Talk:School of Paris

Modern School of Paris

this line doesn't make sense

"The group of non-French artists in Paris before World War I, created in the styles of Post-Impressionism, Cubism, Fauvism, and includes artists like Pablo Picasso, Marc Chagall, Amedeo Modigliani, Piet Mondrian, Pierre Bonnard and Henri Matisse, this both French artists."

I don't know enough about htis subject but clearly Pierre Bonnard and Henri Matisse are both french artists so can't be 'non-French' so something is wrong --Timdew 08:50, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

"i was bold" and Changed it, hopefully it makes more sense now --Timdew 11:19, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

File:Atelier-brancusi-2.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Atelier-brancusi-2.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests January 2012 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 20:33, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Article split?

Doesn't this article cover three entirely separate topics? In particular the medieval illuminated manuscript artists' school seems totally unsourced ...and very different from the schools of modern art! Sionk (talk) 16:01, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Well 2 certainly. The entire article has only 1 ref, on a minor point. Neither has clear priority - is there a benefit in going via a disam page? Articles like Venetian school cover long stretches, if not as long as this. Johnbod (talk) 16:58, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Dada and the 20s (Elinruby)

User:Elinruby has listed at RfD, with the title "?" as holding title (here, on the log for 27 Dec 2016):

open as to resolution. I am here to complain the article France in the 1920s has a section about the influence of Dada; the School of Paris is part of that, but the linked article opens with a discussion of illuminated manuscripts. That may be dada, but we're supposed to explain these things not embody them.

I quote verbatim (I hope). I've said at the RfD it's the wrong place to start that discussion, and suggested that here or Talk:France in the 1920s (or both) would be better places. I've put a courtesy note like this over there, too.

If there's any need, I can speak French reasonably well and have a nodding acquaintance with Dadaism but no more than that. There was an excellent exhibition of Mogdiliani's works here in Budapest this autumn, and I thought he is very much influenced by that school, but I'm no art critic. Si Trew (talk) 12:06, 27 December 2016 (UTC)Dada and the 20s (Elinruby)

Wrong article

• Take your Dada objections somewhere else! Perhaps to Talk:France in the 1920s. This article is about the School of Paris an acknowledged historical part of modern art in the 20th century; along with a brief mention of an antecedent...Modernist (talk) 13:01, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Delete section Medieval illuminators

Section #Medieval illuminators should be deleted as unreferenced and original research. This claim has been present since the article was created in June of 2005; it was unreferenced then, and remains unreferenced now.

The French article has no mention of this, and the articles about the medieval artists Jean Pucelle (fr) and Jean Fouquet (fr) listed in the section have no mention of the School of Paris, neither in the French nor in the English Wikipedia articles.

Time for this section to go. Mathglot (talk) 21:58, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

I think the section should stay, and certainly I agree it needs references...Modernist (talk) 01:19, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Give me a few days & I will see what I can whistle up. It is certainly a term. This google search shows uses are easy to find. Johnbod (talk) 05:37, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

It seems entirely possible that it *is* used for a group of manuscript illuminators. Can we make two different articles though? I could see grouping the people before and after World War I together, but surely they are different-enough from medieval monks to have their own article? Elinruby (talk) 14:25, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

That's arguable, but I think there may be other "schools" lurking. They weren't monks at all, btw - most of the workers were women. Johnbod (talk) 16:06, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

@Johnbod: what do you mean other schools? other groups named School of Paris? I am getting back around to this. I assumed monks based on the period, but if there were women that's actually quite interesting and notable. Are you the one who added the references? I haven't looked at them yet, but assuming they are good I will remove the tag. And probably split the article. I am thinking it doesn't make sense to have an article that covers two groups a thousand years apart. Elinruby (talk) 08:10, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

New Medieval illuminators page

@Elinruby: Thanks for removing medieval illustrators from the article, and putting it onto its own page. You didn't say what page, however; the edit summary would've been a good place for that. I found it in your contribs.

For the record: the new article is at School of Paris (Middle Ages). Mathglot (talk) 07:43, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

I see you did place a link in the {{About}}, that works for me. Mathglot (talk) 08:26, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Split proposal

This article seems to be about at least two topics, and should be split up. It seems to me that it's about a bunch of different things, some possibly related, some not. That seems like the perfect situation to have a disambiguation page. For the time being, I've tagged it {{Unfocused}}.

Unless one of the schools it refers to is the primary topic, I suspect this page should become a disambig page, with portions of content shipped out to new articles with parenthetical disambiguation titles such as School of Paris (pre-war), School of Paris (post-WWII), and so on.

This article seems to be about:

• a group of French and non-French artists who worked in Paris before World War I
• a group of French and non-French artists who lived in Paris between the two world wars
• and also to a group of French and non-French artists who lived in Paris between the two world wars and beyond
• musician and composer emigres from Central and Eastern Europe
• Tachisme, and Lyrical Abstraction, and maybe Cobra

and I'm not sure how many of these are an evolution of a single School, in which case they could remain in one article, and how many are just a loose re-use of the same term to refer to different things, very much like the Treaty of Paris, which makes sense in context, but otherwise requires a qualifier.

