Talk:Relief

disscuss the importance of direct experience of sculptures in terms of their physical presence and their relationship to the site.

Expert opinion on utility of each type of relief requested

Could somebody who has considerable expertise in sculpting or in the history of sculpture add the basic explanation of why reliefs are done? My belief/guess/understanding is that the greater the depth of a relief, the more expensive, but that all are cheaper than a free-standing sculpture. But I suspect there are issues related to making a relief fit in a larger context, of style, and of ... I don't know. Resistance to vandalism?? Being unobtrusive? Not stressing the strength of available material?

67.169.127.166 (talk) 20:32, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

A relief is a one-sided sculpture, and usually forms part of a building or some similar bulky object like the base of a statue, or even a piece of furniture. Yes, higher relief takes more work, and is more expensive. Hope that helps. Johnbod (talk) 20:38, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Merges from bas-relief, alto-rilievo and Sunken-relief

• Support as nom I think all four short stubs should be merged, not least because the division drawn between the two main sub-types, high and low, varies considerably. If not merged, alto-rilievo should be renamed high-relief. Johnbod (talk) 15:06, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't know how to fix it but the word "intaglio" in this article literally redirects to itself. Particularly unhelpful b/c when you search for the "intaglio" you get a disambiguation page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.16.22.239 (talk) 23:20, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Fixed now. Ceoil (talk) 23:47, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Stone Mountain

If Stone Mountain is the largest bas relief sculpture in the world, then why does it receive so little attention in this article?

Low relief in eastern orthodox icons

Although they generally avoid anything approaching full sculpture, some icons of the eastern church (or their coverings) have a very detailed low relief covering, often made of silver. Mention? -- 92.226.93.64 (talk) 19:32, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

This type of relief is not distinctively Orthodox, & it would be a bit WP:UNDUE while the article remains a short summary of the different types. Of course Byzantine relief, in ivory etc, is often pretty high. That's my view anyway. Johnbod (talk) 01:56, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Artistic effect

The following sentence is an opinion, not a fact: "The technique involves considerable chiselling away of the background, which is a time-consuming exercise with little artistic effect if the lowered background is left plain, as is often the case." Therefore, it should be edited.Amadeus webern (talk) 18:51, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Excess trimmed

I've reduced over-large image sizes and chopped the galleries a bit. Commons is over yonder... Vsmith (talk) 13:18, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

And I've reverted all of it. The subject is complicated and important and the images actually carefully chosen. You clearly don't edit visual art subjects much. Johnbod (talk) 13:36, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Yeah - "clearly don't..." and you like to insult with your snobbery ... sorry 'bout that. The excess size and "carefully chosen" number of images is quite absurd and a problem for those with slow connections. Gah ... Vsmith (talk) 14:16, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi Vsmit, I also think the current image sizes are appropriate, given the intricacies and subtleties or the works depicted. Employing larger image sizes is standard practice on wiki when describing what are often highly detailed smaller works; its not about snobbery, its about utility and common sense, IMO. I would agree with your position re image size if this were most other articles, but not on this particular one. Ceoil (talk) 19:05, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Oh, so for some unknown reason oversize images are needed here - seems the norm be: "click the image and view the detail on the image file" hmm... Vsmith (talk) 22:52, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

The reason is not unknown; it has been spelled out for you a few times now! Ceoil (talk) 23:01, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Oh and also - bolding synonyms or redirects target to the parent article is common practice. PS, you do good work here, don't want to fall out over this. Ceoil (talk) 19:14, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Eh ... nah seems WP:OWN be at play here. Sorry 'bout that. Vsmith (talk) 22:52, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Nah, you're doing WIERD STUFF like reducing galleries below the default size (which frankly ought not to be possible, as there's never a good reason) and debolding redirects, which just isn't helpful. Pointing objectors (and you clearly anticipated some) to the 50 million images on Commons, and the several thousand in the Category:Reliefs is exceptionally unhelpful to readers - I haven't seen that crap argument used for years. Johnbod (talk) 23:10, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Indeed, and are verging on the point of edit warring by now. Ceoil (talk) 23:40, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Seems I've upset the owners here ... so I'll exit the scene and let them play. Vsmith (talk) 23:43, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Probably wise, absent a semblance of counter arguments. Ceoil (talk) 23:58, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

And the page owners watch like hawks ... so all must be supersized. Aw well ... Vsmith (talk) 21:39, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Some editors who know about visual arts, yes. I see we covered all the issues 2 years ago. Johnbod (talk) 21:42, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Low relief in English

