Talk:Gothic Revival architecture

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 1 April 2020 and 12 June 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Sgalvis. Peer reviewers: Sbaker178.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 08:43, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Palace of Westminster

We can see here a detail. I would add a whole image.Xx236 (talk) 10:36, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Gothic Revival in other decorative arts

Not at all sure about this section. The article is about Gothic Revival architecture, and I’m not sure tagging in a short section on GR in other arts does actually help the reader. Certainly, as three examples, Renaissance architecture, Baroque architecture, Palladian architecture don’t follow this pattern. Would it not be more helpful to write an article on GR in other arts, and then have a See also? Lesser concerns - it’s placing at the very end messes up the flow, and it would need more citations, in the article’s existing style (sfn). I’d appreciate other thoughts. Haven’t been able to ping the editor who added it, as they appear not to have a user page. KJP1 (talk) 17:04, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

• Gothic Revival and Neo-Gothic both redirect here, so I think it belongs, while that is the case. We're generally absolutely crap in covering the decorative arts, so I certainly wouldn't support just removing it. Rewriting it would be better. Moving it might be good - you won't get much response from the editor concerned. Johnbod (talk) 17:10, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Centre Block - Parliament Hill.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:23, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Gallery again

This page is a bit of a magnet for editors adding images of examples of the Gothic Revival of which they are particularly fond. Such images, of themselves, are a good thing, as it really helps readers to have architecture articles with a good range of illustrations. But there is a danger of over-illustrating, in which the article becomes more of a picture book. I wonder if editors wanting to add images could, firstly see whether the "type" is already featured, i.e. do we a have a British town hall, or a Brazilian church, and do we need another? Then, if adding, perhaps editors could consider removing another, perhaps similar, image, in order that the page doesn't become overwhelmed. I appreciate Wikipedia:OWNBEHAVIOR and certainly don't want to appear protective of a particular version of the article, but I have put some effort into trying to make what is a fairly highly-viewed article into something which is of value to readers. KJP1 (talk) 15:29, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

All the main architectural style articles have this problem. Try Indo-Saracenic architecture or Renaissance architecture. Apart from regular lawn mowing, you could try a hidden note saying "no additions without talk page approval", but I doubt much notice will be taken. I think the formatting of the galleries could be improved btw - I was initially dubious of that at Indo-Saracenic architecture, but now think it's better. One could also try insisting on better captions in the galleries too - at least dates. Johnbod (talk) 16:48, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Well, had a go with the dates, and reformatted the galleries in line with Indo-Saracenic. I think you're right, will just have to keep trimming. As an aside, what do you think about a Good article nomination? KJP1 (talk) 04:37, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Too restrictive

This arcticle sets the limit between survival and revival amazingly restrictive, even more restrictive than Britannica.

The term "survival" should be reserved to the perpetuation of Gothic forms, such as in Jacobean architecture, which still used pointed arches and in some cases even perpendicular tracery.

But contemporaneously with the last Gothic Survival, the imitation of older styles began. Sometimes, there was a political motivation.

The restauration of the British monarchy after the end of the Puritan Commonwealth induced the stylistic choice for at least two buildings: Dromore Cathedral in Northern Ireland, built in 1661, imitates Early English Style. In the Great Hall of Lambeth Palace, London, Baroque and Gothic forms were applied, but the Gothic forms were not Perpendicular, they were not taken from Gothic elements of of Tudor Style, nor Jacobean. They were taken form older variants of Gothic. That way, this was a revitalization, a revival.

Without pointing on a political motivation, teh Collegial Church of St Mary in Warwick has to be mentioned. The Gothic elements applied in the rebuilding of 1707 cite a very late Gothic. But, in relation to the Baroque rebuilding of the churches that had been destroyed by the great fire of London, the decision to rebuild this church applying Gothic forms was a decision for Gothic Revival.--Ulamm (talk) 06:19, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm having difficulty seeing where the "arcticle sets the limit between survival and revival amazingly restrictive", or indeed sets it at all. Johnbod (talk) 03:19, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Headline "Viollet-le-Duc and Iron Gothic"

Merits and problems of Eugène Viollet-le-Duc (whose work was concentrated in France, though it influenced other countries) and Iron Gothic (which was rather concentrated in England) are too different subjects to be combined in one chapter.--Ulamm (talk) 17:22, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

I’m not sure - remember, we are trying to use a summary style, and to cover such a vast topic in one reasonably-sized article is always going to require compromises. That said, by all means have a go at splitting them and we can see what it looks like. KJP1 (talk) 17:38, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

I Just wanted to withdraw my post :)

St Mary's Church, Ealing

But now I have a new subject: A nicer example of Iron Gothic than Ennis Cathedral could be St Mary's in London-Ealing. But it was intended as Romanesque Revival, and the dating is not clear.--Ulamm (talk) 18:55, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