Of the two refs providing definitions (Met, and Tate), all but the last paragraph of the Met article talks about events before 1923, then goes on to say that the movement survived, or at least, artists who had been in the movement remained in Paris, until the movement ended with the outbreak of WWII and artists dispersed. The Tate article is very similar, concentrating on the early decades, and adding one sentence at the end about the term continuing in use until WWII. Seems like we need more refs here about exactly what the term means.

It seems we are talking, at the very least, about two different topics, which the much longer French article refers to as the "first school of Paris" and the "new school of Paris", but those names are unsourced, and secondly, in a footnote to the very first sentence a statement that the article is about two different topics at the same time, with an implication ("dite") that it is sourceable. This, to me, is more evidence that this article should be split up. (And so should the French one, but that's not our problem.)

Mathglot (talk) 08:17, 22 February 2017 (UTC) Edited by Mathglot (talk) 21:42, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

By the way, if there appears to be consensus about a split, please don't do the move yet, before we discuss the article titles and disambig page naming. In particular, if the wrong name is chosen for one of them, it can in some cases require intervention of an admin to unscramble. For more on this, see WP:PARENDIS and WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Mathglot (talk) 09:22, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

How do we get more eyeballs for this split proposal (see current section)? Should I just be bold, and do it now? Should we say, "Let's wait two months and if no or few responses, we'll do it then?" Mathglot (talk) 21:22, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Leaving a note on the talk page of a related WikiProject, say WT:WikiProject Visual arts, usually is a good way to notify editors who may be interested in the topic. That said, a month without objections probably is long enough a wait. Huon (talk) 21:36, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! Notified. Mathglot (talk) 21:56, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

I don't favor a split, as the different meanings of the term covered in this article are not all that distinct. In general, "School of Paris" just refers to modern artists who worked in Paris between about 1920 and 1960. The term was coined in 1925 to celebrate the contribution of the many foreign-born artists who had recently migrated to Paris. According to the "Ecole de Paris" article in Oxford art Online, the term was soon adopted as a derogatory label: the foreign artists, a great many of whom were Jewish, were resented as a corrupting influence "in contrast to French-born artists such as André Derain and André Dunoyer de Segonzac, who were said to uphold the purity and continuity of the French tradition. After World War II, however, these nationalistic and anti-Semitic attitudes were discredited, and the term acquired a more general use to denote both foreign and French artists working in Paris." One result of this is that Derain, once represented as the opposition, is now described here as "a grand old man of the School of Paris". Ewulp (talk) 04:18, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Sounds sensible. Johnbod (talk) 08:47, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

A split would not be in the best interest of readers searching for 'School of Paris'. Best to include each epoch into one article. The French model for the topic is a good example to follow. Coldcreation (talk) 09:49, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

sorry about indent

[Note to self and others: something happened since 21:22 2 April that has screwed up indentation, but I'm not sure exactly what it is. Something to do with the Help-me question in the section above. Mathglot (talk) 22:07, 2 April 2017 (UTC)]

Indent before the {{help me-helped}} screws up with the formatting. Fixed now. Huon (talk) 23:03, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

redirect from Jewish School of Paris

I am not entirely certain it's the same thing; any comments? I looked at that page at one point and it seemed to be about a group of painters that included Marc Chagall. But I could be wrong. I have studied the period a little but a lot that is in the articles about this period is new to me. Elinruby (talk) 00:27, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Adding a segment on the importance of La Ruche to the École de Paris.

Hello Wiki Community!

I intend to add a subheading on the role of La Ruche in the artistic development of and creative collaborations between Ecole de Paris artists. La Ruche, a complex of studio apartments and other facilities in Montparnasse on the Left Bank – 2 Passage Dantzig in the 15th arrondissement – was built by a successful artist, Alfred Boucher, who wanted to develop a creative hub for struggling artists to interact, and that could facilitate their artistic development. La Ruche housed a considerable number of artists of all stripes and was often the first destination of emigre artists who arrived in Paris eager to join the arts scene and find affordable housing. Many Ecole de Paris artists forged long-lasting friendships and creative collaborations as a result, such as Chaim Soutine with Modigliani, Chagall and poet Blais Cendrars. Artists who lived and worked in La Ruche include Modigliani, Rivera, Foujita, Soutine, Kisling, Zadkine, Chagall, Lipchitz, and more. La Ruche stands as an important symbol of the Ecole de Paris and should accordingly be mentioned within this article. Altogether I’ll add approximately 200-300 words in this subheading.

Source: Meisler, Stanley. Shocking Paris: Soutine, Chagall and the Outsiders of Montparnasse. Palgrave Macmillan, 2015. The author of this secondary source, Stanley Meisler, is a noted journalist, foreign diplomatic correspondent for the Los Angeles Times for 30 years, and is the author of highly-regarded histories of the United Nations and the Peace Corps.

If you would like to comment on these proposed changes, please let me know on this Talk Page or on my Talk Page.

Added new segments following French version of the article

Hello there,

I added segments, having translated from French. Informing here. Also worked on rearranging material in order to make the page more readable and improve the quality of the article. Homerethegreat (talk) 12:41, 25 November 2023 (UTC)