Talk:John Vanbrugh - Revision history

WikiSysop: moved Talk:Sir John Vanbrugh to Talk:John Vanbrugh

2009-11-16T00:01:42Z

moved Talk:Sir John Vanbrugh to Talk:John Vanbrugh

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:01, 16 November 2009
(No difference)

Pankratz at 12:11, 22 July 2009

2009-07-22T12:11:22Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:11, 22 July 2009
Line 1:		Line 1:
	"In the 17th century artists were supposed to conform to conventional morals and to have social aspirations": not really. Or rather: "conventional morals" in Restoration culture do not conform to what we nowadays would consider conventional morals (as you can tell from reading or seeing a Restoration comedy or reading some of the poetry).		"In the 17th century artists were supposed to conform to conventional morals and to have social aspirations": not really. Or rather: "conventional morals" in Restoration culture do not conform to what we nowadays would consider conventional morals (as you can tell from reading or seeing a Restoration comedy or reading some of the poetry).

	"While many artists were social outsiders": really? There were the Tory authors Swift, Pope and Gay who ~~were~~ formed a very influential and prominent group. But which cannot be considered total social outsiders. And then there was "Grub Street", the mass of people who were writing for money. But they were not really considered artists.		"While many artists were social outsiders": really? There were the Tory authors Swift, Pope and Gay who formed a very influential and prominent group. But which cannot be considered total social outsiders. And then there was "Grub Street", the mass of people who were writing for money. But they were not really considered artists.

Pankratz: Created page with '"In the 17th century artists were supposed to conform to conventional morals and to have social aspirations": not really. Or rather: "conventional morals" in Restoration culture …'

2009-07-22T06:25:05Z

Created page with '"In the 17th century artists were supposed to conform to conventional morals and to have social aspirations": not really. Or rather: "conventional morals" in Restoration culture …'

New page

"In the 17th century artists were supposed to conform to conventional morals and to have social aspirations": not really. Or rather: "conventional morals" in Restoration culture do not conform to what we nowadays would consider conventional morals (as you can tell from reading or seeing a Restoration comedy or reading some of the poetry).

"While many artists were social outsiders": really? There were the Tory authors Swift, Pope and Gay who were formed a very influential and prominent group. But which cannot be considered total social outsiders. And then there was "Grub Street", the mass of people who were writing for money. But they were not really considered artists.