Talk:Masterpiece

could add a link to the Tate gallery online can't really think of any points that wouldn't be covered elsewhere e.g. paintings, sculptures. :AllieK

This system also subsists in France. Rhinoracer 13:15, 4 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

Removed the Sgt. Pepper references, as they seem entirely out of place in this article. Trevor (talk) 05:40, 25 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Electric Ladyland is cited in its article as "the peak of Hendrix's mastery of the electric guitar, and is frequently cited as one of the greatest rock albums of all time", and while Are You Experienced contains many of their most famous work, Ladyland is arguably their best defining work and their masterpicie. It was also their last work (all other after are remanecent tapes, no matter how much they follow Hendrix's style).

Added Stairway to Heaven, a situable example.

Why is the link to princeton wordnet important? (see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Masterpiece&diff=223674538&oldid=222337428 ) The definition/synonym from wordnet are "chef-d'oeuvre (the most outstanding work of a creative artist or craftsman)" and "(an outstanding achievement)". Wikitionary has more than that. 84.203.39.26 (talk) 08:07, 8 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Currently the article starts "Originally, the term masterpiece referred to a piece of work produced by an apprentice aspiring to become a master craftsman in the old European guild system, on which his fitness to qualify for guild membership was judged, and which, if he was successful, was retained by the guild. Great care was therefore taken to produce a fine piece in whatever the craft was, whether painting, goldsmithing, knifemaking, or many other trades." This is inaccurate, as it was only a masterpiece IF he was sucessful. I attempted to substitute "Under the old European guild system a journeyman could be received as a master craftsman. This would require the approval of all masters of a guild, a donation of money and other goods, and in many practical handicrafts the production of a so-called masterpiece, which would illustrate the abilities of the aspiring master craftsman." but had it reverted as too specific?Research Method (talk) 03:13, 3 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

Yes it is much too specific. Guild, which is not very good, has been amended. Actually even a failed masterpiece was still a masterpiece. Something tells me medieval guilds are not your particular subject. What were the "impractical crafts" I wonder? Johnbod (talk) 03:19, 3 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

I don't understand you. How is it too specific to say journeyman instead of apprentice when the meaning differs. Are you saying that the current entry for Guild is inaccurate? Please give sources. I am particularly interested to know about failed masterpieces because I thought you could try to enter a guild a number of times, and only on success would it be a masterpiece. Before I started to edit this entry, there were no references in it at all.Research Method (talk) 04:12, 3 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

You will see some of the edits I have made to Guild. Many skipped the journeyman stage. With a couple of dozen guilds even in small cities, and hundreds of cities with guilds in Europe, over a period of 500 years or more, all with different, and changing, rules, over-specific generalization is almost always wrong. The 1579 "masterstik" OED quote illustrates the other point - it talks of masterstiks being submitted - it was the intention, not the achievement, that made it one. Johnbod (talk) 04:25, 3 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

Alchemy was normally considered an impractical craft:)Research Method (talk) 04:15, 3 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

It was intended to be supremely practical, but did not have guilds (being mostly illegal, apart from anything else). Johnbod (talk) 04:25, 3 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

They were very secretive.Research Method (talk) 04:27, 3 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

Confectionery?Research Method (talk) 04:36, 3 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

Highly practical. Johnbod (talk) 04:42, 3 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

Did they eat or keep the masterpieces?Research Method (talk) 04:46, 3 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

The first line is too specific, contradicts the body of the article, and is not supported by any references.Research Method (talk) 04:27, 3 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

Is an E-Type Jaguar a masterpiece? It has certainly been described as such. Can we reach a consensus on this.Research Method (talk) 02:45, 7 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

Although I agree it is a beautiful car, I don't think it is an archetypal masterpiece. I think the point of this article is to have some unquestionable examples of masterpiece works, like the Mona Lisa, to demonstrate the meaning. The car is in the MOMA, but not all MOMA pieces are masterpieces. --Clubmarx (talk) 05:12, 7 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

