Talk:Chiaroscuro

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Old stuff[edit]

  • Augustine also talks about this concept in Confessions. It may be worth mentioning.


  • This cries for an example image.
Done.
  • What about the German use of the chiaroscuro technique in in films? Didn’t they take it to a new “level” incorporating it into many of their silent films? Ex: The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari (where we see a heavy use of hard lights creating enormous amounts of shadows for the unimportant elements of the scene to hide in)

Merge debate[edit]

  • I disagree that this concept should be mixed with Tenebrism. I disagree that Chiaroscuro is a "bold" contrast between light and dark. While it can, of course be bold I think a better description would be "an effective" contrast between light and dark. In this technique the contrast, either gradual or quick is used to create a sense of volume in the image.
  • As far as I can tell, tenebrism is a style, and chiaroscuro is more of a technique. That is, one can engage the use of chiaroscuro without engaging in tenebrism. Thus, they are separate.

However, can one engage in tenebrism without engaging in chiaroscuro? This could pose a long-living argument. In my personal opinion, one can, and a number of tenebrous paintings I have seen do not engage in the technique of adding exposure to lighted darkness. In fact, many engage in adding shadows to the subject.

-Blutwulf

  • Both are realitive terms under value in the principals of design. However Tenebrism is also a style of painting where as chiaroscuro is a fundamental of value in color theory. So one could merge them under one category of color theory could they not.

-Quintin Addelbrook

  • (Fifth comment.)

I think they should not be merged. Tenebrism is an obscure, specialised term denoting a technique, school, manner or tendency—like, say, manierism. Chiaroscuro is a word from standard Italian that is merely descriptive, like, say mannerism.

It also has many other applications besides simply a value, fundamental or not, in what is here called "colour theory". Like impasto, it has entered the general language and is not merely a term of art.

Tantris 18:06, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

don't merge, for reasons given above. Plus Tenebrism is a rather old-fashioned term - more likely to be called Caravaggism or however its spelt nowadays. I need to do an article on the chiaroscuro woodcut, which is nothing to do with Tenebrism, predating it by 90 years or so. Johnbod 20:16, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What does all this mean?:

The term chiaroscuro has been applied since the later 18th century to a printmaking technique which finds its best expressions in aquatint and in xylography, and in china (ink) drawing. The technique requires a skilled knowledge of the perspective, the physical effects of light on surfaces, the shadows. Chiaroscuro defines objects without a contouring line, but only by the contrast between the colours of the object and of the background.

Despite a frequent confusion, chiaroscuro technique in printmaking is different from German camaieu, in which the graphical effect is prevalent on the plastic effect (obtained with chiaroscuro to recall basrelief and painting "feeling"), and which more often uses coloured paper.

- I'm dubious about this, as the term in anything like this meaning is not mentioned in the 20 page glossary of print terms in A Griffiths "Prints and Printmaking", and I have never seen it so used about prints of this date & technique. What does it mean anyway? Johnbod 20:42, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I simply googled "chiaroscuro woodblock print" and found these statements at the head of the finds (Wetman 00:54, 7 November 2006 (UTC)):[reply]

- exactly my point; these are chiaroscuro woodcuts of 1510 on (I had added something on these to the article), not the aquatint & drawings the passage quoted is about "since the late C18". Johnbod 17:17, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- well i've cut it out now - just too confused Johnbod 18:50, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tenebrism and Chiaroscuro should not be merged, they are related but should be understood independantly.- says Dirtyboots

  • (sixth comment)

I am no color theory scholar by any stretch of the imagination, but I do not think that Chiaroscuro and Tenebrism should be merged.

From my understanding from a color theory class I took at the Art Institute of California - Orange County, Chiaroscuro is a pattern of slow gradations of value, which shift from light to dark and back again. This would suggest 3 key tones where as Tenebrism is a stark contrast between a light key and a dark key (only 2 key tones). This is a different definition for each technique. I would say that the definition used for Chiaroscuro is actually inaccurate and should be changed to Tenebrism while a new and improved entry should be made for Chiaroscuro.

The book that we used to define these words was "Dynasty of Light" by Alan, Shijo, McManus, Burner. The composition used to describe Chiaroscuro was "Dinard, Summer, 1922" by Pablo Picasso. The composition expressing \\ was "The Conversion of Saint Paul," by Michelangelo Merisi da Caracaggio.