It’s a beautiful image, and a beautiful building but, like you, I’m not sure it’s quite right for Gothic Revival. KJP1 (talk) 21:10, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Re-write

Ulamm - I'm very willing to work with you on developing the article. I have experience in collaboration on architecture articles, including multiple FAs. But you shouldn't undertake a major re-draft without discussion. To add a gallery and five images to the lead, and to conclude it with reference to a very minor English church, frankly makes it an absolute mess. We are trying for a summary style on the global history of the Gothic Revival. To follow that with three full paragraphs in a Roots section, without a single cite is just ridiculous. You are making the article an expression of your personal opinions, which goes against multiple policies. I should also say that your English prose, while vastly superior to my German, needs some work. I've therefore reverted. I'm completely fine with improvements to the article, but if we are talking major changes, such as you made, then can we first discuss here. This is a highly-viewed article and we need to try to keep it up to current Wikipedia standards. KJP1 (talk) 20:34, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

I do not consider my version the definitive one, but some contents of the article were quite doubtful. The main feature ist that Gothic Revival was the outcome of various conservative tendencies, not only Catholicism and sympathy for Catholicism in the Anglican church.

On the layout, few photos in monumental projections are rather coloured spots, whereas a greater number of moderately sized photos adjacent to certain passages of the text provide real informations to our visitors. And they tell of a reality, which is more complicated than this or that cited author pretends.

Best regards, --Ulamm (talk) 21:44, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

I have to agree with KJP1, and I hope the article can develop further. Johnbod (talk) 22:33, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Ulamm - I've again reverted. Can I ask that you discuss your desired changes here rather than engage in an edit war. But, before you do that - take a look at any FA architecture article. You will see that they do not follow your preferred style in the lead. The lead is a summary of the body, drawing out the main points of importance. They don't have galleries, and they certainly don't conclude by referencing a minor church which is never mentioned in the body. And a couple of other things. You want to start the body with a single-sentence paragraph stating "The Gothic Revival was the expression of various restaurative situations and conservative tendencies." What does that even mean? Do you mean "restorative"? And who's view is it, other than your own? Then, you state; "photos...tell of a reality, which is more complicated than this or that cited author pretends." Whatever that may mean, it doesn't reflect how Wikipedia works. The article is supposed to be a summation of what cited authors say. If you want to set out what Ulamm thinks about the Gothic Revival, write a blog. KJP1 (talk) 06:52, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

In your version, the article tends to tell, Gothic Revival were either Catholic or driven by sympathy for Catholicism. But the main style of Catholicism was Baroque. St Peter's Basilica in Rome had been begun in Renaissance style, but mot of it was Baroque. The style of the Jesuites was Baroque. The pilgrimage of Žďár nad Sázavou is an important mark for Gothic Revival, but it is not typical for Catholic architecture in the Czech countries. The counter-reformation after Habsburg's victory against the Hussites resulted in a wave of abundant Bohemian Baroque. Also in the Polish Commonwealth (including Lithuania), Catholic architecture (of the post-reformatory age) was mainly Baroque. Gothic Revival in Lithuania and North eastern Poland is concentrated in regions, where most of the older architecture had been built of timber. In these regions, besides Catholic churches, also Protestant churches were built in Gothic Revival style in early 20th century.

What you call "Ulamm is thinking" are findings (facts!) of two intensive screenings of European architecture (targeting to collect all examples), one on Gothic brick buildings and one on hall churches. Preferring a "natural" science approach to the history of architecture to a "philological" approach, my search for examples has not been limited to these two themes.

I hope, you will find printed literature better representing the facts, than what you have used hitherto. On themes presented by many authors, various grades of truth are available. Often a text comprises valuable informations AND errors or doubtful interpretaions. Unfortunately, some bugs have been produced by very important authors. (I do not only look buildings, photos and cultural heritage portals, sometimes I read books or parts of them :) Best regards, --Ulamm (talk) 08:27, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Ulamm - Can I ask that you read Wikipedia:No original research. You acknowledge that all of the above, and much else that you are trying to insert in the article, is the result of your own "intensive screenings of European architecture". While your findings may well be interesting, they cannot be the basis of a Wikipedia article. Regards. KJP1 (talk) 08:42, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Do not misunderstand the rule "No original research". Original research is necessarily banned, if it stands for individual observations that cannot be verified. The evaluation of published informations can be verified and therefore does not fall under that ban.

The evaluation of published informations is even necessarily to keep (or make) Wikipedia serious. Wikipedia is a powerful multiplier. Under the condition that our sources, besides true facts and logical or plausible conclusions, provide lots of errors, falsifications and doubtful conclusions, we are responsible for what we multiply. The consequence is that we have to look for the sources of our sources. That can include the collection of available descriptions (which can be incomplete) and photos (which can show or hide important details) of several thousands of single buildings.