The current section on "low reliefs" state that the current English terminology is outdated. If so, should this be merged to another section? It seems odd to point out that this termonology is rare at the beginning of the section, though this is not my field and I don't know if it might be impacted by other factors! --Marx01 ^{Tell me about it} 09:06, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

evidently needs rephrasing, but it says"A low relief or bas-relief ("low relief", French pronunciation: ​[baʁəljɛf], from the Italian basso rilievo; this is now a rather old-fashioned term in English) ...". That is, basso rilievo is now a rather old-fashioned term in English, as in fact bas-relief is becoming. Johnbod (talk) 16:05, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

The sentence today is: "The former [i.e. basso relievo] is now a very old-fashioned term in English, and the latter term [i.e. bas-relief] is becoming so." I see no cite and I think it's dubious. Google ngrams doesn't show low relief winning bigly. I intend to remove in a week or so. Any other opinions? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 18:26, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

Please don't! Current museum practice is fairly clear - most of the books will be tourist guides etc, often retreads or reprints from decades ago. The modern English general reader is no longer expected to understand "bas", & the term has become problemmatic. Johnbod (talk) 02:24, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

Johnbod, I see that the current wording is due to your insertion and hope you someday will add a cite. However, I will not remove since you said "Please don't!" Peter Gulutzan (talk) 12:49, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

The article provides no distinction between mid-relief and low relief

This problem shows clearly in the fact that the only picture in the section mid-relief has the caption “Low relief…”. Unfortunately, the term is not just “somewhat imprecisely defined”, as the section concedes, but it offers no distinction whatsoever from a low relief. So, from what the article provides, it's impossible to decide even what its own example is. Is that distinction even practical? Our French sister article only distinguishes between “bas” and “haut”. ◅ Sebastian Helm 🗨 07:11, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

The article text: "Mid-relief, "half-relief" or mezzo-rilievo is somewhat imprecisely defined, and the term is not often used in English, the works usually being described as low relief instead. The typical traditional definition is that only up to half of the subject projects, and no elements are undercut or fully disengaged from the background field. The depth of the elements shown is normally somewhat distorted." is as clear as possible for a vague term litrtle used in English, but I have swopped pics there. Johnbod (talk) 22:27, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

Thanks, Johnbod, for your reply. I think, however, that we're talking past each other. We have three terms (which follow a sequence, making things easier), so we need 2 distinctions: High | Mid | Low. The definition you cite, “ only up to half of the subject projects …” only deals with the border High | Mid. What about the border Mid | Low? ◅ Sebastian Helm 🗨 14:37, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

What indeed? We go by what WP:RS say, & I'm not aware of any definitions of what would be bound to be a rather vague boundary. Johnbod (talk) 15:15, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for directing this conversation to RS. So, do we have a source for the statement “The typical traditional definition is that only up to half of the subject projects …”? I presume you know the state of the sources better than I do and you would say that's what the sources agree on. Do you think we could find a RS for something like “only between x% and 50% of the subject projects …”? (How such a percentage would actually be measured is another question; but for now I'm just staying as close as possible to the existing upper-bound only definition. I'm also disregarding the second half of the current sentence “and no elements are undercut …” since I don't see how this can be helpful for the distinction Mid|Low.) ◅ Sebastian Helm 🗨 03:00, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

I'm sure the sources are there, but I wrote most of this in 2011, when referencing standards were lower, & can't remember what sources I used. Why don't you have a look? Johnbod (talk) 03:24, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

Well, to be frank: I'd much rather stick with Occam's razor and demote this Mid|Low distinction from its current TOC defining authority to a mere mention. This means: I would dissolve the section “Mid-relief”, moving the “typical traditional definition” to section Types, and the beautiful picture you added there recently to the section "Low relief", with a sentence added like “This is a borderline case of a low relief sometimes called mid relief”. I'm not sure what I would do with the sentence “Mid-relief is probably the most common type of relief found in …”; to me it seems contradictory that “the term … [for] the most common type … found in [a big area] … is not often used in English”. ◅ Sebastian Helm 🗨 04:00, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

Well, I wouldn't support that - I think the distinction is useful, if vaguely defined. Now you seem to be objecting to the whole concept - why? Johnbod (talk) 04:06, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

I'm not „objecting to the whole concept“. Didn't you read that I would even add a sentence mentioning it to the caption of your picture? ◅ Sebastian Helm 🗨 05:49, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

Sources seem reluctant to put a number on the boundary, which seems to be what you want. I suppose we can imagine what 50% of (say) a leg looks like, but 25% (say) is not the way we are used to thinking of things. The Italians and English find the term useful, the French not. You will know about the German position, and so on. I don't see why it should be "demoted". Johnbod (talk) 13:09, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