The citation I have provided is one of many, and there is no reasoning provided in the article that the definition should now only apply to works of art.Peas & Luv (talk) 16:51, 14 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

The article needs regular trimming to about 6 examples, 1 per genre. This is not a list of masterpieces. Johnbod (talk) 17:08, 14 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

Which car would you suggest?Peas & Luv (talk) 17:12, 14 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

None. We have no operas, buildings etc etc. The more there are, the more people want to add their favourite rock album or computer game. Johnbod (talk) 17:19, 14 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

In western painting people add their favourite genres, and artists, why shouldn't they here? Currently the article is very short.Peas & Luv (talk) 17:24, 14 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

Don't worry, in a few weeks it will be longer by a random bunch of albums, films, etc. Until the next trim. It is not an article that needs to be huge frankly. Johnbod (talk) 17:55, 14 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

Please provide a rationale for this, including a description of the genres which should be added to the article.Peas & Luv (talk) 17:22, 14 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

Reconsider the entire example section. Consider either removing the section because it's very subjective, especially the more modern ones, or giving easily recognized and near universally accepted examples like David and Mona Lisa as pictured in the article. --173.69.175.155 (talk) 23:29, 8 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

If they were all removed people would only start adding them again! Johnbod (talk) 23:33, 8 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

Please provide reasons - why include any examples, and what is your justification behind the current selection? 6 examples is very suspicious, and un-sourced. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.96.148.42 (talk) 02:21, 4 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

All of the masterpieces cited are acceptable to Muslims and Jews. Mr.Slade (talk) 22:09, 20 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

It is ridiculous to be so restrictive as to limit illustrations to portrayals of the human form. Why not the taj mahal or An Oak Tree? 93.96.148.42 (talk) 06:05, 2 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

I got here following a link called "magnum opus". Now that goes to "masterpiece" which is fine as they are perfectly equivalent terms. However there are alternate disambiguation pages for "masterpiece" and "magnum opus". There is no reason for separate "magnum opus" and "masterpiece" articles both essentially like this one. The top of the article should probably link to both disambiguation pages I think. I'm not sure how to create an alternate "other uses" link matching "magnum opus".Ekwos (talk) 23:48, 11 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

Before adding more additions ad infinitum, first achieve consensus here...Modernist (talk) 14:24, 16 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

Add:

• Les Demoiselles d'Avignon - et al.
• Ingmar Bergman's Persona
• The Beatles's Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band

I have removed all of these examples. Calling something a masterpiece is a subjective, POV decision. Thus, it must be sourced by a high quality source with the credentials to judge such a work. Yes, I certainly think that some of those things I removed deserve to be called "masterpieces", but my subjective judgment doesn't cut it on Wikipedia. If any of them are re-added with a source, the line should probably read, "Examples of works that have been described as masterpieces are..." 04:03, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Clearly I think the section is relevant. I think human consensus - common knowledge and common sense says a few are quite obvious and therefore ok per WP:UCS, if you want sources then add them...Modernist (talk) 04:11, 3 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

WP:BURDEN: the responsibility isn't on me to provide sources. And there's no such thing as "common sense" in aesthetic judgment. For example, I don't think Don Giovanni is a masterpiece, I've never heard of Os Lusíadas, Canterbury Tales is notable only for its place in history not as a great work of art, etc. Furthermore, I sincerely doubt that someone from non-European or European influenced countries is going to consider most of these masterpieces. What about pieces like Tales of Genji (from Japan), the I Ching (from China), or Infinite Jest (from the US)? How about Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band, which was just added yesterday?

While normally I would wait for a discussion, claiming that any given artistic work is "creation that has been given much critical praise, especially one that is considered the greatest work of a person's career or to a work of outstanding creativity, skill or workmanship" (our definition) is POV unless attributed, thus keeping the list directly violates not only WP:V but also WP:NPOV. I'm going to re-remove the list, and you will need to provide sources to support any inclusions. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:05, 3 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

You know and I know - that this is ridiculous...Modernist (talk) 12:42, 3 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

You may "know" that, but I honestly do not. I honestly have never heard of Os Lusíadas, and I honestly believe that Canterbury Tales doesn't even come close to being a masterpiece. I also honestly believe that neither my nor your opinion matters, per WP:NPOV. And I certainly believe that a list that consists of only European artworks is clearly insufficient and a terrible example of systemic bias. So the correct solution is for those who want to include th einfo to find sources.