The awful phrase "Use secondary literature" mustn't be read as a warrant to adopt any nonsense. It has to be understood as a warning, "Only use literature that you understand", which includes the understanding of the conditions under which a text has been produced.

Best regards, --Ulamm (talk) 09:25, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Vierzehnheiligen, Franconia, built in 1742–1772, Minor Basilica in 1897

Dear User:KJP1, my suggestion is:

In the chapter "Roots", you should present Curl's theory not as the truth, but as one theory, "James Stevens Curl wrote in 1990, …" This is supported by … publications of … (18th century) and … (19th century). But it neglects the first buildings reviving older Gothic and the motives of their builders, …

In general, the ideology/movement of … found its expression in … ((various ideologies and their expressions))

In general, the connotations of … style were ((various styles and their connotations))

((If it creates only moderate redundancies, the relations between ideologies/movements and styles should be presented in both directions.))

Best regards, --Ulamm (talk) 11:16, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Ulamm - very happy to look at expanding the section. Do you have the reliable sources that we can use as the basis for presenting alternative views to those currently set out? KJP1 (talk) 11:30, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Though it should be little more than a facet – David Brock of Historic England recommended me this:

https://www.oxoniensia.org/volumes/2012/cox.pdf

(Myself, I still have not read more than the first lines :)

Best regards, --Ulamm (talk) 15:16, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

I’ve put a little from Cox in. It’s an interesting article. Am I right that, in essence, you’re wanting to emphasise the Revival had drivers in addition to the religious, primarily the political. That’s certainly the case, and I think the second para. of Roots seeks to reflect this. I’m sure it could be strengthened. KJP1 (talk) 17:15, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

In Dromore Cathedral and Lambeth Great Hall (a building of the church, but not a church), the restitution of the monarchy and the restitution of the Anglican church cannot be devided. Under the regional circumstances in Ireland, Dromore seems to be rather anti-Catholic than pro-Catholic. St Mary's in Warwick might be the esthetical answer on the valuable preserved medieval parts of the church, the chancel and Beauchamp Chapel. St Nicholas' in Alcester combines a Gothic outfit with a rationalist, very Protestant, interior. In the mid 18th century, the romantic application of Gothic forms on private residences began, see Strawbwrry Hill. Soon, it was adopted abroad, in 1754/1755 with the Nauener Tor in Potsdam, Germany, a Gothic Revival city gate. All other buildings of the city and the castles around were Baroque or Rococo. Since 1789, general conservative tendencies in Britain were enhanced by its role as the head of the coalition against revolutionary and subsequent Napoleonian France. And in the 19th century, nostalgia spread throughout Britain and other countries as a reaction on the rapid technical progress. Britain and with little delay other countries came in the grip of modern systems such as the network of railways and the telegraphe. The interests of ruling classes to keep on top in times of social changes strengthened political conservatism, such as Victorianism.--Ulamm (talk) 11:31, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Can’t, of course, do anything with this. Without sources, it’s just your own view. KJP1 (talk) 13:23, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

It is a post in our discussion.

Each detail can be funded, before it is transferred into the article.

The layout of Alcester is self-explaining.

It won't be difficult to find texts that show the influences of Britains role in the anti-revolutionary coalition on the public opinion in the country.

It won't be difficult the get reliable texts on Victorianism.

The building dates of Strawberry Hill and the Nauener Tor are well sourced.

Best regards,--Ulamm (talk) 14:54, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

OK - when you’ve got the texts we can discuss. Can you include page numbers. KJP1 (talk) 17:07, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

It is you who should look for a wider range of sources and refer a wider range of opinions. More than one publication that was influential for some time, has later been unmasked as partly or even totally wrong.--Ulamm (talk) 16:17, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

You seem to have mistaken me for your secretary. It’s for you to identify, if you can, the sources which support the changes you want to make. Until you do, there’s really nothing to discuss. KJP1 (talk) 16:32, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

You claim the judgment, which informations the article may provide and which not.

Vice versa: On which single churches does Curl explicitly suggest that the congregation or the patron landlord chose Gothic forms to express its/his wish of a return (of Britain) to the Catholic church?--Ulamm (talk) 20:53, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Sources, examples, images

• This article could be much better, if it were based on a wider scale of sources.
• If the histories of single buildings are well sourced, they should be accepted. If the well sourced histories of many buildings contradict the presented theory, this theory may be wrong, even if it was constructed by a well reputed author.
• Illustrations should be balanced, showing various aspects of a subject.

--Ulamm (talk) 09:17, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

When/if you provide some sources, we can have a discussion. KJP1 (talk) 10:08, 11 March 2024 (UTC)