talk) 23:27, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]- Comment
- Saint-Pierre: not at all, the right side is gothic.
- Madeleine: Isn't it, by age and decorations, en:Greek Revival architecture rather than classicism? (I'm confused about names, seems that de:Klassizismus is already called en:neoclassicism?) And the image shows just a front with columns, as many buildings of that era have. St. Stephan imitates the whole antique building, cylindric hall, flat dome and porch, all visible on the image. And the simple surface without relief decorations.
- --Ikar.us (talk) 23:27, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Thanks for the geotag. It wasn't a full review yet, and I had just named two churches I had in mind, but I agree about Saint-Pierre. About La Madeleine, it was inspired by the architecture of ancient Rome too (this temple is often quoted). However you bring up an interesting question. The reference to Greek architecture is part of the neoclassical movement to me. The :en:w article on neoclassical architecture even asserts: "In its purest form, it is a style principally derived from the architecture of Classical Greece and the architecture of Italian Andrea Palladio." (that could be discussed I guess :) The Italian article is featured and more complete). I am interested in making a true review and maybe proposing some competitors, but I need some more time. --Myrabella (talk) 08:46, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Unfortunately, I don't understand Italian. And I'm not an expert. I'm afraid not only the literal names are different per language, but also the classification systems are different per country. So it may be difficult to find a global solution. :)
- As I understand, German art historians make a distiniction between Frühklassizismus ("early", in renaissance context, like Palladio), Klassizismus until ~1815, which is pure greek-like, and usually looks plain, straight and simple, an intended contrast to baroque, and Neoklassizismus, which appears later in 19th century, as one variant of Historismus, besides Neogotik, Neobarock, Neorenaissance, etc., often mixed with those, or with upcoming Art Nouveau, and generally with more opulent decorations.
- And they pay much attention to date of origin. So they would call a building from Historismus epoch which successfully avoids mixing styles pure neoklassizistisch, but still not klassizistisch.
- As I understand the interwiki links, the translation would be Frühklassizismus=classicism, Klassizismus=neoclassicism/neoclassical, Neoklassizismus=Greek revival?
- I'm looking forward to your assessment.
- --Ikar.us (talk) 12:49, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It will take a few days—I'd like to read further on the topic. First step: I took the liberty of formatting and linking the scope, if you don't mind. --Myrabella (talk) 21:18, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for refining the scope. That recalled me an additional point we should consider: t's not just about (neo)classicism, but about churches. Madeleine is one now, but pictures from outside don't indicate that at all. It wasn't designed as a church, and no attempt was ever made to make it look like one. For St.Stephan, the principal required a church tower. The architect disliked it and hided the tower with flat roof on the rear side of the building. This shape commemorates a dilemma of classicistic church architecture. The Pantheon itself had twice in its history church towers added and removed again. --Ikar.us (talk) 21:00, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Info (may be out of scope) Madeleine history is more complicated than that. The construction of a church started in 1763, then came the Revolution and it stopped and there were several propositions, later (in 1806) the construction of a different church was ordered and started, then it stopped again in 1811, in 1834 it was ordered to be finished as a church and finished in 1842. They thought a lot about different uses for the building, but they only built churches.
if I may, I think this scope is very wide and requires a really precise definition (and translation is not easy). --Coyau (talk) 01:12, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- There were often plans to build churches on the site, after there had been a synagogue converted to a church, but the present building was built as a military monument, as I understand the history. --Ikar.us (talk) 14:37, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
|