-bebop_girl6

Merge tag removed[edit]

Since clear majority against. Tag in place for over a year Johnbod 17:46, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Face[edit]

I just don't think "In a chiaroscuro face, one side of the face is lit while the other is in shadow." is either helpful or accurate. The lead definition, short as it is, and especially the picture, makes the point more clearly. Chiaroscuro is a noun not an adjective (COD, Collins etc), and by no means all such faces could be described as using chiaroscuro. Johnbod 13:08, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chiaroscuro Dragon[edit]

I posted a lovely picture of a Dragon courtesy www.homestarrunner.com, and somebody took it down. On one side, I realise that it isn't the most advanced image in the world, but at least it relates to something in semi-popular media. I wouldn't even know what the hell chiaroscuro is if I hadn't seen that flash film. I'm putting the dragon back. Snuggles KungfuJoe1110 05:08, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But it doesn't really use chiaroscuro, or only a little shading. There are plenty of animation/manga etc images that illustrate the term much better. Johnbod 10:47, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rembrandt[edit]

There should be more about him + images. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 22:28, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Barry12.jpg[edit]

The image Image:Barry12.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --07:35, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Johnbod (talk) 11:13, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Accuracy[edit]

The Tate Glossary says: Chiaroscuro is generally only remarked upon when it is a particularly prominent feature of the work, usually when the artist is using extreme contrasts of light and shade.

This is also what I learned in art school. Notice the use of the words "only...when...prominent...extreme" -- Many of the images here don't seem to prominently use extreme contrasts of light and shade. I don't think a work contains Chiaroscuro just because an artist has included a shadow area. Aknicholas (talk) 12:30, 27 July 2010 (UTC)—Preceding unsigned comment added by Aknicholas (talk • contribs) 12:27, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You, and they, are talking about what the article calls compositional chiaroscuro, as distinct from chiaroscuro modelling. But both need to be explained, as well as the other uses of the term. Notice their use of "generally only remarked upon"; they don't seem to agree with your last sentence. Johnbod (talk) 12:47, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Architecture[edit]

In the article on Neo-classical architecture it is said that this was in part a reaction against the use of chiaroscuro in Roccoco architecture. Does anyone have any idea what chiaroscuro means in the context of architecture?

Dranghek (talk) 11:57, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've not seen it so used that I can remember, but I suppose effects of light and shade have a place in architecture, though I wouldn't think of Rococo architecture as using them much. Maybe a mistake? Johnbod (talk) 13:20, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Definition[edit]

I really think that the definition is inaccurate. While the rest of the article explains what is meant by chiaroscuro in modelling and in composition, it is not enough. The definition of "chiaroscuro" should be clear from the start and it is not "strong contrasts between light and dark".Amadeus webern (talk) 15:36, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

According to the National Gallery, London, "chiaroscuro is an Italian term which literally means 'light-dark'. In paintings the description refers to clear tonal contrasts which are often used to suggest the volume and modelling of the subjects depicted."

According to Britannica, chiaroscuro is a technique employed in the visual arts to represent light and shadow as they define three-dimensional objects".

While there is a clear connection between Tenebrism and chiaroscuro, they are not the same. The use of the term "chiaroscuro" does not always refer to strong and bold contrasts. This has to be very clear from the start.Amadeus webern (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:59, 23 October 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Etymology in the lead (and WP:MOS)[edit]

The lead is currently:

Chiaroscuro (English: /kiˌɑːrəˈskjʊəroʊ/, Italian: [kjarosˈkuːro] "light-dark") in art is "an Italian term which literally means 'light-dark'. In paintings the description refers to clear tonal contrasts which are often used to suggest the volume and modelling of the subjects depicted",ref and this meaning has extended to other visual arts such as photography and cinema.
Further specialized uses include chiaroscuro woodcut, for coloured woodcuts printed with different blocks, each using a different coloured ink; and chiaroscuro drawing for drawings on coloured paper with drawing in a dark medium and white highlighting. Similar effects in the lighting of cinema and photography are also chiaroscuro.

There are a number of problems with this:

  • The lead contains a number of statements that don't appear in the rest of the article.
  • The lead repeats stuff (e.g. "light-dark" twice in the first paragraph).
  • The lead includes alternative meanings of the term (c. woodcut and c. drawing) (contrary to WP:NAD).
  • The lead doesn't say much about the actual subject of the article.
  • How the article title is pronounced in Italian isn't relevant to this article (which is about art, not about anglicisation of Italian words).
  • It blurs the distinction between usage of the term and usage of the artistic technique.

Many of these problems could be solved by splitting the etymology stuff to a separate section - e.g..:

Chiaroscuro /kiˌɑːrəˈskjʊəroʊ/ is a visual arts technique that uses clear tonal contrasts to suggest the volume and modelling of the subjects depicted.ref Chiaroscuro is also used in painting, photography and cinema.
Etymology of chiaroscuro
The term chiaroscuro is derived from the Italian for "light-dark".ref The terms chiaroscuro woodcut (a coloured woodcut printed with different blocks, each using a different coloured ink) and chiaroscuro drawing (a drawing on coloured paper with drawing in a dark medium and white highlighting) are also used.