Having said that, though, just finding sources isn't actually going to solve the problem. For example, in a quick search of recent news, I see that a Japanese article has called Bruegel's The Way to Calvary a masterpiece, a Russian article called Vasily Polenov's He That Is Without Sin a masterpiece, and touchArcade (which is an RS for video games), calls the new iPod game "Infinity Blade 2" a masterpiece. So, if people want to include a list, we're going to need to do better than a simple citation calling something a "masterpiece". So, how do we solve this problem? Note, again, that we can't just take a poll here and decide what to include. Personally, I prefer to simply not worry about the issue, and leave the list out. Note that I've been generous and kept the two pictures in the article, when technically even their inclusion could be a matter of debate. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:40, 3 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

While your arguments are valid - this is an absurd precipice; beyond which in my opinion it has become ridiculous...Modernist (talk) 13:51, 3 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

Can't a masterpiece also refer to a piece by a classical composer?--95.116.210.145 (talk) 02:13, 27 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

I've removed the unreferenced "Originally the paper which a student needs to present in order to gain the degree of Master of Arts was also such a "masterpiece" - i.e. a fine piece of scholarship, the particular craft in which the student sought to be admitted as a master craftsman." because I don't think it's true, in English anyway - but I could be wrong. This meaning is not in OED. Anyone (with a reference)? Johnbod (talk) 11:39, 5 May 2014 (UTC)Reply

The sources given for the statement that Mona Lisa "is the archetypal masterpiece" of painting, while making abundantly clear that the work is the best-known on a cultural level, do not support the assertion that Mona Lisa is the archetypal masterpiece of painting. They would support the claim that it is the most famous of all acclaimed paintings. This is an important difference. AndrewOne (talk) 03:50, 8 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

That's your opinion; the sources make clear the clarity, beauty and aesthetics of the art of Leonardo Da Vinci, fortunately...Modernist (talk) 11:12, 8 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

Not really. Plenty more sources here. Johnbod (talk) 14:52, 8 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

Unsurprisingly, the article from The Independent only backs up my argument. After pointing out what is considered to make the Mona Lisa great from an artistic standpoint, the article specifically notes, "Her status as 'the one painting everyone knows' is, [Professor Sassoon] says, the 'product of a long history of political and geographical accident, fantasies conjured up, connections made, images manufactured, and luck.'" In The Washington Post, Blake Gopnik even uses the Mona Lisa as an example of how "works of art become popular icons from exposure, not from intrinsic worth". The difference is indeed an important one. AndrewOne (talk) 15:47, 8 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

As stated others disagree with you and your opinion...Modernist (talk) 15:53, 8 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

What are you talking about: "Masterpiece, magnum opus (Latin, great work) or chef d'œuvre (French, master of work, plural chefs d'œuvre) in modern use is a creation that has been given much critical praise, especially one that is considered the greatest work of a person's career or to a work of outstanding creativity, skill, profundity, or workmanship." Tick. Johnbod (talk) 16:26, 8 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

Neither of these past two responses specifically addresses the claims of my most recent comment. Modernist, you have simply said that my "opinion" is disagreed with when it is a fact, not an opinion, that to be the best-known is not necessarily to be the most critically acclaimed. It is once again an important difference. Johnbod, you have used Wikipedia as a source, and the only source currently on the first page of that Google link which would support your favored version is perhaps the Khan Academy page, which is of questionable reliability. Once again, if you want to state in the main page that Mona Lisa is the "archetypal masterpiece" of its art form, please find a source that confirms it as such. In the meantime, please skim the articles mentioned in my previous comment. If you two are unwilling to respond seriously, I will begin an RfC. AndrewOne (talk) 17:17, 8 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