Yes, I did take a look at the German sister article. At first glance, if you only look at the number three, you can feel supported by that. But at second glance it's very different: Their three terms have different meaning from English. Their least deep type is a "flat relief", for which a simple translation already tells you that it's flatter than just "low". If you translate their section "Relieftypen" you can see that they have very limiting conditions for their "flat relief". So we can't just count the number of terms and come up with the same number. Such cases are common when one compares different language wikipedias. Even in harder science, such as biology: English has “pigeon” and “dove” where German only has “Taube”. Nobody in their right mind would suggest that Germans should also distinguish these two. If you really feel we should learn from German, then we could change the term from “low” to “flat” and use their definition. That would be creative and maybe even beautiful, but I don't think it's what we're here for. ◅ Sebastian Helm 🗨 13:34, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

Obviously, that's the last thing I was suggesting! We should stick with English usage, though historically that has been affected by French and Italian usage, as the older use of foreign names in English shows. Johnbod (talk) 14:17, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

It seems we're turning around in a cycle here. We talked at length about your personal preference for the Mid|Low distinction, but so far you have no clear RS for it. So, ...

Let's go back to the topic of this discussion: The article provides no distinction between mid-relief and low relief. If we have no RS, then the only solution for this problem that has come up in our talk is to reduce it to a mere mention (04:00, 27 June 2026). Or do you have any other solution that meets WP standards? ◅ Sebastian Helm 🗨 10:17, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

Now it appears that the discussion has come to a close. Only one solution has been suggested, with no objection. The only other person who participated in this discussion so far, Johnbod, has been industrious with other articles. It seems therefore the best for Wikipedia is to follow the suggested solution. Last call: Is there any objection to this solution? ◅ Sebastian Helm 🗨 10:39, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

If you mean what you proposed on 27/6, yes I still object. Johnbod (talk) 14:03, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. It seems we need to understand each other better. So, first, let me answer your implicit question: I mean, as I wrote in my last message, “reduce it to a mere mention (04:00, 27 June 2026)”.
As I see it, I clearly demonstrated why the current state of the article is a mess: It postulates a division between types for which it doesn't even offer anything like a definition. Maybe a comparison helps: Imagine our article on natural numbers were divided in "small" and "big" numbers without even attempting to provide a distinction, let alone one based on a RS. Wouldn't you, too, consider it the duty of any good Wikipedian to remove that unexplained division? So far, your argument hinges on “I'd much rather” and “I still object”. Obviously that doesn't meet Wikipedia's standards. I'd be very interested and open for any solution that does not have these problems and meets Wikipedia's standards. ◅ Sebastian Helm 🗨 16:58, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

Thanks, John,for adding references now. Your change from „only up to“ to “more shallow than high-relief, but more raised than low relief”, while below my bar for a good definition, proves that you're acknowledging my concern and is at least a compromise. Above all, I highly respect your honesty in adding a reference after “these two are generally the only terms used to discuss most work”, as well, which could be understood to support my suggested solution. So it's time to bury the hatchet and close this discussion. For that, I have a request that's somewhat embarassing: Although many years ago I signed up for a library lookup tool like Wikipedia:The Wikipedia Library, that seems to have changed - or I completely forgot how to use it. At least I can't find a way to access your source there. Would you be willing to send me a picture of the page? If so, I'll send you my e-mail address so you can reply with that. ◅ Sebastian Helm 🗨 19:31, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

Sorry, no camera I know how to use - but which ref? Similar, slightly less RS, refs abound in any google search. Johnbod (talk) 21:11, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

What? You ask me "which ref"? You're telling me to dig up some link that's so beneath you that you wouldn't even want to touch it with a long stick? To back up your shaky view? If that's how the situation is, if all you can come up with is that one measly reference that only can count as a compromise with a lot of good will, then I take that as evidence that the available sources simply do not support your preferred narrative. So we're almost back to where we started: The article provides no reliable distinction between mid-relief and low relief.◅ Sebastian Helm 🗨 05:18, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

As I told you at the start, sources using the distinction abound, but while they all agree the degree of projection is more than in low relief, and less than in high relief, they don't provide the precision and precise number that you seem to want. I don't find this surprizing, as over any figure in mid-relief, the actual % of the volume projecting will almost always vary greatly across different parts - chest vs ankle, & so on. I don't see this as any reason to remove or demote the material. Bear in mind that art history has no international body that defines terms. Johnbod (talk) 15:01, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

Use of terms 'sculpting' and 'carving'

Please contribute at Talk:Engraved gem#Use of terms 'sculpting' and 'carving'. Arminden (talk) 08:37, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Please see that discussion for context on recent changes to the lead. -- Avocado (talk) 09:44, 4 June 2026 (UTC)