The lead might also be improved/extended (e.g. see previous section of this talk page). Comments ? DexDor (talk) 22:01, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • I support moving the etymology information into a sub-section. However, I think it should remain (somewhere) in the article and is very much relevant material (in fact, I first came across this article whilst searching for the etymology of the term after it was mentioned in a film). I also do not think WP:NAD applies here. --Thorwald (talk) 22:46, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Part of the trouble is that people keep buggering about with it. I don't like the present one much, but you sound as if you want to make it worse. In the case of a strange sounding imported word the etymology is more immediately relevant than for most English words with obscure roots in the deep Germanic past. The Italian also directly helps explain the English meaning, and should remain in the lead. The woodcut and drawing senses are not "alternative meanings" at all. The lead is still short and more could be added about "the actual subject of the article" (whatever that means) without removing anything. Where does it say that stuff in the lead must be repeated lower down? Some things only need saying once. I don't know which "previous section of this talk page" you mean - if you mean the one just above, he is the guy who introduced the not very helpful National Gallery definition to the discussion, and maybe the article (yes, he did). And so on. This was the lead 4 years ago, mostly written by me, which I think was better, and would be happy to go back to, and expand on:

Chiaroscuro (Italian for light-dark) is a term in art for a contrast between light and dark. The term is usually applied to bold contrasts affecting a whole composition, but is also more technically used by artists and art historians for the use of effects representing contrasts of light, not necessarily strong, to achieve a sense of volume in modeling three-dimensional objects such as the human body. Further specialised uses of the term are "chiaroscuro woodcut", used for coloured woodcuts printed with different blocks, each using a different coloured ink, and "chiaroscuro drawing" used for drawings on coloured paper with drawing in a dark medium and white highlighting. The term is now also used in describing similar effects in the lighting of cinema and photography.

Johnbod (talk) 03:20, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why would WP:NAD not apply here? - there are a few words (e.g. "nigger") where the word itself is notable, but all other WP articles should be about the topic referred to by the article title.
WP:LEAD says "Significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article" (although it's not clear exactly what's significant). However, it's more important to clarify what the scope of this article is -
Woodcut#Chiaroscuro_woodcuts says "Chiaroscuro woodcuts do not necessarily feature strong contrasts of light and dark". If that's correct (it's uncited) then it's a different topic to paintings/photos/movies using strong contrasts (even if there is an etymological link). Wiktionary (again, not itself a RS) also treats them as separate meanings of the term.
It's fundamental to WP that each article should start by defining its topic and that the body of the article stay on that topic. In the case of this article the topic could be either (1) the art technique that uses strong contrasts of light and dark, (2) any art technique which is/was referred to using the word chiaroscuro or (3) the word chiaroscuro itself. IMO this article should be the first of these options (the others being covered by the hatnote/disambiguation and the Wiktionary entry). Some etymology of the article title could be included here as long as it doesn't obscure what the article topic is; technically, etymology is off-topic, but if it's of interest to readers and it saves them having to find the Wiktionary link then I'm OK with it. If we go with option 1 then the woodcut info should be removed from this article (except for a brief mention if the art is linked historically) and moved to the Woodcut article if appropriate. Also, the incoming redir/links should be changed and (for clarity) the hatnote changed to something like:
This article is about a visual arts technique using strong contrasts of light and dark. For chiaroscuro woodcuts see Woodcut#Chiaroscuro woodcuts. For other uses see Chiaroscuro (disambiguation).
DexDor (talk) 06:43, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Chiaroscuro woodcuts[edit]

Article claims that (regarding chiaroscuro woodcuts) "According to one definition of the term, they were first invented by Lucas Cranach in Germany in 1507" without providing a citation to back up this claim. There is no such claim in the Lucas Cranach the Elder article.

If justification for it can't be found, surely this claim should be deleted? — so I added a citation needed thingy.

The Metropolitan Museum of Art citation shows an example of a chiaroscuro print by Ugo da Carpi, dated only "mid-1520s" and does not justify the claim "first made in Italy by Ugo da Carpi before 1516". It does however state "Ugo da Carpi was the first Italian artist to experiment with the multiblock colored woodcut."

I have therefore deleted the claim of "before 1516" since no citation justifying that claim has been provided.

Michael F 1967 (talk) 01:05, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Chiaroscuro. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 05:39, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Photo removal[edit]

I do not believe the nude photographs at issue should be removed from the article, as they demonstrate the chiaroscuro technique. Quoting from WP:CENSORED:

Thus the mere fact that photos contain nudity should not be the focal point of the discussion, per WP:CENSORED. The discussion should instead centre around whether the image appropriately demonstrates the chiaroscuro technique. Thanks, /wia /tlk 23:17, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I restored two other images which had been removed from the article (without explanation) by 69.158.182.181 in two separate edits at 19:13 and 19:14 on 30 November 2015‎. One of them was specifically used in the text to describe the technique; its removal rendered the explanation unintelligble.
Leaving aside the policy discussion about censorship, it seems to me that if an editor thinks that a different image would better illustrate a point already detailed by another editor's work in an article, then it is his or her responsibility to (a) find another image and substitute it, and (b) update the text to reflect the new illustration. Laura1822 (talk) 11:46, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks - I'd missed these edits - usually it's the photos that get removed or re-added. Johnbod (talk) 14:14, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Chiaroscuro. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:21, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Chiaroscuro&oldid=1200836718"