Talk:The Triumph of Death

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Death Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Death on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DeathWikipedia:WikiProject DeathTemplate:WikiProject DeathDeath articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Visual arts This article is within the scope of WikiProject Visual arts, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of visual arts on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Visual artsWikipedia:WikiProject Visual artsTemplate:WikiProject Visual artsvisual arts articles Netherlands This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Netherlands, an attempt to create, expand, and improve articles related to the Netherlands on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, visit the project page where you can join the project or contribute to the discussion.NetherlandsWikipedia:WikiProject NetherlandsTemplate:WikiProject NetherlandsNetherlands articles

Is there any reason for that reference (in the "references in modern culture" section at the bottom) to be here? Is it in any way relevant? --Charles 02:31, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In the "Popular Culture" and "Trivia" sections you will always find reference to some trash, specially, but not only, heavy-trash-metal bands, soap TV, irrelevant movies, second rate writers, etc. In one sense it's pathetic, for it only demonstrates how the world are going totally bersek and how people lost their sense of artistic and moral values. So I guess for some folks place a reference to "Hellhamer" in an article about Bosch is very sensible... I have only one question: who the FCK is "Hellhammer"??? Never mind. I really don't care. AlJoKe (talk) 07:55, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have four comments on this entry: 1. There are 2 crosses, rather than 1, both relatively near each other in the middle distance, on the left.

2. There need to be references for the possible interpretations.

3. While I've no background in either art or history, I was surprised that none of the discussion mentioned the plague as possibly influencing this circa-1562 painting. To excerpt from the Wikipedia entry on the Black Death:

"Plague often killed 10% of a community in less than a year - in the worst epidemics ..., as many as 30 or 40%. The most general outbreaks in ...England, all coinciding with years of plague in Germany and the Low Countries, seem to have begun in 1498, 1535, 1543, 1563 [I.E., c. 1562], 1589, 1603, 1625 and 1636."

4. Perhaps the recent comment added by "Gregory Allen M.Min." was meant as a talk page item, rather than to be part of the article--??

It is deficient in a number of ways for a Wikipedia listing: no references, a bit muddled in spots (unclear antecedents; awkward grammar). And did the writer accidentally write "apologetically" instead of "unapologetically"? Who is "Gregory Allen M.Min"? What does M.Min. mean - Methodist Minister? (Are relatively obscure abbreviations supposed to be written out in full?) Also, if it remains in the article, this paragraph should be listed above, rather than below, the References in Modern Culture header.—Preceding unsigned comment added by AlJoKe (talk • contribs) 07:57, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is ludicrous to state as a fact that Nabokov was referring to this painting in the cited story. I have changed it to a suggestion, but frankly I think the entire paragraph should be deleted as unsuitable for a brief encyclopedia entry on the painting. Languagehat (talk) 18:12, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have only a limited background in terms of art and history, but it looks pretty clear to me that people are being herded into the tunnel, which is in fact a trap, complete with a skeleton on the right hand side holding a trigger that will let the front flap fall down, imprisoning people inside. The lines of skeletons behind their shields seem to be there to make sure people run inside rather than round the edges. I haven't changed anything, as I don't know whether this is perhaps an established controversy, which would make the choice of words ok since it keeps things ambiguous. Still, I know what I see! —Preceding unsigned comment added by JTzara (talk • contribs) 11:22, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimedia has this image http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Jan_Brueghel_The_Triumph_of_Death.jpg it appears to be the same, except for a dramatically different colour scheme, did Brueghel paint both versions? Why is it so different from the more common version? Threadnecromancer (talk) 21:12, 22 July 2014 (UTC)THreadnecromancer[reply]

Very interesting point, but it's not the same. Look at the clock, on the right and a little above midline. One shows a skeleton top with 'spiders legs' around it, yours shows a skeleton wielding a sword bang on midnight. Look at the lute player, playing to his GF at the very bottom right - completely different. There are other differences. 78.147.232.129 (talk) 22:52, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"... completely different...", you exaggerate, it is by Brueghel's son, Jan, his version, with the same characters in similar if not identical poses and placement. Very like the testimony from two eye witnesses, but with paint, not words. WurmWoode^T 07:45, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I guess the "references in modern culture" section (which mentioned things like an album cover that used the painting, and some other band writing a song inspired by the painting, etc.) has been removed. Was there any reason for its removal? WillieBlues (talk) 19:45, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure, WillieBlues, but I have a question that runs along similar lines: User:TheOldJacobite deleted the following content (from the end of the article where I'd added it) on the ground that it was "trivial":

The Triumph of Death features in the 2017 film, It Comes at Night.^[1][2][3]