Let's get this straight - according to you Mona Lisa by Leonardo Da Vinci is not a masterpiece; it's just a famous painting. Paint quality, landscape, poetry, intensity, beauty, and surface aside; Yeah, I totally disagree with your erroneous opinion...Modernist (talk) 23:04, 8 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

I don't think that's quite what he's saying, but if he's going to do a RFC he needs to articulate his issue rather more clearly than he has here. This and this search might help. For example: The Lost Mona Lisa - Page 84

https://books.google.co.uk/books?isbn=0553818309 R. A. Scotti - 2010 - ‎Preview - ‎More editions "As the crown jewel of the Louvre collection, Mona Lisa had become a symbol of the stale museum art that the avant-garde believed was stifling new ideas and new talent. She was the archetype of the dead masterpieces they were rejecting ..." Johnbod (talk) 02:58, 9 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

Rather a well-attested case, really, but interesting to see someone trying to take on ... the rest of the known universe. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:52, 10 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

I see the wording has been changed to say that the Mona Lisa is "an archetypal masterpiece". While better alternatives still exist, this is better than what was there before. In response to Chiswick Chap, I am not taking on "the rest of the known universe". Read the sources I mentioned in earlier comments to this section. Doing so will make clear why I had an issue with the statement that the Mona Lisa is "the archetypal masterpiece" of painting. I had no intention of starting an argument over whether or not the Mona Lisa is a highly acclaimed work. Everyone here, I would presume, knows that it is. The phrase "the archetypal masterpiece" is not the same. Pulp Fiction is both a widely acclaimed film and one of the most prominent films in popular culture, but this does not mean that it is "the archetypal masterpiece" of cinema. Such a grand description would be more appropriate for a work such as Citizen Kane or Persona. The public are not critics; we should not simply take the widely acclaimed works which happen to be the best-known culturally and write that they are "the archetypal masterpieces" of their crafts. In the case of the Mona Lisa, there are several paintings which would likely be praised more highly by art historians. Diego Velázquez's Las Meninas comes to mind, and so does Pablo Picasso's Guernica. The current phrasing is better, though. AndrewOne (talk) 05:58, 15 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

In Chapter 2 of “The Craftsman”, Richard Sennett distinguishes between the chef d’œvre which was, he says, the gate between Apprentice and Journeyman, and the chef d’œvre élevé which took the Journeyman to the rank of Master. Is that worth mentioning in the article? 70.123.153.76 (talk) 02:20, 19 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

I doubt this was a general distinction. One would need more specificity - who, where, when? Johnbod (talk) 03:42, 19 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

This article's words are mainly about the guild system of long ago. This word "masterpiece" is in modern use, so I made a new section with that title, put in the sentence from the lead, and added a sentence about the novel David Copperfield being considered the masterpiece of Charles Dickens. I included the sources used for that statement in the English Wikipedia and French Wikipedia re the novel.

I do have a question about the word 'archetypal' in overuse in the photo captions. What precisely does it mean here? It is unclear to me if you mean archetypal for the historical usage of masterpiece, or the modern use of masterpiece; perhaps some text could make say archetypal in other words, give it a setting. As Leonardo da Vinci did not need the approval of any guild for his painting, I take it that Mona Lisa, the painting, is a masterpiece in the modern sense, despite the century in which it was painted. The judgment of masterpiece is recent based on the sources inserted into the image caption. People have judged it a masterpiece among Leonardo da Vinci's paintings, and also among paintings in the Louvre. Thus I moved that painting down to the new section.

I see that this article is under the auspices of the visual arts. Will you be rejecting my addition of a novel as an example of a masterpiece? I hope not. I do hope some other examples of masterpieces in the modern sense, no guild involved, will be added to the new section. --Prairieplant (talk) 04:12, 16 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

I'm fine with one such example, but the last thing we need is a long list, to which people keep adding. Yes, the Mona Lisa is a masterpiece in the modern sense. Really we need to know more on when this "modern" sense developed, which I suspect was a very long time ago. Johnbod (talk) 16:59, 16 February 2019 (UTC)Reply