In my opinion the above is in line with the guidance essay Wikipedia:"In popular culture" content. Have I missed a guideline or policy that it's contravening?--69.165.141.20 (talk) 20:07, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If not I'll be assuming User:TheOldJacobite's edit was made in haste and reinstating the removed content.--69.165.141.20 (talk) 20:13, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My edit was not made in haste. As you have referred to the popular culture essay (not a guideline or rule, just an essay), you can read the part that says that the sources must indicate the importance of the example from popular culture. The sources you have provided do not show such importance. He saw the painting, liked it, and was inspired by it. This is not significant or noteworthy. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 23:52, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for responding. Wikipedia:"In_popular_culture"_content#Content says that ...it is appropriate if a city's (or artwork's) article mentions films...in which the city (or artwork) is itself a prominent setting (or inspiration/feature). "Prominent" seems to be the word for us to focus on. Do the sources referenced indicate that the artwork is central to the film, or merely appearing fleetingly in the background. Let's take a look:

The Slate article, whose lead sentence reads "Like a Bruegel painting, this post-apocalyptic horror film portrays a bleak vision with a master’s touch", reaches the following conclusion:

A framed Pieter Bruegel print on the wall of Travis’ room—it’s The Triumph of Death, an apocalyptic panorama—is the subject of a disturbing montage near the beginning of the movie in which the camera dissolves in and out of parts of the painting, highlighting various horrifying details. (This scene is, again, an autobiographical touch: Shults has described staring in fascination at the Bruegel reproductions that hung in his childhood home.) At first thought, the director’s approach to showing human dereliction would seem to be very different from the Flemish master’s: Bruegel was a maximalist whose massively populated canvas provides a vista on the suffering of an entire continent while Shults is a minimalist whose point of view rarely ventures beyond the film’s single, claustrophobic location. And of course, Bruegel’s painting reimagines a real historical horror—he was alive for two major recurrences of the plague known as the Black Death—while Shults’ film imagines a possible future we can only hope never arrives. But both creators are attempting to look hard at the worst experiences the world has to offer while not losing their faith in humanity, and both of them—the one with a paintbrush and the one with a camera—are in total control of their art.

The Enterainment Weekly article entitled, "It Comes at Night director shares 10 influences, from Kubrick to video games", says:

Bruegel’s macabre 1562 oil painting features prominently in the movie — and kicked off its first trailer. “Growing up, my mom spent a lot of time at my grandparent’s house, which was a ranch house that was a big inspiration for the house in the movie. My grandfather was a prisoner of war during World War II. And I remember the walls of his home felt like him internally: weapons from the war interpreted with family photos. And above the fireplace were two Medieval weapons and Bruegel’s Hunters in the Snow.

Shults “geeked out” when he realized The Hunters in the Snow appear in both Melancholia and Andrey Tarkovskiy’s Solaris. “Then I got a Bruegel book and saw The Triumph of Death. It haunted me in the best way. It was a hellscape of all my fears. Then I read that Breugel was inspired to paint it by the plague in Europe. The Black Death. And I just thought how perfect that would be for the movie.”

It appears to me that these reliable secondary sources directly contradict your view that the painting's inspiration of the film "is not significant or noteworthy".--45.72.202.142 (talk) 06:57, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

All that indicates why the painting is significant to the film, not the other way around. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 14:36, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite. The above establishes that the artwork The Triumph of Death is a prominent feature of the film It Comes at Night (and therefore it is appropriate for the artwork's article to mention the film).45.72.202.142 (talk) 00:22, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You clearly do not understand the policy. The painting is relevant to the film, not the other way around. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 13:42, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm open to the possibility of not understanding the policy. It might be because I have't had a chance to read it. I've looked around for the most relevant policy for this, and I can find nothing in my edit that contravenes

WP:V. All I could find is a guidance essay that appears to completely support my edit. Please let me know the policy to which you're referring.--45.72.202.142 (talk) 17:49, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Now can we assume that since there's still no policy forthcoming, there is in fact no such policy that my edit is contravening, and that you just don't like it?--192.171.39.38 (talk) 02:23, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

as it says. Mostly at the top right of the pic. I'm most curious. 78.147.232.129 (talk) 22:54, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone, please? 92.29.234.183 (talk) 19:32, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

223.206.44.163 (talk) 16:05, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In response to your question, medieval torture and execution methods were many and varied. One common method - though seemingly not so much referenced in common culture anymore - was "the breaking on the wheel". This is what you are observing. Once 'broken' the victim (either dead or still alive) was commonly hoisted, wheel and all, upon a long pole into the air. May I suggest a Hardcore History podcast episode titled "Painfotainment" by Dan Carlin for a riveting discussion of this and related subject matter?

223.206.44.163 (talk) 16:05, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's good to see the predictions of the conflict dating so far back. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FCC8:E8C1:7000:AC4F:3556:CDB8:6283 (talk) 09:40, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]